Thursday, 8 September 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 utilising 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beddall,Mr Ian Cameron,Mr Cross,Mr Fife,Mr Hawker,Mr Hicks,Mr Humphreys,Mr Jacobi,Mr Kent,Mr Keogh,Mr Lloyd,Mr Moore,Mr Peter Morris,Mr Porter,Mr West,Mr White and Mr Wilson. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to stop the commercial exploitation of the kangaroo. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House re-apply the ban on the export of kangaroo products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beddall,Mr Groom and Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that WHEREAS the Government of Australia has signed the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states that ''The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the State''. And WHEREAS the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination against Women would violate the above Article 23 (1) We humbly pray the Government to refrain from ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination against Women; Believing that its implementation would result in:- (1) Undue cost to the nation at this time. (2) ''The elimination of any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women at all levels'' as described in Part 3 Article 10 (c), being a disruption of traditional parental roles, is likely to result in emotional disturbances of childhood. (3) The strong encouragements to mothers to join the workforce, with the provision of networks of creches and child care centres as outlined in Article 11 of the conventions is likely to result in maternal deprivation and psychological disturbances among children with an increase in childhood psychiatric illnesses. (4) The sexual role changing as recommended in Part 3 Article 10 (c) is likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown. (5) Subjecting Australia to monitoring and control by foreign nations. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our nation and your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burr,Mr Duffy and Mr Groom. 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Anthony and Mr Bilney. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that we are concerned: (1) That the Committee of Review into the Impact of Radford College exceeded its term of reference; (2) That the composition of the Committee excluded representation from many interested parties concerned with education; Your petitioners therefore pray: (1) That the Government not implement the recommendations of the Radford Report ; (2) That the new funding guidelines of the Commonwealth Schools Commission be suspended; (3) That the Government base its funding on principles and justice and concern for the best education of all Australian schoolchildren. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Goodluck and Mrs Kelly. 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 per cent 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- Absolve pensioners from increased telephone charges. 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 Chynoweth. The Honourable the Speaker and Members of 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 freedom 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 life and makes more difficult the full development of the potentialities of women in the service of this country and of humanity. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will act to ratify the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cross. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Respresentatives 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 Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the current intention of Telecom Australia to increase the International Particular Person Fee and introduce a charge on the Ring Back Price service will : substantially affect the ability of the manual assistance area of Telecom's operations to compete effectively with STD and ISD. Such pricing discrimination in favour of direct dialling and away from operator assisted calls will affect the future viability of a personalised, reliable manual assistance service The ramifications of such a pricing policy will also ultimately affect the employment of thousands of Telephonists and Supervisors currently working in this area Contravene the spirit of the current Prices and Incomes Policy which Telecom as a public authority should be a party to We the undersigned believe that the provision of a personalised telephone service is an essential component in any Telecommunication system. Australia has a long history of service from the manual assistance area and we cannot now allow Telecom's pricing policies to endanger the continuation of this service. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will call on the Government to intervene to stop Telecom's proposed charges increase and so ensure the future viability of Australia's manual assistance telephone network. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Duffy. To The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the plan by the Australian Telecommunications Commission to remove the local directory assistance services from Dubbo will place in jeopardy the existing services to telephone subscribers in the district by: 1. The loss of any local knowledge of the town and district being available to telephone users if the directory assistance service is moved to another centre, 2. The loss of a local and personalised service provided especially to elderly and handicapped people, ethnic groups, etc., 3. The loss of revenue to local business when a distant directory assistance operator without a detailed knowledge of Dubbo and its surrounds is unable to give a correct telephone directory listing. We the undersigned believe that Telecom Australia should be instructed to seek the views of country telephone subscribers before proceeding with the closure of the Dubbo directory assistance service. Your petitioners humbly pray that your honourable House will call on the Government to halt the closure of the Dubbo directory assistance service. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Duffy. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that we are gravely concerned about the threat to the continued development of sponsored sport in Australia arising out of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal 's draft interpretation of Section 100 (10) of the Broadcasting and Television Act which may result in the withdrawal of tobacco companies' funds from all sports sponsorship. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that The Parliament continues to accept the current interpretation of the above section of the Act which allows 'accidental and incidental' advertising matter to be broadcast. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Duffy. 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: (a) that there is an urgent need for the establishment of a comprehensive and co-ordinated assessment, counselling treatment and rehabilitation service for people with drug and alcohol related problems in the Westernport region of the State of Victoria. (b) that Westernport drug and alcohol services deserve the financial and policy support of the Federal Government in its efforts to develop such services within the Westernport region. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will develop a policy of providing comprehensive and co-ordinated services for drug and alcohol problems and provide Westernport drug and alcohol service with the financial support it currently requires. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Duffy. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: Telecom Australia intends to discontinue the operator assisted Overseas telephone, telegram and telex service currently provided by the Sydney Pay Station. This service is used extensively by crews and passengers of visiting ships, Embassy staff and visiting and resident members of many ethnic communities. The replacement of this service by ISD Public Telephones, without operator assistance, is not adequate considering their unreliability and complexity for people unfamiliar with the language or currency. The Sydney Pay Station serves an important social function in providing an assured service at all times for people calling overseas. This service must continue. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will call on the Government to intercede with Telecom to ensure the continuation of this vital community service. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Duffy. The Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament Assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth that discrimination in provision of work, in appointment to jobs and in promotion, currently exists in Australia on particular grounds including, inter alia, grounds of race, ethnic origin, marital status, pregnancy, sex and of sexual preference; and that discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits is currently exercised against particular groups of individuals-in particular against married women. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in Commonwealth employment, in employment of individuals under Federal awards, and in employment of all persons in areas over which Commonwealth equal opportunity legislation should have jurisdiction; and that appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits to all persons without regard to sex or marital status. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Gear. 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: 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 principal mode of dental care delivery. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: Holders of the health care card and pensioner health benefits card should be provided with free dental care through private dentists, 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 humble petition of citizens of the Commonwealth submits: That off shore oil exploration within the Great Barrier Reef Region constitutes a serious threat to the richest and most varied living system on earth. Your petitioners request that your honourable House will: 1. Prohibit oil exploration within the Great Barrier Reef Region, 2.Declare the entire Great Barrier Reef Region a Marine Park under the Federal Government's Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, 3. Provide the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority with the staff and resources for effective management of the Region. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: (1) That the Macedonian language be used by Government Departments in multi- lingual publications. (2) That the petitioners urge the introduction of the Macedonian language as a Higher School Certificate (H.S.C.) subject in secondary schools. (3) That the petitioners urge the introduction of the Macedonian language in tertiary institutions and that a course be introduced at Monash University in the Department of Slavic Languages. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly request that Parliament take immediate action to implement the above measures. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and members or the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. Omega by sending low frequency signals, penetrating sea water enables hunter -killer submarines to establish their position and to launch a ''first strike'' attack. Omega is also used by AWACs, the flying radar stations, and for other military purposes. 2. Omega is an important 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows-that at present, certain infertility treatments including hormonal drugs, procedures and laboratory services, are not covered by any Health Insurance due to non-itemisation on the Commonwealth Rebate List. The phychological and emotional stress of infertility is therefore increased by the added financial stress. Your petitioners therefore pray, that the Parliament will view our plight to create life with sympathy, by recognising our needs, and taking action to include the abovementioned items on the Commonwealth Rebate List. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Drummond,Mr Ronald Edwards and 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 request: That the Government's decision to introduce a means test for over-70 pensions be reversed, as it will cause undue hardship and an unreasonable financial burden on a significant percentage of the aged population of Australia. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will withdraw this legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Shipton. 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 White. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the citizens of Western Australia respectfully shows: 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 Mr Gear. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain residents (citizens of Australia) in Warringah Shire, (electors of the Division of Mackellar) shows-that many people living in the said Division are deeply concerned that, they are either- (a) unable to receive the Sydney television stations. (b) they receive such stations with considerable interference and poor quality reception. (c) many of these people are only able to receive Newcastle stations, with inferior reception. Your petitioners therefore pray that early action be taken to install translators, in appropriate positions, which it is understood are necessary to rectify the position. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Carlton. Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned electors of Bowman in the State of Queensland, respectfully showeth: That Sand Mining on Moreton Island by Associated Minerals Consolidated Limited will only be carried out within an area permitted for mining by the Queensland Government following the Cook Report. The major part of the area to be mined is within unstable frontal dune area South of Cape Moreton. The restoration of the mined areas would be of an extremely high standard as required in the special Lease conditions which have been set by the Queensland Government. A recent independent archaeological survey of the proposed mining area has revealed that no aboriginal relics of any significance will be adversely affected by mining. Infrastructure requirements on Moreton Island for the operation will be minimal . However, the Port facility for Bulwer and the upgrading of the existing road from Bulwer to Cape Moreton would be of great benefit to the public enjoyment and any future tourist development of the Island. All mineral obtained from Moreton Island would be processed at Associated Minerals Consolidated Limited's Mill at Dunwich on North Stradbroke Island and as the present reserves of mineral held by the Company on North Stradbroke Island are barely economically viable, it is essential that Moreton Island minerals be available in order to keep the jobs of the present employees of Associated Minerals Consolidated Limited on North Stradbroke Island. The current wages paid to Associated Minerals Consolidated Limited's employees on North Stradbroke Island are in excess of $55,000 per week, and as all the employees are resident of North Stradbroke Island, the loss of this cash flow would have a devastating effect on local business. As tourism, the only industry other than sand mining on North Stradbroke Island , would be unable to provide alternative employment, unemployment would increase dramatically should Associated Minerals Consolidated Limited be forced to close its operations, with the subsequent loss of 174 jobs. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Keogh. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the North-West Coast of Tasmania shows: That the local community wish to commend the value of a Christian broadcasting service in this area and therefore request the Minister for Communications or the appropriate Governing agency to grant to Christian FM broadcasters a permanent FM licence to broadcast in the North-West region of Tasmania. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Groom. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Mackay respectfully showeth: That the intention of Telecom Australia to close the Mackay Directory Assistance Centre will: downgrade telephone services to Mackay and district. deprive customers of a personalised reliable telephone service. reduce job opportunities in the area. increase the likelihood of the eventual closure of the exchange. We the undersigned believe that Telecom Australia has a social responsibility to provide a sound, reliable, personalised telephone system. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will call on the Government to intervene to stop Telecom's proposed closure of the Mackay Directory Assistance Centre. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cross. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Lithgow in the electorate of Calare shows: Concern at the quality of A.B.C. T.V. reception in certain areas of Lithgow. Your petitioners therefore pray that action is taken to improve this situation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Simmons. Petitions received. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move-and the honourable member for Franklin will second the motion: That this House notes with shame that to date the Hawke Government has failed to provide one single job for any of the 377 workers displaced from their employment as a result of the Australian Labor Party's action in halting the Gordon-below-Franklin Power Development Scheme, nor has the Hawke Government, at the date hereof, paid one cent in compensation to the State of Tasmania. Mr SIMMONS(Calare) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses its grave concern over reports of continuing death sentences being imposed on the Baha'is by the Government of Iran; (2) notes such persecutions breach all international conventions on human rights, and (3) requests the Australian Government to continue its efforts in international forums to dissuade the Iranian Government from such religious persecutions. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) commends the Queensland Government for the excellent leadership and government given to the people of Queensland for the past 26 years, and (2) can assure the House that the National-Liberal parties will continue to give the people of Queensland good government for at least the next 26 years. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with concern the impact of asbestos upon people subject to prolonged exposure to its dust; and (2) urges that both the Commonwealth and State governments direct their inquiries towards local government, architects and builders who recommend and approve the use of asbestos in buildings. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(10.09) —I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Calare moving his motion forthwith. This is not a political ploy to try to get the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) to debate the issue now. His motion, which deals with the Baha'is, is one which the Opposition would warmly support. There has been much debate over past years initiated from both sides of the House about this matter. We would support the honourable member for Calare in his motion. If he wishes me to speak to it I will be happy to do so. If he wishes me simply to give support to his motion I will do so without debate, because I think it is an issue that both sides of the House would support. Mr Lionel Bowen —We would agree to that. Mr SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? Mr Hodgman —I second the motion. Mr SPEAKER —The motion should be submitted in writing and signed. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(10.10) —I move: That this House- (1) expresses its grave concern over reports of continuing death sentences being imposed on Baha'is by the Government of Iran; (2) notes such persecutions breach all international conventions on human rights; and (3) requests the Australian Government to continue its efforts in international forums to dissuade the Iranian Government from such religious persecutions. The current wave of persecutions against the Iranian Baha'i community cannot be viewed as some sort of isolated phenomenon. It is a recent development created by the present state of affairs in Iran. Since the inception of the Baha'i faith in the middle of last century, the Baha'is of Iran have lived in a climate of constant repression characterised by frequent outbreaks of violence and bloodshed. As recently as June of this year some 16 Baha'is were executed and I believe those executions followed the naming of some of those Baha'is by the President of the United States of America. Subsequently the Iranian Government took this outrageous action in persecuting those people named. One of the difficulties in attempting to speak on behalf of the Baha'is is, in fact, avoiding the use of names, because of this continuing persecution by the Iranian Government. The persecution of the Baha'is has it roots in religious prejudice and from the earliest days the aims and purposes of the Baha'i faith have been misrepresented in Iran where that faith has been portrayed as an heretical sect of Islam actively engaged in designs to overthrow Islam in its existing form. In its early days over 2,000 adherents of the Baha'i faith were branded as heretics and put to death in circumstances of appalling cruelty. Under subsequent regimes the religious persecution continued and it has often been accompanied by bloodshed. Once again, in post-revolutionary Iran differences in religious ideology are being used by fanatical elements to justify violent attacks on the Baha'i community. As I said at the outset, I think it is an issue that crosses all party political boundaries. Once again I thank the Opposition for allowing me to bring forward this notice of motion. I trust that the House will unanimously support the motion. Mr SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(10.13) —I second the motion. I will speak very briefly. I appreciate the remarks of the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons). I do not wish to delay the House and disrupt the order of business laid down by the Government. The honourable member has introduced a motion which I think transcends party politics. There is an appalling record of the ill-treatment of Baha'is and I think the Parliament does a service in condemning not merely the suppression of civil liberties, as referred to by the honourable member, but also the acts of persecution leading to the death of many merely for their religious beliefs. It may have been better if the terms of this motion had been debated in greater detail at a later time but, as we know, owing to the way in which the order of business proceeds in the Parliament, that would have happened many months ahead and probably some time next year. That is why I felt that it should be brought forward now. I join with the honourable member in supporting the motion and I trust all honourable members will support the motion . Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Prime Minister for his flying circus visit to Tasmania; and (2) praises the real Tasmanian, the member for Franklin, for exposing this blatant confidence trick. Mr HICKS(Riverina) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) congratulates the citizens of Broken Hill on the celebration of the centenary of their city and acknowledges the significant contribution that Broken Hill has made to the industrial development of this nation; and (2) calls on the Government to assist the people of Broken Hill in their endeavours to provide for the long term stability and progress of their city. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes- (a) the curtailment of the services of the National Library to the public and to the Parliament as a result of the picketing of the Library by the members of the ACT Trades and Labour Council on the asbestos issue; (b) the statement of the President of the ACT Trades and Labour Council that the Council was not prepared to accept the Commonwealth Institute of Health as an authority on asbestos matters; and (c) the statement by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations that the continued Trades and Labour Council picketing of the National Library raises the prospect of the National Library closing down altogether; and (2) calls on the Government to take steps forthwith to restore the curtailed services of the National Library. Mr WELLS(Petrie) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes- (a) that in every Parliament of Australia certain advantages are attendant upon holding the position of Minister of the Crown; (b) that these privileges include the power of the purse, access to media, unlimited travel, and staff; and (c) that in Queensland these powers are now exercised by a one-party minority Government, the number of whose Ministers has recently been increased; and (2) condemns this appropriation of Queensland taxpayers' resources by the Government. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) asserts that the longer the choas of withholding tax goes on, the worse it becomes; (2) calls on the Government to redress immediately the confusion of multiple forms and the predicted volcanic burden of paper work imposed by the introduction of this tax; (3) calls on the Government to provide exemptions and maximum variations to all applicants to allay the current chaos; and (4) condemns the measure as creating unemployment and closures of business. Bill presented by Mr Beazley, for Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation and Special Minister of State)(10.17) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to enact Commonwealth legislation to provide for the Commonwealth to undertake domestic meat inspection in New South Wales and any other State which subsequently refers the power of inspection of meat to the Commonwealth. Following negotiations between the Commonwealth and New South Wales for the transfer of the New South Wales domestic meat inspection service to the Commonwealth, thus providing for the Commonwealth to undertake all meat inspection in that State, the New South Wales Parliament passed legislation entitled the Commonwealth Powers (Meat Inspection) Act, 1983, which came into effect on 1 July 1983. It provided that the matter of the inspection of meat that is intended for human consumption or for use as animal food, to the extent to which it is not otherwise included in the legislative powers of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, is referred to the Parliament of the Commonwealth. This Bill will apply to New South Wales and to such other States as may make the same reference of power to the Commonwealth. The Bill will also be proclaimed to apply to a Territory where this is appropriate. Thus the new legislation will provide a mechanism whereby a single, national meat inspection service operating under one Commonwealth law can be achieved with the agreement of the governments concerned. Also on 1 July 1983 an arrangement between the Commonwealth and New South Wales came into effect which provided that the meat inspection function carried out by State officers should be carried out by the Commonwealth. From that date the State officers concerned became Commonwealth officers under the Public Service Act 1922. This arrangement was entered into by the Commonwealth pursuant to the Meat Inspection Arrangements Act 1964. Since 1964 when that Act came into effect , the dual system of meat inspection in Australia whereby the Commonwealth is responsible for inspection of product destined for export and the States are responsible for inspection of product intended for domestic consumption has been recognised by successive Commonwealth Governments as having serious disadvantages. It hinders the introduction of common standards, results in some duplication of inspection services, creates anomalies in charging levels where export meat is diverted to the local market and has led to industrial disputation due to demarcation problems. Under the 1964 Act, various arrangements were entered into with South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania whereby Commonwealth meat inspectors undertook some inspection of meat intended for domestic consumption on behalf of the States concerned. These arrangements are not as all embracing as the arrangement recently entered into between the Commonwealth and New South Wales as some local government authorities and State public health authorities continue to provide inspection services to local standards at some non-export premises in those States. The existing arrangements with other States will continue until such time as each refers its powers of domestic meat inspection to the Commonwealth. It should be noted that following the transfer of the domestic meat inspection function in New South Wales to the Commonwealth on 1 July 1983 the Meat Industry Authority of New South Wales remains responsible for licensing of and construction and facilities standards in non-export abattoirs, slaughterhouses, meat processing plants and knackeries and pet food processing plants in that state. Because New South Wales retains the function of licensing slaughtering and processing premises the Bill provides that State laws which are capable of operating concurrently with the new Act can co-exist with and have effect alongside the Commonwealth law. This Government is convinced that a single national meat inspection service is necessary for meat inspection in Australia to be carried out in an efficient and cost-effective manner. In this connection, I am pleased to be able to report that recently the Premier of Victoria wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) proposing that a working party consisting of Commonwealth and Victorian officials should be formed to advise both governments on arrangements necessary for the establishment of a single meat inspection service. Meat inspection services on a national basis will be delivered in the most efficient manner only when standards for slaughtering and processing which apply to export and domestic production and in various States and Territories are, so far as is possible, common standards. An important element of the integrated national inspection service proposal is commonality of standards. The Government recognises that the existing standards which apply in slaughtering and non- slaughtering establishments in the States and Territories vary quite considerably. This Bill will allow the progressive introduction of common standards in States and Territories to which the Act is applied when the States and Territories agree to such action. In New South Wales and South Australia almost all meat inspectors engaged in inspection of product for the domestic market are now officers of the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industry and as at 1 July 1983, about 80 per cent of full time meat inspectors in Australia were employed by the Commonwealth . Management objectives such as uniformity of conditions of employment of meat inspectors in Australia, avoidance of demarcation disputes, common training and the improved flexibility and mobility of staff are increasingly being achieved. This Bill will enable other objectives to be achieved. This Bill follows the Export Control Act 1982 and where possible the form and substance of the Bill, and particularly of Parts IV, V and VI, are in the same or very similar terms to the equivalent provisions in that Act. The Bill provides that an offence will have been committed if, in the course of trade or commerce, meat which is not fit for human or animal consumption but which is intended to be used as human or animal food respectively is transported out of or into a State or Territory to which the legislation applies. Provisions in the relevant New South Wales Act which will remain in force after this Bill comes into effect require that meat brought into that State must be taken from the carcass of an animal slaughtered at premises outside the State which have been approved by the New South Wales Meat Industry Authority. Similar provision exists in other State legislation. In order to complement such provisions which would continue to apply the Bill will provide that meat of certain kinds brought into a State or Territory to which the Act extends must be taken to prescribed premises so that it may be inspected by an authorised officer. While inspection powers under the Bill are to be exercised by officers of the Department of Primary Industry the Bill also provides for the Secretary to that Department to appoint other persons such as officers of other Commonwealth departments or statutory authorities or State or Territory departments or statutory authorities to carry out the functions of authorised officers. Powers are included in the Bill, similar to those included in the Export Control Act 1982, which are necessary to facilitate enforcement of the conditions and restrictions which will be imposed. These include powers of entry and search, power to stop and detain any ship, vehicle or aircraft and to seize meat or another matter or thing in respect of which an offence against the Act is reasonably believed to have been committed. As with the Export Control Act 1982 these powers are accompanied by safeguards to prevent abuse. Entry into premises other than abattoirs, knackeries, meat processing plants or animal food processing plants can take place only with the consent of the occupier of the premises or in pursuance of a warrant issued by a justice of the peace who must be convinced of the need for entry. A time limit is to be placed on the currency or warrants. Powers of search of vehicles, ships or aircraft cannot take place unless the authorised officers produce identity cards issued to them under the Act. Similarly persons are not required to assist an authorised officer in the performance of his or her duties upon request unless such a card is produced. A limit on the time a seized matter or thing can be held unless proceedings are instituted is imposed. It will be an offence to apply a false trade description to meat that has been inspected under the Act or to interfere with or forge official marks under the Act. Such a provision will protect the application of objective carcass classifications to meat consumed in Australia in the same way that the Export Control Act 1982 applies to meat for export. Detailed effect will be given to the provisions of the Bill by means of regulations and orders made under the regulations which will give scope for the variations which are required between particular States and Territories and for changing requirements and conditions. The penalties which the Bill provides for the commission of offences are, in respect of provisions in the same terms as provisions in the Export Control Act 1982, in the main the same as in that Act and the penalties in relation to other provisions are the same as those which apply in New South Wales under similar provisions of the State law which will be superseded by the new Commonwealth Act . After many years of discussion at all levels of industry and government this Bill represents a major step towards the establishment of a unified Australia- wide inspection system and common product standards for meat. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Debate resumed from 24 August, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr ANTHONY(Richmond-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.29) —The Liquid Fuel Emergency Bill 1983, introduced in this House on 24 August, is a valuable step forward in planning for possible fuel supply shortages in this country. The Opposition has several reservations not so much about the legislation but about the Commonwealth's commitment in some key areas. But like the members of the Australian Minerals and Energy Council, we believe this legislation is better than no legislation at all. I mention the Opposition's reservations and I will return to them shortly. What I want to mention first is the background to this legislation and to stress the vital need for this country and its people not to fall into the trap of complacency about oil supplies. Record levels of petroleum exploration in Australia last year and the fall in the official price of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries in the face of oversupply and economic downturn have, I fear, lulled many people into a false sense of security. The fact is that there is still the potential for massive disruption to our oil imports and that in the long term the price of oil will continue to rise at least at around world inflation levels. It is also a fact that in Australia we still need to go on finding oil, lots of it, pretty rapidly. The potential for disruption is clear, and the continuing conflict between Iran and Iraq, not to mention the troubles in Lebanon and the failure to resolve the deep and bitter differences between the Arab states and Israel, underlines the fact that the problems will not go away. The Middle East is, and it appears that it will be, the main oil supply source of the world. Closer to home there will always be the possibility of massive industrial disruption in the oil industry. On the second point, the World Bank has recently forecast that the price of oil will increase by 20 per cent in real terms, that is after inflation, above the 1981 peak by the mid-1990s. It believes that OPEC will continue to be the main supplier to consuming countries. On the third point, it must be remembered that after a record year in 1982 the Australian oil exploration industry has moved sharply backwards. The Australian Petroleum Exploration Association reported in July that in the second quarter of 1983 exploration drilling and development drilling were down by 29 per cent and 35 per cent respectively from the levels at the same time last year. Disturbingly, seismic activity, the vital precursor to drilling, was down by 81 per cent over the same period. Overall, exploration drilling activity over the full year is expected to fall back to about 1981 levels. But if we are to maintain present levels of production and just stay still on the self-sufficiency treadmill, the petroleum exploration industry has to find another 800 million barrels of oil in the 1980s and connect these fields to production by 1990. Australian oil fields in production early in 1983 have the capacity to produce 480,000 barrels of crude oil a day. They do not produce this amount. The daily average is about 380,000 barrels, and that is largely because of industrial action. The hard fact is that production from known fields is expected to peak at 455,000 barrels a day in 1985 and decline to 228,000 barrels a day by 1990. The demand is now about 650, 000 barrels a day and by 1990 is expected to reach 710,000 barrels a day. This leaves an immense gap. It is not generally realised that our export earnings from our massive resources of coal have, in recent years, barely equalled the cost of importing our oil. If we are forced to import more and more oil, yet cannot produce or find markets for sufficient exports, we will be faced with severe and lasting balance of payments problems. In the face of statistics such as these there can be no room for complacency in this country about our supplies of oil, or the price that we will have to pay for them. The measures proposed in this Bill are aimed at dealing with a national fuel supply emergency. But, more importantly, we need to do our best to ensure that an emergency does not arise. That is the best solution, instead of acting on the Bill that we have before us. We cannot stop an outbreak of war in the Middle East that would halt or severely restrict our imports of oil. We may not be able to prevent an outbreak of massive industrial disruption on the waterfront or in the oil industry in this country, but we can have policies which ensure the maximum possible level of oil exploration in Australia and the maximum development of existing oil fields and we can have policies to develop alternative sources of fuel. These policies are now in operation. They were brought in by the Liberal-National Party Government. The key to them is import parity pricing of Australian oil. Dr Theophanous —Nonsense. You did nothing about it for 20 years. What are you talking about now? Mr ANTHONY —Import parity pricing has been vital to our self-sufficiency. Import parity pricing means-- Dr Theophanous —You did nothing about it. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Burke will remain silent. Mr ANTHONY —I do not mind; he can speak. He is going to speak later; we will hear some really remarkable comments. Mr SPEAKER —I do mind. I would like to maintain order in the House. I call the Leader of the National Party. Mr ANTHONY —Thank you, Mr Speaker. Import parity pricing has been vital to our self-sufficiency in oil. Import parity pricing means relating to and adjusting the price of oil to the world market price. Unless the industry and investors can see a clear and predictable policy by the Government on the benefits of an import parity pricing policy, the benefits will not work. Exploration and development of oil and gas fields, or alternative sources of oil, require massive amounts of risk capital. If there is any doubt as to whether investors will receive a return related to the market, they will not invest in Australia, they will go elsewhere around the world. Our policy has achieved record levels of exploration and development activity in the oil industry after a virtual halt at the end of the Whitlam years. It has encouraged conservation of petroleum products and the substitution of other fuels-notably liquefied petroleum gas and natural gas-and it has provided a vital encouragement for the development of new fuels, a process which has regrettably slowed with the fall in the world oil prices, but remains very important to our future. The concept of import parity pricing was at first difficult for Australians to accept. After all, no one likes paying more for fuel. But when Australians understood that higher fuel prices meant greater fuel supply security in the future it was a bargain that they were prepared to accept. However, this Government is putting all those achievements in danger. Its actions since March have seriously undermined the whole concept of import parity pricing. In doing so the Government has undermined the nation's fuel supply security. The Australian Labor Party promised, during the election campaign, to cut the price of fuel by 3c a litre. It broke that promise, of course. With great reluctance it agreed to a cut of 1.5c a litre. Then in the Budget it increased the excise on fuel to take away even that modest reduction in the fuel price and indexed these excise charges to the consumer price index, immediately adding another 0.5c a litre to the price with more to come every six months. This was a major change. It was the start of a drift away from market-related prices. But there were other imposts. For example, the change in the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme, expected to cost consumers out in country areas $4.2m, and the introduction of sales tax on oils and lubricants from which the rural industry was previously ex- empted, will mean an increase of about $60 in the price of a drum of lubricant oil. Our fuel user industries will not have the same conditions as their competitors around the world which can relate price increases or decreases to the world market price for oil. But our producers will be continually bludgeoned by increased prices of oil because the Government now has a policy to tax the users of oil as a revenue-raising means. Dr Theophanous —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. This Bill deals with the provision of emergency fuel. It has nothing to do with the taxing of petroleum products and other associated matters. The Leader of the National Party has spoken at length about a variety of matters. I think the point about the relevance of a Bill needs to be taken into account at this time. He needs to get back to the legislation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! Although there is no point of order , I will be watching the question of relevance. Mr ANTHONY —What I am saying has great relevance to this Bill. I am talking about oil supply security for this nation. That is the fundamental reason for bringing on this legislation. Anything which undermines that security is relevant to this Bill. One change alone-the decision to increase the excise on diesel fuel, while leaving unchanged the available rebate for distillate used by primary producers-will cost primary producers over $32m in a full year. From now on that figure will get greater and greater as it is indexed. The Government has moved the price of fuel out of any relationship to world oil prices. It has abandoned the basis of the former Liberal-National Party Government's energy policies-fuel supply security-in favour of a naked attempt to milk the consumer of every last cent. Consumers will pay. But this Government's tax grab on fuel will do nothing for oil exploration and development. This is a most vital need. It is the key to our fuel supply security. As I said earlier, we need to do all we can to ensure that this country does not face an emergency of the type with which the legislation before us has been planned to deal. As I have pointed out, the actions of the Government in its energy policy so far have done nothing to achieve this aim. Nevertheless, the Opposition recognises the need for this legislation. We believe, however, that it is important that Australians understand how far-reaching this legislation is . It provides, in fact, for the establishment of a vast, complicated and intensely bureaucratic system of co-ordinating limited fuel supplies up to and including the establishment of petrol rationing on a wartime scale. It invests the Commonwealth with great powers and utilises aspects of the corporation power arising from the recent Tasmanian dam case. The Opposition recognises that these powers may never be needed but if they have to be used it will accept them. It recognises that powers of this sort are in fact needed to achieve the aim of legislation of this kind. It recognises also that the legislation provides for extensive consultation with the States and for the Parliament to approve the guidelines provided for in the legislation under the emergency scheme that will operate. We also recognise and welcome the fact that the legislation has a sunset clause , although it is a matter of concern to us that the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones), has already stated that the legislation might have to be extended beyond the three-year sunset date proposed in the Bill. The Opposition views with some concern the wide powers invested in the Minister under this legislation over the oil industry and fuel consumers and also welcomes the provision for appeal against the Minister's decision. We believe, however, that those provisions must be carefully monitored to ensure that they prove adequate in practice and we reserve the right to move amendments in this area in the Senate following the study of the legislation by the Senate Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills. At the start of my speech, I spoke of our reservations about the Government's attitude to this legislation. To explain those reservations, it is necessary to go over some of the events which led to the introduction of this Bill. I will not go into detail on these because the Minister has already done so in his second reading speech. In brief, however, the legislation is based on the recommendations of the National Petroleum Advisory Committee, a group representing Federal and State Governments, the oil industry, consumers and the Australian Council of Trade Unions and which was established in 1979. NPAC, late in 1981, completed a report on managing a possible fuel emergency. Discussions with the State and Territory governments on implementing that report continued until early this year. They were not successfully concluded until the Commonwealth agreed to the sunset clause and pledged itself to working with the States. So, a common form of legislation could be introduced Federally, in the States and in the Northern Territory when this legislation expires. Concern amongst the State and Territory governments about the need for this measure was widespread with only New South Wales, I understand, standing apart. The Opposition is concerned to ensure that the Government upholds its commitment to work with the States. That is why we view with concern the fact that the Minister has already indicated that, despite the sunset clause, this legislation could be extended. That is also why we view with concern the fact that the legislation does not provide a statutory basis for the National Fuel Emergency Consultative Committee, or set out the charter and role of that Committee and of the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments. At this stage these elements are not included in the Bill but were strong recommendations of NPAC. The establishment of the National Fuel Emergency Consultative Committee was a vital part of the NPAC report. NPAC also sets out in detail in its proposed guidelines for fuel emergency management the role of NFECC and the role of various levels of government. I recognise that the Government is already working to fulfil its undertaking to the States and to establish NFECC. But I believe it is important that the Government give a categorical undertaking that it will follow very closely the NPAC guidelines on all these matters. The Commonwealth and the States have clear and separate responsibilities in those areas. This Government has already shown its determination to extend the powers of the Commonwealth in every way at the States' expense. If it begins to move to undermine the States in this important area it will seriously damage the ability of this country to deal with the very emergency that this legislation is designed to counter. I want to make one other matter very clear. The Opposition believes that this legislation as such is necessary. But we are concerned at the enormous power it gives to government. We are concerned that the bureaucracy needed to administer the measures laid down in this Bill. If they were ever implemented, they could well prove almost impossible to remove. Those who can remember petrol rationing during World War II will remember that rationing continued for four years after the war and was not dispensed with until there was a change of government in 1949. The reason that the Government was reluctant to dispense with rationing was because it had built up a huge bureaucracy which regulated the supply of coupons. Thousands of people were involved in the distribution of coupons and the inspection of petrol rationing. It was reluctant to do away with that bureaucracy. I hate to think that we will see the introduction of petrol rationing on any temporary basis in this country and then find that it becomes an established fact of life. This is one of the great reservations that we have about this Bill. It is being introduced by a Labor government, and if it ever has to be implemented, we know the attitudes of a Labor government wanting to build a bigger bureacracy. The Opposition has a genuine fear and a concern that there must be a categorical assurance given by the Government that it will use this legislation only as the last resort; that every posssible avenue will be used to avoid bringing in petrol rationing in this country by way of ration tickets as we had previously. We appeal to the consumers in this country to use all devices and restrain their use of fuel in an emergency. If it becomes a crisis of such dimension that after doing all those things the only means of handling it is the introduction of rationing, we accept the legislation. We believe it is vital that essential industries in this country have access to fuel, which is the very basis of their productive capacity. It is with those remarks that I again ask that caution be used in the administration of this legislation. I ask the Government to work in co-operation with the States. I ask the Government to implement in full the recommendations of NPAC, in setting up NFECC and to ensure that all the suggested roles of those organisations are implemented to protect the consumers of this country against the imposition of controls by bureaucrats which could become quite unnecessary. The experience of the past has shown the reluctance of a Labor government to do away with rationing. We do not want to see that ever again. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke)(10.49) —Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr McVeigh —You want petrol rationing. Mr McGauran —He hates the farmers. Mr McVeigh —Tell him not to take the petrol off the farmers. He hates the farmers. Dr THEOPHANOUS —When the Opposition rabble have finished their comments, I will make some sensible remarks on the Liquid Fuel Emergency Bill, as distinct from the nonsense that we heard from the former Deputy Prime Minister, the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Anthony). I say at the beginning that this legislation is long overdue to protect this country in the national interest. The former Deputy Prime Minister was responsible for a delay of over three years in the implementation of this legislation. The Opposition parties dragged their feet. In fact prior to that, notwithstanding the urging of the Australian Labor Party, they made no moves whatsoever. It was only when the importance of having legislation of this kind to protect this country in a national emergency was hammered to them time and again that they finally started to do something about it. When they did try to begin this process they dragged their feet for years and years. I will outline this process in a little while. This Government, immediately upon coming to office, took steps-especially the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh). Let us face it, he deserves credit. We must give credit where credit is due for his positive and constructive approach. Negotiations were finished on 1 June, and at the first available opportunity legislation has come into the Parliament. This shows the kind of active approach of this Government in contrast to the talk and inaction of the previous Government, its approach being that every interest but the national interest was important. We heard the Country Party rabble talking about -- Mr Ian Cameron —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, we are known as the National Party. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! I ask the honourable member for Burke to be less provocative. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Mr Deputy Speaker, the National Party has made a series of somewhat provocative comments about the Government and its intentions in relation to this legislation. Most of the comments of the Leader of the National Party in relation to the consequences of the Government's Budget legislation with respect to petroleum products are nonsense. Furthermore, they are not relevant to this Bill. He was simply trying, in the context of a Bill of this kind, to score some cheap political points when he should have been focusing on the importance of this legislation to the national interest. Why was there the delay of three years? It was because of the opposition of certain States-they shall remain nameless, but I am sure one does not need an enormous imagination to deduce which States they were-to achieving a co- ordinated national approach. Of course, we heard from the Leader of the National Party all the arguments that those States presented. First, he says that he supports the legislation and then he raises all sorts of difficulties and objections about the implementation of the legislation which go back to one thing-the old States rights bogy. Let me make it quite clear: We are one nation and we are determined, in the case of a national emergency in relation to petroleum products, to act as a unified country. This business of saying that somehow some States rights issue is involved is not right, as I shall point out when I come to the actual nature of the consultative mechanisms which have been set up. The Leader of the National Party knows that there is no such States rights issue at stake here. It is quite clear that we are proceeding on the basis of consultation with the States and Territories in our constructive approach to a national emergency. The Government wishes to express its appreciation of the role of the National Petroleum Advisory Committee, the body responsible for putting the general outline of this legislation in its report entitled 'Management of a National Liquid Fuels Supply Emergency'. That important report came forward in October 1981. This body is a very representative body, its members being drawn from the agriculture, fishing, manufacturing, mining, shipping, transport and oil industries, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and motorists organisations, as well as the Commonwealth, State and Northern Territory governments. It presented its report in October 1981, but it was not tabled in the Parliament until September 1982, nearly a year later. This is the extent to which the present Opposition, the Liberal and National parties, are concerned with national emergencies. This is the extent to which they tell us they have some considerations about the Australian people as a whole and what would happen in this kind of situation. Their lackadaisical approach resulted in two years of delay after the report in relation to this matter came down. Let me say something about the importance of this legislation. The first important point to be made is that we hope, and every Australian must fervently hope, that the legislation will not need to be used, that such a national emergency will not arise; but, of course, caution and responsible government require that measures be put into place to protect the Australian people and especially to protect essential services in times of emergency. For example, it is conceivable that the legislation would be used mainly in such a situation as the sabotage of our Bass Strait oil installations. Of course, all Australians would hope that that never arose. In that situation we would want the national Government to act in a co-ordinated way because all States would be affected. If there were another Middle East supply crisis and the Government was faced with a serious shortage of petroleum products, it would be important to ensure that rationing or some other means was used to make petroleum products available, in the first instance, to essential services and, secondly, to the Australian people on a fair and equitable basis. Obviously, this kind of approach requires substantial powers, and substantial powers have been granted to the Government under this legislation so that it can direct and allocate petrol resources from any part of Australia to any other and can introduce rationing procedures at both the bulk and retail levels. One would hope that it would be at the bulk level rather than the retail level, but both powers are required in a national emergency. The general mechanisms have been referred to, and they are important. The Leader of the National Party tried some scaremongering, and I think it was a disgraceful exercise. On the one hand, he was saying 'We support the legislation' and, on the other hand, scaremongering on an issue of national importance, he was saying: 'If the Federal Government gets hold of these powers it will have petrol rationing forever more'. This kind of irresponsible statement from the Leader of the National Party, the former Deputy Prime Minister, is one very good reason why the people who are presently in opposition will remain in opposition for a very long time. The general mechanisms have been worked out. Moves have been taken already to establish the National Fuel Emergency Consultative Committee, which will have representation from the State, Commonwealth and Territory governments. Senior officials will be represented on this body and the Federal Minister will liaise directly with Committee members and consult with them before any action is taken . Of course, that body may need to be called together quite quickly and the Federal Government has undertaken to ensure that that will be the case. In the meantime this body will meet and determine guidelines and general procedures to be put to the Minister in the case of a national fuel emergency. Let me deal at this point with the worries that people have. What will happen if the determinations of the Advisory Committee and the Minister are such that someone feels aggrieved or wrongly affected? We have included a provision for an appeal to be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Surely this is an indication of the extreme lengths to which we have gone to indicate that we are not providing for some authoritarian taking on of powers. We are attempting on the one hand to exercise national responsibilities and on the other hand to ensure that someone who feels aggrieved by some specific determination can take his complaint to the Tribunal. We also had references to the sunset aspects of the legislation. The sunset aspects of the legislation are important because it is this Government's intention to ensure that the consultation process takes place over three years and that uniform legislation is introduced in each of the States after a three year period. There may be some minor delay in this matter. All indications are that there will not be any National Party members left in the Parliament in a little while, but if there are we might have some frustrations or holdups. There is no sinister intention at all on the part of the Government to get around the States or to try to undermine the authority of the States in this matter. But it is obvious that the Federal Government must take the primary responsibility in a national emergency. This is the point which the Leader of the National Party seems to have some difficulty in getting into his head. He went on to talk about how these enormous powers for the Government will be such that we might end up with 15 or 20 years of petrol rationing after one fuel emergency. This sort of mischievous and irresponsible comment needs to be seen for what it is-a disgraceful attempt to undermine the meaning and intention of the legislation simply for cheap political point scoring. When since the Second World War has an Australian government been concerned about petrol rationing? Surely the war situation justified petrol rationing. Is the Leader of the National Party trying to tell us that even a war does not justify it? Is that what he is trying to tell us? Is he trying to tell us that after a fuel emergency we should in some way continue rationing? Why should we continue the rationing if the emergency is over? It is not even logical. This is the sort of ridiculous political point which the Leader of the National Party is trying to raise in what should have been a serious debate about the importance of this legislation to this country. The Government fully supports this Bill. It has acted with the utmost speed to get it on to the statute books because it takes seriously its responsibilities in relation to emergency legislation and disaster situations, unlike the previous Government which left this country totally unprepared for disaster situations. We need only witness, for example, our total lack of preparedness for the fire disasters that occurred in this country because of the inaction of the previous Government in relation to the Natural Disasters Organisation. I just mention that point as an aside but it is an illustration of the general point, that we intend to protect the national interest and we will not be intimidated by talk about States rights and about the Federal Government getting too much power. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(11.05) —This nation is in a constant state of emergency with the Australian Labor Party in office. The honourable member for Burke (Dr Theophanous) and other honourable members opposite are absolute hypocrites to talk about conserving energy when they are not prepared to mine uranium. I ask the honourable member where he stands on that subject. Mr Hand —Leave it in the ground. Mr IAN CAMERON —The Labor Party says: 'Leave uranium in the ground'. Here we have an enormous energy resource that ought to be used, that should be mined and stockpiled for emergency use. I believe that members of the Labor Party are hypocrites in relation to the Liquid Fuel Emergency Bill. They are not prepared to look at this very large energy resource that is going to waste in Australia. While they are in office this energy resource-uranium-will not be mined other than at Roxby Downs. How hypocritical is even that policy? The Australian Labor Party is not prepared to mine all the other uranium mines in Australia but it is prepared to mine at Roxby Downs. I think the lot of them are absolute hypocrites . An incident having occurred-- Mr IAN CAMERON —Hello, it is raining flowers. They are gladioli. I wonder where that lady is. No, they are daffodils. We are being inundated with flower power today. These people in the public gallery obviously are not particularly interested in conserving Australia's energy. These people throwing flowers at us are the protesters from the Roxby Downs mining site. I might ask them what they will use to keep warm if we do not continue to mine uranium and develop our fuel supplies. The purpose of the Bill is to establish a national liquid fuel emergency supply . I believe that this is essential for defence purposes alone. As has been mentioned, the Bass Strait oil field is very strategically placed to be blown up at any time. It is the biggest field we have and I think for that reason alone we should be looking at building up our supplies of fuel. The National Petroleum Advisory Committee has been established to look at this problem and to advise governments. The Labor Party is disguising the fact that its intentions have always been to nationalise the oil industry and no doubt this Bill will be used for that purpose. Labor had already set up the national pipeline authority when Whitlam and his cohorts were in office and now its intention is to nationalise the whole fuel industry through this Bill. It is going to give itself emergency powers that can be used at any time without reference to the States. Surely the High Court of Australia decision on the dam in Tasmania proves that this can be done. The strategic supplies for our defence forces are very low. When I was a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence I continually asked the heads of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force about this matter. The Air Force has only about a week's supply of avgas and the Navy about a day's stockpile of greases and oils over and above those that it uses constantly. The Army actually curtails its exercises sometimes because of the lack of fuel. I think it is most important that we look at establishing strategic reserves. The United States of America has shown the way. It hopes to have approximately 30 per cent of its fuel for daily use stockpiled by the end of this year. Of course , the best form of conservation is the development of new oil fields. There is no better way to conserve fuel than to find new oil fields. This has been happening at a very rapid rate in the last week or so. Mr Steedman —What about Roxby? Mr IAN CAMERON —Roxby is well preserved and we hope it will be mined. The flower people obviously will not help much but it will be mined. We have just found an enormous field at Jabiru north-west of Darwin in the Arafura Sea and at another well, Bambra 2, operated by Australian Occidental close to Barrow Island. Mr Wells —Darwin is not in the Arafura Sea. Mr Fisher —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member for Petrie is continuing to make a nuisance of himself by interjecting. He is out of his seat. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The Chair will keep the matter under control. Mr IAN CAMERON —It is essential that we continue to encourage companies to discover new fields. I must congratulate the oil companies which have discovered at enormous risk new oil fields for Australia. Enormous amounts of risk capital are involved. These companies are continually looking at new ways of measuring seismic activity, which plays a very important part in discovering these new fields. Overall, Australia is a very large net exporter of energy sources. Of course these include uranium. We export quite a large parcel of uranium each year. As I say, overall we are a very large net exporter of energy sources, including coal, some types of oil and uranium. As I mentioned before, honourable members on the other side of the House do not even want to mine uranium. I also mention the fact that my electorate of Maranoa contains the Jackson oil field. New discoveries were made there in the last week. A pipeline is being built from Jackson to Moonie. Of course, the Labor Party did not help in any way to get that project under way. The only free enterprise Government left in Australia, the Joh Bjelke-Petersen Government, tried to get some funds from South Korea to help in the development of our trade. The South Koreans buy a lot of beef, wool and wheat produced in Maranoa. We are prepared to trade with the South Koreans. But what did the Labor Party do to Bjelke-Petersen and to the Queensland progressive party? It stopped the South Koreans from bringing their funds into Australia to help build this pipeline. That is how interested the Labor Party is in progress, fuel conservation and fuel discovery in this nation. It is not in the least bit interested. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) went right out of his way to block these funds coming to Australia from the South Korean Government. The South Koreans were prepared to help supply the pipe and build the pipeline. That just shows how interested the Labor Party is in helping to develop fuel supplies, and to think that that happened in Maranoa. Mr Anthony —Whose electorate was that? Mr IAN CAMERON —My electorate. I believe that we should be encouraging alternative uses of energy. The previous Liberal-National Party Government went a long way in doing this. In the last Budget the Labor Party completely cut out the incentive for people to use other forms of energy. What is happening to the poor farming community in relation to the diesel fuel excise? The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said that he is a friend of the farmer. He then gave us the mini- Budget which knocked about a billion dollars out of the farming community. In the last August Budget he knocked out about half a billion dollars. There will be no rebate on the diesel fuel excise from now on. We will be stuck with our existing 7c. This rebate was set up to allow farmers to use diesel on the farm. The excise was originally established to help build roads, and farmers do not build roads when they drive their tractors around paddocks helping to produce the wealth of the nation. There has been a 1.5 per cent per litre increase in the cost of diesel. The cost of diesel is to be indexed every six months. How interested is this Government in curtailing inflation? Everything will be indexed while it is in office. The cost of diesel fuel will be indexed as will all sorts of excises. Apart from that, this Government has introduced other taxes. Of course, the excise and taxes on fuel are enormous. I have some figures which show that in July 1982 the crude oil levy was 42.2 per cent of the total cost of fuel. The excise on motor spirit was 13.6 per cent, royalities were 1.8 per cent and the private receipts were 42 per cent, making a total of about 100 per cent. So well over 50 per cent of the cost of every litre of fuel, whether it be diesel or petrol, that Australians use daily goes to the Federal Government in taxation revenue. I argue that this discriminates against rural people. We in inland Australia have to use fuel daily. We have to send our children to school. We have to plough the land. We have to use fuel continually and, really, this is a very high, disproportionate tax. What other commodity is taxed to the extent of 50 per cent? Can honourable members opposite name one? The highest rate of personal taxation is only 46 per cent. The Australian rural producer has to bear a tremendous burden in trying to make a living. The fuel tax is today one of the biggest items in the farmer's taxation burden. Of course, there are other energy sources in my electorate of Maranoa. We have the Roma oil and gas field which is continuing to develop and to help the nation to establish more fuel sources. We have the Millmerran coal field. That huge field of coal is lying idle and could be used for strategic purposes. It could be used to generate power but, as yet, it has not come to fruition. It is an enormous field of coal. The whole of the central and southern part of Queensland is actually situated on a coal field called the Bowen Basin. This will continue to keep us very strategically placed for energy use over the next 100 years. In concluding I would like to reiterate the importance of building strategic fuel supplies. Certainly I am totally opposed to the rationing of them. I believe that when the priorities are set by the States in con- junction with the Commonwealth the farming community should certainly be put on the top of the list. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy) read a third time. Debate resumed from 7 September, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Lloyd had moved by way of amendment: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'Whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House deplores the action of the Government in extending the use of fees in the broadcasting area beyond cost recovery to a new source of taxation revenue'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Before the debate on this Bill is resumed I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill and the Television Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1983. Mr SAUNDERSON(Deakin)(11.18) —Yesterday, before I was interrupted because of the time limitations, I was talking about how remarkable is the amount of turnabout that has been taking place in the Opposition. In fact, I have now realised why I have seen members of the Opposition staggering around the passageways in the Opposition area. It is obvious that as they come out of the Party room they are all giddy from the merry-go-round they are all on. Every time we have proposed Bills or put up propositions, some of which have been in line with the position the Opposition took during its period of Government, we find that some form of mild opposition is bleated. It is also interesting that every time we have proposed legislation or amendments to Acts, some of which were even proposed by the previous Government-but that Government was not prepared to implement them-and which will bring about a situation where people who can afford to pay more than they have been or who have been evading their responsibilities to contribute to the income of the nation will be made to meet their responsibilities, the Opposition cries foul. I am talking about bottom of the harbour schemes. We are trying to get at those people who have morally evaded or avoided tax. Now we are saying that we want those people to face up to their responsibility. In the superannuation changes we-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! I remind the honourable member that his remarks should be relevant to the question before the House. I ask him to speak to the Bill. Mr SAUNDERSON —I am being relevant to the question, Mr Deputy Speaker. In those areas in which we have been proposing-in the same way as we have in this Bill- that those who can afford to pay should pay, honourable members opposite have bleated opposition. As I pointed out yesterday, as regards television licences and radio licences, we are raising the fees so that we shall raise just under $2 .5m above what would have been expected if we had not put the additional 0.5 per cent increase on the rates. I pointed out yesterday how during the years 1980-81 and 1981-82 the radio stations recorded a 75 per cent increase in profits. Clearly, we are here dealing, as we were in other areas such as bottom of the harbour schemes, superannuation, and withholding tax, with areas in which people can afford to pay. But every time we apply a tax there, the Opposition complains . The Opposition should be putting up propositions for positive alternatives. It has not yet indicated where it would raise the money to contribute to the Budget . It has not yet shown any positive alternative as to where we should raise money-other than perhaps falling back on its old line that pay-as-you-earn wage earners, those who have already been bearing an inordinate amount of the responsibility of carrying the debt, should pay a little more than they have already been paying. We have pointed out that clearly these broadcasting stations can afford to pay. The Government has indicated that it is prepared to consider offsets in terms of Australian produced programs in relation to the additional $2.5m that it is raising. It is a very small impost. It represents only a 5 per cent increase above what the stations would have expected to pay. I believe that it is justified. Opposition members were talking yesterday about our attacks on radio and television, and they compared them with the $100m that we imposed on Telecom Australia. As I said yesterday, it is a surprising turn-around for them to be saying that we are attacking Telecom, when unfortunately they forgot to say that all that we have done is simply to impose a charge in exactly the same way as they did when in government. During the last 12 months of their Government, they were attempting to destroy both Telecom and Australia Post-which the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) lauded in his speech as being the most efficient organisations that he could see. As I have said, this Government has done a great deal to consolidate Telecom's position. It is looking after the people in rural areas, by so preserving Telecom in that sense, and much more so than the previous Government would have done had it been allowed to continue with the Davidson inquiry-the Public Inquiry into Telecommunication Services in Australia -as it was going to do. In summarising the legislation and the changes that we are introducing, I have to say that it represents only a 5 per cent increase upon what the stations would otherwise have expected to pay. It affects a very small proportion of radio and television stations. It affects only those stations earning in excess of $9m in gross earnings. It is a small thing to expect an area which is very profitable to be able to carry at least some of the burden resulting from the gross mismanagement of the previous Government. There will be other areas at which we shall be looking, but I believe that this is just a very minor impost on an area in which people can well afford to meet the cost. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(11.24) —I enter the debate briefly not so much on the question of licence fees but to raise another matter which is very important in broadcasting in this country, and that is the present very restrictive nature of the granting of licences for television and radio broadcasting. Historically, there have been some very good reasons why we have our present system. We have geographical reasons. We have economic reasons-not the least of which is that there has been a problem with frequencies throughout Australia, and that problem still exists, with some 700 stations operating. It is also clear-and I think that the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) would be the first to acknowledge this-that there is a growing and unsatisfied need for the granting of more licences in this country. In a Press release by the Minister recently, on 23 August, he states that the Government has allocated over half a million dollars to help it to reduce a backlog in planning proposals for broadcasting services. The Press release says: The Minister said that at present his Department had 550 expressions of interest in the provision of broadcasting services on its books. Expressions of interest totalling 550 is one hell of a backlog. This unsatisfied need, large as it is now, will continue to grow unless a new and radical approach is taken to the provision of services. In short, the system as we have known it, and as we know it now, must be freed up. Many of these requests should be granted, frequencies being available. The fact is that there are thousands of communities throughout Australia which want their own local facility to get their own advertising and local news across. As these communities grow and as new communities grow, this demand will increase. The other point that is well worth making is that where free enterprise can operate, it should be encouraged to do so, where there is no overriding reason why it should not operate. I can well understand the objections of those who do not want the present system changed at all, because there are many stations throughout Australia which are making a very considerable amount of money and they have their own businesses to protect. That is fair enough. But they are trade objections, and those objections are not the ones which should be paramount. I find it somewhat ironical that many of the people who object to a freeing up of the system in Australia are the very people who, in public, are the staunchest supporters of the free enterprise system-except when it comes to their own interests. We could look at the system operated in the United States. There would be people who would say that that is not a satisfactory system because it is a much freer system than ours. But, generally speaking, I believe that there are lessons that we should be learning from the United States in attempting to overcome our problems. I have no doubt that any change of approach or any expansion of broadcasting facilities in this country will require some painful adjustment on the part of some operators. But I have no doubt in my mind, from speaking to a wide range of people in the industry, that this adjustment must be undertaken; otherwise, very simply, the problem will get worse. There are some broad solutions which I should like to put to the Minister-I am sure that he is aware of them-such as the clearing of existing frequency bands, having a good look at low power stations operating in various communities where their range is restricted to a particular community, the sharing of frequencies, restricted hours of operation of some new stations, and, in some cases, perhaps the increased use of cable. The point I make is that we must help those smaller towns and communities which have no local communications facilities-radio or television-to acquire them if they wish. It just does not make sense that if a group in the community were to form a company, put up money and take a chance-all the other things having been taken into account, particularly frequencies-they should not be allowed to provide extra facilities in that area. I turn to a matter which affects my own area in particular, that is, the local television station on the Gold Coast. I refer to a letter which I recently received from the Minister. That letter states: The Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 prevents the grant or renewal of translator station licences where the area concerned is receiving satisfactory reception of programs from a local commercial television station . . . The letter goes on: I am sure you will agree that Gold Coast residents, who are within the Brisbane Metropolitan Television Area, would be strongly opposed to any suggestion that they be deprived of Brisbane television services. Mr Deputy Speaker, I put it to the Minister that the situation on the Gold Coast is a reversal of the situation to which this letter applies. We have translator services, as the Minister knows, but because those translator services are in place is the Gold Coast to be denied forever the facility of a local television station? It is the reverse of what might be considered the normal situation. We cannot leave forever more a city which now has some 200,000 people-the seventh largest city in Australia-in limbo without its own local television facilities. I would hate to think that this letter in any way poses a threat to the people of the Gold Coast by suggesting that they should not press for a local television station because it might put the renewal of translator licences in jeopardy. Mr Deputy Speaker, the problems require a new look. I know the Minister is aware of some of the problems, and I very much hope that he and the Government will address themselves to these problems for all those people in smaller communities throughout Australia who wish to be granted their own facilities as soon as possible. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(11.32) —In supporting the Television Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1983 I should like to do as the honourable member for McPherson ( Mr White) did and talk about local television reception. I will talk-I make no excuse for this-about television reception in the Dandenongs. First of all I should like to say how pleased I am that the Government has introduced this Bill . I noted that the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), in his second reading speech, stated: The Government is concerned to achieve the maximum possible Australian content in respect of films and television programs. The Government will be considering proposals to encourage production of Australian programs, particularly proposals which are in the nature of offset to the licence fee increases. I certainly welcome this initiative and I hope that it is successful because I believe that we should have far more Australian content in television films and, incidentally, radio programs also. I now wish to talk about the problems experienced by 20,000 residents in the Dandenong Ranges. Even if we increase the Australian content in television films these people are highly unlikely to be able to enjoy that improvement because they are unable to get proper reception from television stations. I shall refer to some of the matters that I have brought up in this House during the three years that I have been the member for La Trobe. On 27 October 1981 I brought up this matter in the House in a debate on the Television Stations Licence Fees Bill. On that occasion I said that it is vital that three ultra high frequency translators be constructed to improve the reception in the Dandenong Ranges. Assurances were given by the previous Liberal Party member for La Trobe, Mr Marshall Baillieu, that this would be done. The then Minister for Post and Telecommunications, Mr Tony Staley, at a public meeting in Ferntree Gully in July 1980-this was reported in the Lilydale and Yarra Valley Express of 5 August -said: It's just not good enough. The hills people have a right to good television reception and we'll make sure they get it. In a letter sent to hundreds of residents in the Dandenong Ranges area in October 1980, just prior to the election, Mr Baillieu wrote: The new system will be in operation in the early part of next year, and I will continue to take all possible steps to see that it is introduced without delay. He went on: Translators will be located at the lookout tower in Belmont Crescent, Upwey; in Bruce Crescent, Ferntree Gully; and in Best Street, Belgrave. These Translators will provide reception on every channel, and to every home, but will not affect those homes that now have good reception. When I was elected member for La Trobe the very first thing I did was to bring up this matter because I realised how important it was to my constituents. I put a question on notice on 3 December 1980 to the then Minister. By this time, of course, there had been a change and the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) was the responsible Minister. On 27 October 1981 I said: That reply was given to me on 4 March 1981- that something would be done- but we are still, in late October 1981, awaiting an exact date for the commencement of the work. I quoted from a letter which I received from a constituent and in which he complained about the problems he was having with television reception. I will refer later to two letters I have received very recently because they cover the same problems that have been going on for more than three years in my electorate . After that speech I wrote to the Minister on 27 November 1981 and I said this: Dear Mr Minister, You will know that I have brought up the matter of the poor television reception in the Dandenong Ranges area of my electorate of La Trobe on a number of occasions in the House. It is a matter of concern to both myself and the 20, 000 residents involved that, despite my efforts to obtain a satisfactory response from yourself, a number of questions remain unanswered. For the record, I have received hundreds of telephone calls and letters from my constitutents who feel that they have been badly let down by the Government, particularly in view of the promises made by your ministerial predecessor and by the previous member for La Trobe. In your replies of 4 March 1981 to my questions of 3 December 1980, whilst you outlined the background to the situation, you were unable to indicate a likely date by which construction of the translators might commence; my constituents find the lack of a commencement date most frustrating. I have analysed the many questions I have been asked by my constituents and I accordingly seek replies to the following specific questions- 1 Why was the former member for La Trobe allowed to mislead his electorate by promising UHF Translators for the Dandenongs in a lead time of six months when the minimum lead time required from establishing the need for translators to the final commissioning is 18 months? 2 What directive was given by the Minister to the Department of Communications regarding the TV reception problems in the Dandenongs? 3 What results, if any, have been given to the minister regarding the surveys? 4 Would the Minister agree that the first survey by the Department of Communications was carried out as a matter of political expediency and therefore had little chance of being accepted by the commercial stations; will the Minister now indicate what steps he has taken to ensure that the Department of Communications arrives at a solution which is acceptable to the commercial stations? 5 Was the original survey carried out by the Department of Communications in September 1980 done in conjunction with the requirements of the 3 commercial stations and local informed personnel? 6 Is it correct that the 3 commercial stations have decided against the draft proposal of September 1980, as submitted by the Department? 7 As the Minister has no legal recourse to compel the commercial TV channels to remedy the problem of the Dandenongs, has he sought their promise that they will indeed install the translators? 8 With the proposed 3 sites for the UHF translators not acceptable to the commercial stations, what steps are being taken to find alternative acceptable locations for the translators? 9 Has the Minister in his capacity, studied overseas experience with similar TV reception problems and the results attained, and could these solutions be employed in the Dandenongs area? I put a number of other questions to the Minister but they are not relevant to this debate because they relate to the Australian communications satellite. What answer did I get from the Minister? I will read part of it to the House. He said that his predecessor the Hon. A. A. Staley announced in the House the result of a departmental report advising that three translators would overcome most of the reception problems in the Dandenong Ranges. He continued: A draft planning proposal taking into account socio-economic, engineering and environmental factors was subsequently prepared as part of the normal process and circulated to relevant industry bodies for comment as part of this Government's consultative approach to planning. Be assured that the survey was conducted in conjunction with the TV stations and additionally with the co-operation of the local Shire Offices. When my Department has completed assessment of the responses received following circulation of the draft proposal a final planning proposal will be prepared. Should I then decide to invite applications arrangements will be made for potential licencees to be advised accordingly. Final technical operating conditions would be co-ordinated with the successful applicants in the normal manner after the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal has offered the grant of licences. Considerable study has been undertaken to expedite the granting of licences by the ABT should that subsequently be appropriate. At this stage in development of the Australian domestic satellite it is premature to comment in regard to possible direct broadcasting consequences, particularly as actual transponder arrangments have not been finalised. That reply came to me on 4 January 1982. As honourable members can see, there has been no progress at all. On 19 October 1982 I again brought up the matter, this time in a debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1). I draw the House's attention to the fact that on 18 March that year Senator Button asked a question in the other place. He drew attention to the fact that the current backlog of planning proposals for new translators and new radio services would now take 10 years to implement. Senator Peter Baume replied as follows: With regard to the backlog of planning proposals Senator Button may be aware that the administrative procedures for planning broadcasting and television services are presently under review by the Department of Communications, in consultation with broadcasting industry representatives. These new procedures are to be implemented in an effort to streamline the planning process and consequently enable the planning backlog to be cleared within the shortest possible space of time. That was said on 19 October 1982 and one would imagine that something would have been done to speed up the planning processes. Unfortunately, that does not seem to have happened. Of course, we had another change of Minister; I then had to deal with Mr N. A. Brown. I wrote again to him and he wrote back on 24 January 1983. He stated: Let me make it quite clear that the Government has not delayed establishment of translators to improve reception in the Dandenongs area. He said that the Government had not delayed. Some 2 1/2 years after the time when it was first mentioned the then Minister had the gall to say that the matter had not been delayed. He continued: It is essential in planning such facilities that all interested parties be given an opportunity to contribute. This is particularly important in areas such as the Dandenongs where difficult terrain suggests a number of alternatives and three commercial services are involved. Discussions between officers of my Department and representatives of the Melbourne commercial stations are still continuing. It should be borne in mind that there are no provisions within the Broadcasting and Television Act for the Government to establish commercial facilities; these are established by licensees after grant of a licence by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. ABC and Special Broadcasting Service translators, of course, are provided by the Government. In this particular case, it will be necessary to reach agreement with the licensees involved before the services can proceed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The Chair is reluctant to interrupt the honourable member but the Chair is experiencing great difficulty in accepting that the honourable member is being relevant to the Bill. A previous speaker indicated that he was departing from the Bill but it could be argued that his comments had relevance to the level of licence fees, in fact the need for licence fees. However, I have not been able to satisfy myself that the honourable member for La Trobe is addressing the Bill, which deals with licence fees. Mr MILTON —Mr Deputy Speaker, I feel that I am addressing the Bill, because the Bill that we are debating is increasing revenue from licence fees by about $2. 36m in 1983-84, and the installation of these translators will cost only $250, 000. The points I am making are relevant to the Bill, because $250,000 could be taken out of this $2.36m and used to install the translators. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member puts his point well but the Bill does not allow that latitude. I must require the honourable member to link his remarks more directly with the Bill. Mr MILTON —Mr Deputy Speaker, I bow to your opinion. I close by saying that I have had a number of letters from constituents about this problem. I have been covering it for three years and I have every faith in the present Minister for Communications. We have been in government for only six months but I am quite sure that the present Minister for Communications will ensure that this matter is expedited as soon as possible. However, I make one final plea to the Minister . Over the past three years we have had four changes of Minister. I know that we are not going to have very many changes in the future; nevertheless, we are still dealing with the same Department of Communications. It is the Department that could be criticised very strongly for the three years of inordinate delay in dealing with this matter. I note that the Minister, in an answer to a question I raised in the House, promised me that the matter will be dealt with very shortly. I certainly hope that he presses this matter with the Department of Communications. Once again, I express my great hope that the Minister will do this as early as possible. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(11.47) —It is my pleasure to speak on the Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill and the Television Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill. One concerns television and the other concerns radio station licences. It is a tragedy that we have to license either as they are both essential. In inland Australia radio is in everyday use by people and, of course , television is something that all people there look forward to watching but as yet most of them do not have it. I make that point very strongly and will enlarge on it a little later. The tax increase is from 7.5 per cent to 8 per cent and is levied on the gross earnings of the stations. That is a retrograde form of taxation. Mr Duffy —It has never been any different. Mr IAN CAMERON —I realise that but I am prepared to stand up in this House and tell the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) that this type of taxation is retrogressive. The same thing occurs with all our indirect taxes. Many of our radio and television stations in rural Australia are finding it very difficult to make a profit but they are expected to pay a licence fee on their gross earnings, not their net profit. Mr Milton —It is only a few stations. Mr IAN CAMERON —I realise it applies to only a few stations. It was pointed out by previous speakers that there is no indexation but there is a cut-off point. As the stations' earnings increase with inflation they will be expected to pay the higher rate. This fee applies only to a television station earning $9m gross income. But even if a station is earning that sort of money that does not mean that it will make a net profit; it could still run at a loss. I believe that all taxation should be levelled on net profits. Of course, members of the Australian Labor Party are on about employment all the time. I do not see how those who are in private business can be expected to employ more people while governments continue to levy taxes on gross income, taxes such as the 10 per cent tax on earnings that is now being introduced on people who are trying to earn a living. I strongly support the concept of Australian content that is mentioned in this Bill. If licensing fees are to be imposed this is a way it ought to be done. There should be an incentive for radio and television stations to increase Australian content. Yesterday the Minister sent a circular around for the film Phar Lap, which I have seen. It is an excellent Australian production and the sort of film that could be shown on television once the film rights run out. We have seen a big increase in our film production, and a tremendous improvement in our actors, et cetera. I certainly support the Minister if in any way he can encourage more Australian content in Australian television. Surely we are well past the days of watching a lot of the nonsense that is shown to us every night of the week. Supplementary licences are coming on stream slowly but surely. It is difficult for the Channel 10 network in Toowoomba to get enough advertising on its existing television station, let alone hope to pick up enough advertising to run a second television channel. Of course, most of the regional stations are looking at pay television. I also support the Government in not proceeding with cable television. I believe that the technology of the satellite will more than out perform cable television in the near future. America has transponder power of up to 100 and 200 watts. This will mean that in the very near future all Australians will be able to receive more television channels than they will ever want through very high powered satellite systems. This is happening in America. I could never understand why we did not introduce the cable system when Telecom Australia converted to subscriber trunk dialling. I believe we could have used that cable system for television, but we have not done so. I have not been able to support the concept of digging up all the streets again and laying another set of cables or even running them through the existing Telecom network. Television Australia Satellite Systems Ltd is a company that was formed in an endeavour to get some television to outback Australia and in particular to areas in Maranoa such as Charleville and Cunnamulla where groups of people have been established to try to help this company. That concept is very good. But what do we see? We see the great white leader, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), more or less name the company in his Party's rural policy speech, delivered in Griffith and promise inland Australia that it will receive television broadcasts through the existing INTELSAT 4 satellite. What has happened up to date? The Minister for Communications just sits at the table and so far I have seen absolutely nothing. It is a typical Hawke promise, a typical Labor Party promise. Nothing has happened about that concept. I have supported this television concept on many occasions in the chamber, even with the previous Minister. But I am hoping that the new Minister will see fit to establish this pay network system to help the 100,000-odd Australians in inland Australia, who still get no television reception. I think it is most important to point out to the House that in the electorate of Maranoa many people still do not have any television reception. I know most people will think it is strange but there are also people in the western end of my electorate who receive no radio signals. Mr Hicks —And in Riverina. Mr IAN CAMERON —And the electorate of Riverina. Mr O'Neil —And in Grey also. Mr IAN CAMERON —And the electorate of Grey also; there are many areas in inland Australia that do not receive any television or radio broadcasts. We ask the Minister to give consideration to these areas before other licences are issued in capital cities and before we go further along the road with multicultural television and all these other weird and wonderful concepts. We believe that the real Australians who live in inland Australia ought to get a television and radio signal before facilities are extended to the people in capital cities who already have the use of three or four channels. The Department of Communications is now expanding the concept of INTELSAT 4. I believe the Minister is encouraging this. An expenditure of $1m or more has been allocated. I think that is excellent. I am hoping to have a satellite receiving dish established at Windorah and also at Thargomindah in far western Queensland in the western end of Maranoa. Other areas have this system-places like Birdsville, Wandoan, and Injune. They presently get their signal from the INTELSAT 4 satellite, which the Commonwealth Government has an interest in, and which is placed over the north- western part of Australia running up to Hong Kong and that part of the world. Telecom tried to stop the satellite system. I believe it was a sham proposition . I thought it was a tragedy that the Minister got involved and did not say straight out that the satellite system was in place and was going ahead because all the contracts had been let. The total cost is $300m. Contracts have been let to Hughes Aviation for three satellites. Contracts totalling $32m have been let for earth stations in the major capital cities in Australia. Mitsubishi Australia is building those stations with approximately 50 per cent Australian content. Codan Pty Ltd in South Australia, that great company which produces high frequency radios which we use in western Queensland so often, has a contract to establish small experimental earth stations. We are well down the track. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has already won a contract and Aussat is paying monthly instalments to NASA. It will cost roughly $31m to launch these two satellites.We are presently paying monthly instalments to NASA. We have seen the great success of the space shuttle. I believe we made the right decision by using the space shuttle to launch our domestic satellite DOMSAT. HACBSS-the Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service-was established-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member is wandering from the subject matter of the Bill. I remind him that the Bill is to do with licence fees. I invite him to address his remarks essentially to that particular matter. Mr IAN CAMERON —Yes, I will. Mr Deputy Speaker, I thought that licence fees pertained to television. We in western Queensland and inland Australia are actually going to obtain a television signal for the first time through DOMSAT. I think it is important for me, while I am speaking to this Bill, to point out to my constituents and to the constituents of other honourable members just what is happening with this program and to give them an idea as to when they may receive a television signal for the first time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member is free to proceed so long as he maintains his remarks relevant to the Bill. Mr IAN CAMERON —The Isolated Children's Parents Association and people in inland Australia fought very hard to have the whole HACBSS concept established. I only hope that the Minister sees fit to maintain the signal. There will be a signal on the first satellite. ABC television and also an ABC radio-FM and two AM signals-will be broadcast on the same track as the television signal. I hope that the Minister sees fit to keep the spot foot print in place because this has not yet been decided. We believe that if people set up a small dish to receive a 30 watt signal from the first HACBSS system they should also be able to receive a 30 watt signal from the second HACBSS system which the commerical stations will operate. They will not have to put up a $10,000 dish to receive the signal because they will have in place a $1,000 dish to receive the first HACBSS ABC channel. Surely these people of inland Australia ought to be in a position to receive a commercial television signal. A number of people receive ABC television but, as yet, very few Australians in inland Australia receive a commercial television signal. I hope that the Minister bears this in mind when he gives consideration to the concept that is now allowing us, with the use of HACBSS 2, to bring commercial television to electorates like Riverina, Maranoa- Mr Hunt —And Gwydir. Mr IAN CAMERON —And Gwydir. One can run them off. The satellite will actually allow people who do not get a signal, even in the capital cities, to pick one up if they happen to be stuck behind a wheat silo or down a hollow or something. Most people in the city probably live down hollows, but it will certainly enable them to get a better signal and a clearer picture than they are receiving now. The other section of the Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill covers the question of commercial radio. The Broadcasting Stations Licences Fees Act 1964 established that a flat fee of $500 was payable for a licence. A fee scale set in 1981 amended the Act. There is a prescribed fee ceiling of 7.5 per cent of gross income for television stations and 5 per cent for radio stations. This Bill will raise an additional amount of $2.4m. I just hope that most of those funds are used to establish radio stations in inland Australia; for example, in places such as the electorate of Maranoa. Forty thousand dollars of this $2.4m will result from fee changes for broadcasting stations. At this stage the Bill will affect only one station out of a total of 134. I give praise to all the commercial radio and television stations that operate in our electorates and give us the excellent news and interview coverage, et cetera, that comes through the airwaves and television signals. These changes will affect radio stations with an average yearly income of $9m. I know that there certainly will not be many radio or television stations in Maranoa earning that sort of gross income, but they will still have to pay licence fees. I am just hoping that the collection of this revenue will help to establish new radio stations in places such as Charleville. There is an allocation of $180,000 in the present Budget for a new radio station there. It is hoped that that station will be completed at the end of 1984 at a rough cost of $400,000. These are the sorts of funds to which people in inland Australia look forward. We can certainly do with a lot more of them. I am fortunate as I am the only Federal member of parliament who has the use of a radio telephone. I commend that to other members in inland Australia. I suggest that they go along to the Department of Administrative Services to see whether they can get the use of a radio telephone. I operate through the Flying Doctor base at Charleville. This high frequency set has a range of 2,000 to 3, 000 kilometres. I find it very useful in keeping in touch with my constituents in the far flung areas; places around Charleville such as Quilpie, Cunnamulla, Windorah, and Birdsville. All those places operate through the Flying Doctor base. This high frequency radio is the only form of communication they have. This has been of tremendous benefit, and I thank those involved for its use. While I am on the matter of radio-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! I understand the honourable member has already been counselled to make a strong effort to relate his remarks to the Bill. Could I lean on him in a similar fashion? He is digressing a little. Mr IAN CAMERON —As long as you do not push me too hard in one direction, Mr Deputy Speaker. While I am on the matter of radio-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member to make a special effort because the terms of the Bill are quite limited. Mr IAN CAMERON —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am trying very hard. This Bill that we have before us raises revenue for the use of radio. I am using a radio in order to keep in touch with my constituents, and I think they are appreciative of that fact. Honourable members will be aware that a new digital radio telephone system will be established under the Countrywide Calling concept. Of course this concept has cut out local calls to local business centres. I have addressed this problem to the Minister. I have asked him to look at this and to make some changes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. I ask the honourable member once again to endeavour to relate his remarks to the licensing provisions of these Bills; otherwise he will not be permitted to continue. Mr IAN CAMERON —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am endeavouring to do so. But of course people in inland Australia have tremendous problems when it comes to communications. I used this opportunity to put forward those problems to the Minister. He is sitting at the table, and I just hope that he is taking it all in. This legislation makes provision for the extension of FM radio. Although the Australian Broadcasting Corporation does not pay a licence fee other FM stations do. FM radio has been extended from Adelaide through to Toowoomba, and people living at the eastern end of Maranoa are now receiving it. This is an excellent service and something on which we must congratulate the Department of Communications. I would like to mention one other problem which involves licensing. People in inland Australia continually use the citizens band radio service. Forty channels are being used but there is provision for at least 80 channels. I take this opportunity to ask the Minister whether he could get permission to expand the CB network from 40 channels to 80 channels. It has become so popular that everybody wants to use it, and the channels are becoming overloaded. Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence on this subject. I realise that I have strayed slightly, but I assure you that all my constituents and constituents in electorates such as Riverina will be most appreciative of the fact that you have allowed me to speak as I have on this legislation. Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(12.06) —It would be very rare for me to agree with the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron). However, as I have a large rural electorate I agree that there are many areas within my electorate and his that do not have adequate radio and television coverage. We certainly want to see that. It was quite remiss of the previous Government which for seven years promised radio and television in my electorate to never fulfil that promise. Prior to the 1977 election Senator Don Jessop, that great and wonderful Liberal senator, promised television services on the west coast of South Australia within 12 months. The people on the west coast are still waiting. That is typical of the sort of care that the Liberal and national parties had for the country people. It is good to see that we now have a very constructive and positive Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy). I wish to speak to the Television Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill and the Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill which together will raise extra revenue of some $2.4m in 1983-84. All except $400,000 of this revenue will come from television stations. Of these, 15 stations are metropolitan, one is in a provincial city. Only one radio station is affected. Since fee scales were set in 1964 television has increasingly become a secure and significant growth industry. In 1981 ceilings were applied to limit the maximum percentage of gross earnings required to be paid in fees. These Bills raise those ceilings as well as applying a slight increase in rates. It is well to reflect that if the 1981 ceiling had not been applied the biggest earners in the electronic media industry would now be paying much more in fees without any increase in rates. It is also worthy of consideration that, in an era when Australian manufacturing industry is facing not only a general economic slump but also a crisis in the very structure of its future and when the resources industry has seen the predicted minerals boom appear on the distant horizon and vanish without even saying hello a lot of emphasis in the future will swing to new fields of investment and profitability. The entertainment and information industries, riding the wave of rapid technological change, are poised to take full advantage from their advertising revenue of any opportunities opening up for a bigger slice of the consumer spending cake. Their share is not inconsiderable now-I refer particularly to the television industry. In 1980-81 the 15 metropolitan commercial television stations averaged gross earnings of $27.35m. Radio station earnings were less spectacular with an average of $3.1m between 29 metropolitan stations. Country stations in both categories were the poor relations. The 35 television stations grossed an average $2.97m representing a differential of 9.2 per cent between them and their big city counterparts. Ninety-seven country radio stations averaged $644,000-a differential of 4.85 per cent. The marginally increased revenue will come from enterprises which not only have the greatest capacity to afford it but also would appear to have excellent potential for expansion when the first domestic communications satellite goes into operation in 1985-86. It would be a brave man who would dare to predict with any certainty just how much more tenaciously and comprehensively the commercial audio-visual communications media will increase its influence over or its contribution to our everyday home lives, depending on which way we look at it. It will probably be a combination of both. One thing is certain. The advent of the domestic satellite will bring many remote areas into closer touch with the world outside, and in many very worthwhile ways. I certainly commend this. The Minister for Communications has indicated that there may be some kind of trade-off between added costs of fee increases and the production and showing of Australian films and television programs. If wider coverage causes profits and fees to soar in future years, such a proposition might be taken up to the benefit of many Australians on the fringes of the industry as well as those who are served by it . In order to do this, of course, there is a minimum requirement of size and capacity. Independent country television stations-in themselves representing an admirable concept in the fostering of regional interests and enterprises-are nevertheless in the weakest position of all to take advantage of any aspect of the satellite revolution. They could, in fact, be facing ultimate absorption into some kind of new pattern of ownership, control and supply of material. In what form they find their survival may, in the long term, depend on their own adaptability. One thing seems certain, that is, that the present pattern of zoning protection for regional stations will need to be radically revised if they are to remain a viable part of our way of life outside the capital cities. In my electorate of Grey, there has been a lot of public pressure for many years for liberalisation of the zoning regulations so that viewers can have the alternative of at least one metropolitan commercial station added to their reception of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and local commercial station programs without going to the expense of a 16-metre antenna tower for the sake of doubtful results. They have grown used to being told that there is no way advertising revenue can be shared out equitably to meet their desires, even should a metropolitan station find the added expense an economic proposition. Given the machinery to beam metropolitan programs to the far corners of the outback, zoning may go by the board. Depending on what regulatory means are found to preserve regional identity, local stations may eventually be faced with a last ditch choice of 'if you can't beat them, join them'. Like other forms of technological change, the advent of the satellite will carry no technical compulsion for even large stations to change their ways but the economic imperative will start a chain reaction. Network arrangements far more rigid than the present informal occasional program swapping and sharing will emerge. The elements of ownership and control these may contain will also depend on what regulation measures are brought in. Whatever arrangement is made to share programming between metropolitan and country stations must bring with it a parallel agreement for advertising rights. Country stations may subscribe to a far wider choice of programs than at present and take them directly from the satellite still retaining their own advertising territories; or they may accept a parcel of national or capital city advertising to offset the cost of the metropolitan programs they use. This could prove to be their most profitable compromise. On the other hand, unless adequate safeguards appear, they could be forced by competition into becoming little more than relay stations for nationwide networks. But the most potent threat to the existence of regional television will eventually come-perhaps within the next decade-from the very same piece of high technology that will be a communications boom to the people who live in outback communities or on outlying stations where at present they can receive no signals at all. This device is the Direct Broadcasting Service, which takes the form of a receive-only station that can be installed anywhere to take special programs directly from the satellite. Although the first wave will be limited in scope and expensive both to buy and to use, their cost and complication are predicted to reduce to average living room proportions. I conclude in paying a compliment to the Minister for Communications. As a new member, I find him very approachable. Undoubtedly he has a very constructive and positive role and is obviously dedicated to his portfolio. I would like to thank him for the care and consideration he has given particularly to new members who represent country seats. Hopefully, in the not too distance future, country electorates such as mine of Grey will have very adequate and suitable radio and television programs and coverage as have electorates in metropolitan areas. Mr EWEN CAMERON(Indi)(12.17) —The Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1983 and the Television Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1983 amend the 1981 legislation to increase revenue for the Government by lifting the ceilings of fees payable from 7.5 per cent to 8 per cent of annual gross earnings of television stations and from 5 per cent to 5.5 per cent for radio stations. These increases will apply to radio and television stations grossing more than $ 9m per annum. Admittedly, the amendments will affect only 16 out of 50 television stations and one out of 34 radio stations. But I would like to support very much the amendment moved by the Opposition, which reads: Whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House deplores the action of the Government in extending the use of fees in the broadcasting area beyond cost recovery to a new source of taxation revenue. I would like to base my remarks on that revenue over and above the cost of recovery. In my opinion this revenue, which will go back into Consolidated Revenue, should be directed towards improving television and radio communications, particularly in rural areas. I have a great sympathy indeed for the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron), the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) and other rural members of electorates which have very poor television and radio communications. I feel that the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) also has sympathy for them. I have found him to be very receptive in any discussions I have had with him, even to the extent of being quite generous in the Budget to the electorate of Indi. I must say how pleased we are to receive some $70,000 for a television translator in the Mansfield-Bonnie Doon area and $70,000 for a translator in the Yea area. These two heavily populated areas in my electorate in Victoria have lived with poor television reception and have been very upset about it for a great many years. Radio communication in quite a considerable area in the electorate of Indi-a heavily populated rural area, relatively speaking-has been particularly poor. The Minister has seen fit to make $100,000 available for a new national station to be constructed at Boorhaman near Wangaratta as well as another national station at Albury-Wodonga at a cost of $80,000. These stations will project a signal into very poor radio reception areas in the hilly and even mountainous terrain of which a great deal of my electorate is composed-Mount Beauty, Falls Creek and the Buffalo River valley; it is quite a large area. That is an injection of a considerable amount of money into one disadvantaged area. My point is that the moneys that are to be collected-even though I disagree with the principle of using communications as a source of revenue raising-could well be directed into these disadvantaged areas. Revenue from television licences has been increased from approximately $36m to $47m this year. An additional $2.4m will be raised from television stations and $40,000 from radio stations. I know that the Minister is very conscientous and keen to use this money to improve those areas to which I have just referred. One scheme is available to communities in areas which are experiencing poor television reception. I refer to the self-help television reception scheme. Mr Deputy Speaker, whilst I do not want to speak at any length on this subject, because I take heed of your desire that we keep as close as possible to the subject of the Bills, I feel that a great many people do not know that the scheme exists. The self-help television reception scheme is aimed at small communities in isolated rural areas of Australia which are too remote to receive television broadcasts or which receive very poor reception. I urge any small community in those circumstances to make contact with the Department of Communications. I suggest such communities would be advised to talk to their district radio inspector who will arrange for a State broadcasting engineer to contact them, discuss the scheme and give them some idea whether it would be practical and whether they should go ahead. Honourable members can picture a group of some 20 or 30 families in an isolated valley who do not receive television or receive a very poor signal. If they each put in a couple of hundred dollars-I am only floating a figure-they might be able to enter the scheme and put in a self-help translator with the assistance of the Department. They could get a perfect signal and their worries would be over. It is not fair for people who live in country areas to be disadvantaged when it is possible to give them the advantages enjoyed by their city cousins. That applies also to radio reception, but particularly to television reception. I do not think any government, whether it be a socialist or a non-socialist government, can use the argument: 'Well, you have a great way of life in the bush, so you have to take the disadvantages with the advantages'. That is just not good enough. When these facilities can be made available, it is very important that they should be made available. These Bills set a precedent in collecting revenue outside cost recovery. If the Minister, the Government and any future government use that technique to fund improvement in communications systems, I will not be nearly as critical as if that money were merely put into Consolidated Revenue. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(12.23) —I support the Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill and the Television Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill. I note that one of the important criteria which are built into the changes is the capacity of the industry to pay. Of course, that is very important when we look at the responsibility of a Commonwealth government towards the broadcasting industry. We are concerned-I believe the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) has expressed his concern very adequately-that we should look at the capacity of industry in this area to pay and to remain viable. With that in mind, the measures will affect only those stations that do have capacity to pay. It is also important to note in the Minister's second reading speech on the Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill that a flat fee of $500 is payable on the grant of any new station licence. I point out to the House that in Perth we have an urgent need for the granting of a new television station licence. Western Australia currently has two commercial networks-TVW7 and STW9. They service the metropolitan and country areas of Western Australia. One can make a very strong case for a third commercial television station for Western Australia. Since the Television Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill addresses itself to the question of capacity to pay, it is interesting to observe the mean average income of the two metropolitan stations in Western Australia. In 1980-81 they realised some $23m and in 1981-82 they realised some $27m. The total television revenue in 1980-81 of those television stations was $46m and in 1981-82 it was $54m. That suggests that there is certainly capacity of television stations in Perth to pay within the current market. One can make a very strong case that there ought to be a third network. A third station in Perth would bring the assumed mean average income of three stations in Perth to $18m. That figure of $18m is down on the $27m which is the average amount shared by the two current stations. But honourable members will appreciate that that figure is some $2m higher than the average income of the three stations in Adelaide. When it is recognised that metropolitan Perth now has a higher population than does metropolitan Adelaide, one can make a very strong case for saying that a third commercial television licence ought to be granted in Perth. I believe that a strong case can be made to that effect. It is interesting to note also that Mr Robert Holmes a Court, the Managing Director of Channel 7 in Perth, said in a radio interview in February 1982: It wouldn't be my role to oppose a third commercial licence for Perth. With regard to the industry's performance and the capacity of the community to bear the sorts of things outlined in the Bill, it is quite obvious that the community in Perth could bear a third viable commercial station. It is also interesting to note that it is very difficult for people to buy time on the two existing commercial stations in Perth. In fact, there is a backlog of about two months. Obviously, when examining the question of viability, as this Bill does, one can make a very strong case for a third commercial licence. There would be a demand from business and the community generally in Perth, and a third station could operate very effectively. As this Bill does pay attention to the structure of the industry and to the reasoned performance of industry, I believe that this House should pay great attention to the need expressed by the business community in Perth for a third television licence. In looking at other factors, one of the things that are important in broadcasting is the responsibility to the community. Applicants for broadcasting licences in Australia have always talked about their responsibility to the community and the importance that they attach to the community having a say in the way those broadcasting licences are conducted. Unfortunately, at the moment, TWV7 in Perth is no longer a publicly listed company. In effect, any input that the community might want to have in that station has diminished. I believe that results in an important decline in the quality of broadcasting in Perth. At the same time, as this Bill talks about the question of capacity to pay, one can make a very strong case, as I said earlier, for a third television station in Perth. When we look at the background to the revenue that would be generated by a third television station in Perth-the population of Perth is now higher than the population of Adelaide-and if we assume an income of $18m for that station, a very strong case can be made for a third television station in Perth. In the terms of this Bill and in the terms of the responsibility of government to provide adequate broadcasting facilities one can make a very strong case. In conclusion, I am pleased to commend these Bills to the House. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(12.29) —Firstly, I thank those honourable members who participated in this debate. Last night the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), on behalf of the Opposition, dealt with the substantive matters to a greater degree than most honourable members on the other side of the House did. They dealt largely with matters which justifiably concerned them in respect of the areas that they represent. However, I would like to reply briefly to a couple of matters. Last evening the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) raised the question of television in the Mount Marshall area. He indicated that the matter had been referred to in the Budget for many years and had been removed this year on the basis that there were not too many votes in that area for the Australian Labor Party. The fact is that the Mount Marshall matter has never been in the Estimates. It has in fact been in successive three- and five-year plans and it is still in the current five-year plan. I think the honourable member for O'Connor will now understand that what he claimed last night was not correct. The honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) raised various matters related to the backlog in planning. I make it quite clear that the backlog in planning in the Broadcasting Division, which is at the heart of much of the difficulty we have in the broadcasting area, together with the almost permanent paralysis of the previous Government in making decisions in this area, has caused considerable difficulty. This Government has carried out its election commitment to make available $1m-$550,000 this year and the balance next year-to start clearing that backlog. Of course, that will meet many of the problems raised by the honourable member for McPherson, who has a very genuine concern, as do all other honourable members, for the local matters they raised. I also feel that the honourable member for McPherson was really talking about a different type of licensing altogether. It was interesting to note his views on that matter, but it seems to me to be something we will have to consider sometime in the future. The honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) again raised problems about the Dandenong Ranges. I refer, as he did, to the question he asked in this House the other day. Although I cannot give a specific date for the commencement of construction there, the Department of Communications is proceeding with the utmost speed and I hope that more definite information will be available soon. I must say to the honourable member for La Trobe that the problems there involving the Department of Communications are not matters for which the Department of Communications can be held responsible. They relate to the miserable, penny- pinching attitude of the previous Government in relation to making resources available to that Department. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) always enters such debates because of his concern for people in remote areas in his electorate. I would like to correct one matter that he raised. He said that Telecom Australia tried to stop the satellite system. I make it quite clear that Telecom did not try to stop the system. There was some opposition from Telecom unions, but I suggest that the honourable member for Maranoa ought to distinguish between the organisation itself and views which may be expressed by unions in the area. He also raised what I found a rather interesting concept for a member of the National Party of Australia. He seemed to be contemplating direct broadcasting from the satellite by the networks, a view which I would not have thought would be shared by very many of his colleagues. The honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) also raised the backlog problems in his electorate, which is another vast electorate. The backlog in planning in the broadcasting area is something we are doing what we can to meet as quickly as we can. The concern expressed by the honourable member for Grey for the regional stations has been noted. I thank the honourable member for Indi (Mr Ewen Cameron) for his kind remarks. I know of the problems in his area. Many people do not realise that it is not only the very remote areas that have difficulties with respect to television and radio. I would not think that Wangaratta would be described as remote, but I can remember over many years the difficulties there, not with television because it did not exist in those days, but certainly with radio reception. I appreciate the matters raised by the honourable member for Indi. The honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) spoke about matters more directly related to the Bills. He raised the issue of the third television station in Perth. Of course, this is a matter that the Government will address in the near future. I also thank other honourable members who spoke on the Bills last night for their contributions, including the honourable member for Isaacs ( Mr Charles) and the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Saunderson). The honourable member for Isaacs dealt with the question of Australian content in television and the honourable member for Deakin dealt with the instrumentalities involved, particularly Telecom. I do not propose to go over again the matters set out in my second reading speech. But in view of the issues raised by the Opposition, particularly the honourable member for Murray, and repeated by other Opposition members this morning, it is necessary to emphasise certain matters because it is clear that the Opposition does not understand the facts with regard to these Bills. The honourable member for Murray quoted from my second reading speech where I said: The main purpose of imposing a fee on companies licensed to earn income from broadcasting is to contribute to overall Commonwealth revenues. This is a fact, and the Government does not make any apology for this statement. From listening to the honourable member for Murray one would think that these fees represented a new measure for raising funds. In particular, he and other members of the Opposition were critical of the fact that fees are assessed on average gross earnings. It is necessary to remind those opposite-and let us hope it gets through to them eventually-that this system has operated since 1964. It is nauseating nonsense to hear those opposite whinging about a method of assessment introduced by them and maintained by them from 1964 to 1972 and from 1975 to when they were finally thrown out of office in March this year. In respect of that matter, I refer to the fact that in 1981-82, when the last major increases took place under the Fraser Government in licence fees for radio stations and television stations, the Bills were classified as tax Bills. I think that is something that particularly the honourable member for Murray should take account of. In those years the licence fees payable far exceeded the cost of administration allocated to the Department of Communications and the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. It is therefore nonsense for those opposite to pretend that the licence fees during that period related to cost recovery. They did not relate to cost recovery-they far exceeded the administrative costs involved-and in that period it was clearly a taxation measure. In order that this matter might be clarified once and for all for some who seem to have some difficulty in comprehending, I would like to refer to the debate that took place on the Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Bill in 1981. On that occasion the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), referring to his proposal to amend the Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Act and the Television Licence Fees Act 1964, said: Honourable members will be aware that those Acts impose fees in the nature of a royalty charge, thus following the practice common to all governments of ensuring that the public gains some benefit from the commercial utilisation of public resources. I refer the honourable member for Murray to page 2,292 of Hansard for 21 October 1981 in order that he can be clear on that issue. Further, in the Senate on 27 August 1981, in respect of the same Bills, Senator Peter Baume showed his great flair and originality by quoting the exact words used by the right honourable member for New England when the Bills were introduced into this chamber. The issue is clear. The radio frequency spectrum is a scarce natural resource on which the community is entitled to expect a fair return when it is used for monetary gain. I repeat: The measures contained in these Bills will affect only one radio station-the one with the highest turnover-out of 134 stations and will affect 16 television stations with the highest turnover out of a total of 50 commercial television stations. There will be a small increase in licence fees for television stations with average gross earnings in excess of $9m. It was appalling to listen to Opposition members attempting to paint themselves as supporters of public enterprise when their actions in government represented public sector bigotry dressed up as economic rationalism. In fairness it must be said that the honourable member for Murray conceded that the previous Government required the Overseas Telecommunications Commission to pay dividends, and he should be reminded that such dividends were above a prudent level. Telecom Australia and Australia Post during the period of the Fraser Government were subjected to the Davidson Inquiry into Telecommunications Services in Australia and the Bradley Committee of Inquiry into the Monopoly Position of the Australian Postal Commission. They recommended taxation levels on these authorities which would have had a devastating effect. Had these recommendations been implemented it would have been impossible for Telecom or Australia Post to have a profit situation. It is also necessary to refer to a Press release of 25 August by the honourable member for Murray. He said: And now that Australia Post has announced a profit for 1982-83 of about $89m, will it be next on the Government's hit list for taxing? The profit figure of $89m was repeated by the honourable member for Murray in this debate. I thought it might have been a misprint in the Press release but he repeated it last night. This claim is absolute humbug. The actual profit of Australia Post was $8.9m, not $89m. It is hoped that the honourable member for Murray will be a little more careful in his analysis of the financial affairs of Australia Post. While I am discussing Australia Post I think it should be pointed out that the Government has confirmed that following consideration of the Bradley report the basic functions and duties of Australia Post will remain untouched. We as a government are committed to the development of an efficient postal system on the basis of a publicly owned national utility. We have endorsed the following proposals: The extension of postal services such as Australia Post Express courier; the use of electronic mail; the use of post offices for additional agency services in both the public and private sector, and a revision of leasing provisions of the Postal Services Act to allow Australia Post to use and develop its property to maximum potential. Those matters gave considerable delight to Australia Post because we were giving it what it wanted to improve its performance and to avoid the position in which it was left during the period of the last government when those services were not available to it. I remind honourable members opposite that the Australia Post courier service was ripped off Australia Post as one of the decisions taken by the infamous razor gang of the Fraser Government. Telecom can now plan without having hanging over its head fears of profitable areas being hived off to private enterprise, leaving it in a position of having to carry the unprofitable areas. I find it very strange that members of the National Party particularly do not fully understand that had many of the recommendations of the Davidson inquiry been put into effect it would have been impossible for Telecom to continue to provide services in country areas at the cost at which it was able to provide then in the past. I understand that the honourable member for Murray has foreshadowed an amendment, which no doubt he will move in due course, to the Television Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy) read a third time. Debate resumed from 24 August, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(12.45) —I move: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House deplores the action of the Government in extending the use of fees in the television area beyond cost recovery to a new source of taxation revenue'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Connolly —I second the amendment. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy) read a third time. Sitting suspended from 12.46 p.m. to 2 p.m. Mr SPEAKER —Yesterday, the Deputy Leader of the National Party referred to a statement made by the President of the Senate concerning the number of questions being asked at Question Time. I undertook to look at this situation insofar as it relates to this House and have examined the figures for the Budget period of sittings in 1982 and the first period of sittings this year. Honourable members will be interested to note that on days on which questions were asked the average number of questions asked per day was 14.8 over 25 days for the 1982 period and 14.3 over 12 days for the 1983 period. Details of questions asked during these periods are being circulated to honourable members, and with the concurrence of honourable members will be incorporated in Hansard. The document read as follows- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Questions without Notice Budget 1982 Autumn 1983 17.8.1982 to 21.4.1983 to 14.12.1982 26.5.1983 No. Per cent No. Per cent A.L.P. 195 52.8 82 48 Lib. 130 35.2 67 39.2 N.P. 44 12 22 12.8 Total 369 171 Average number of questions on days which questions were asked: Budget 1982-14.8 (25 days) Autumn 1983-14.3 (12 days). Mr SPEAKER —I ask honourable members to remember that Question Time is an exercise requiring co-operation from both those asking the questions and those providing the answers. Mr PEACOCK —May I say, Mr Speaker, that the Opposition supports your decision to allow cameras into the House today to film the first part of Question Time. The reason is obvious: It is, of course, that the old footage has the honourable member for Port Adelaide on the front bench. One can only speculate that you, sir, know something about the honourable member's future that the Prime Minister does not. My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Does he support the opening of an Arab League Office in Australia and has the Department of Foreign Affairs already upgraded contact with the Palestine Liberation Organisation? Mr HAWKE —The whole question of the policy of this Government towards the Middle East will be the subject of a submission by my friend and colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Mr Howard —Your mate. Mr HAWKE —Yes, indeed he is my mate. It is a very close and tender relationship. We have not yet got to the stage of sending flowers to one another but, as is evident from the very clear and decisive foreign policy of this Government, it is a very constructive relationship between the two of us. As I said, the whole question of the policy of this Government towards the vexed area of the Middle East, an area about which I know the Opposition shares the concern of this Government, will be examined and within that examination I have no doubt that the specific questions raised by the Leader of the Opposition will be taken into account. As we are being a little gratuitous in the asking and therefore in the answering of questions, may I on behalf of the Government say to the Leader of the Opposition that we hope that in the near future he has a happier and more pleasurable honeymoon than he has had as Leader of the Opposition. Mr SPEAKER —Before calling the next question I advise the House that in the gallery this afternoon we have the distinguished presence of the Chairman and members of the Committee on Transport and Communications of the Swedish Parliament. On behalf of the House I offer them a warm welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr O'NEIL —My question is directed to the Minister for Transport. Because of the terrible uncertainty of future employment for workers at the Monier railway sleeper plant at Port Augusta, can the Minister give any assurance of continuity of work for the workers at the plant, bearing in mind that the present work contract at the sleeper plant finishes on 5 November and approximately 40 jobs will be lost? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for his question. I am very much aware of his deep concern for his electors in the electorate of Grey and particularly for the workers and residents of the Port Augusta region. I am aware that claims have been reported that the Australian National Railways Commission has reduced its program for resleepering in 1983-84. Let me make the point that AN's decision to reduce the rate of resleepering was made in the time of the previous Government, in respect of 1982-83 and 1983-84. It was not made as a result of the Budget, as has been claimed by some honourable members opposite. AN's decision to lay 120,000 sleepers per year was a commercial decision based on prudent management, taking into account the fact that it had some $7.5m invested in sleepers stockpiled. Mr Sinclair —There are a few sleepers over there, too. Mr PETER MORRIS —I can see the odd one on the front bench opposite at the moment . When Monier tendered for the contract for 800,000 sleepers in March 1980 it knew full well that that contract would expire on 5 November 1983. If more sleepers are to be ordered, one would expect that in accordance with normal practice fresh tenders will be invited and that there will be other tenderers as well as Monier. I want to assure you, Mr Speaker, and the electors in the electorate of Grey that the member has been assiduous in his efforts and in his representations to me in trying to improve the position there. He has played a principal role in the submission under the community employment program of several projects that would enable-- Mr Sinclair —You have failed, haven't you? Mr PETER MORRIS —If the right honourable member is not interested he should leave the chamber. If he is not concerned about jobs for people in South Australia he is free to leave. He does not have to stay. He does not have to listen. The Opposition is renowned, Mr Speaker, for its efforts in creating unemployment rather than employment. The honourable member for Grey has been involved in a submission and in representations to the Government in regard to AN under the community employment program, which would entail the use of several hundred thousand sleepers, so bringing forward the date at which new tenders would be called. However those applications are matters that have to be considered by the respective consultative committee and are matters that come under the umbrella and responsibilities of my colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. That decision will be made, I hope, in the near future. It may be that as a result of that decision things may be able to be improved. Mr ANTHONY —Does the Minister for Trade agree that progress towards greater trade liberalisation between Australia and New Zealand is vital for both our primary and secondary industries and the people of both countries? Is it true that high level talks scheduled in New Zealand this week on the rationalisation of the motor vehicle industry under the closer economic relations agreement have not gone ahead? Is the reason for this New Zealand's concern at the Australian Government's restrictive attitude to New Zealand's investment in Australia? What is the Government doing to ensure the continuation of the trade liberalisation process between the two countries begun by the Liberal-National Party Government last year? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is true that the Government entered into the closer economic relationship with New Zealand which was formalised in March this year. It followed negotiations carried on by the previous Government, and the honourable member was the instigator of the arrangement. The relationship is proving to be very fruitful and very beneficial, but there are areas of disagreement, not the least of which is the liberalisation of motor vehicle trade. An alteration in tariffs in respect of New Zealand imports could affect sales by and to Australia and, thereby, employment in Australia, and particularly in South Australia. These matters have been the subject of discussions between officials but also, I might add, between Mr Muldoon and me. I found him to be very receptive, very co- operative and very anxious to come to a satisfactory solution. I understand that there are problems in respect of what one would call investment in Australia. I understand that that matter of course has been the subject of discussion between the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. I am aware that meetings between officials on motor vehicles are programmed for next week. I am aware also that New Zealand has asked that those talks be postponed until such time as there is further opportunity to consider New Zealand's representations concerning what it calls harmonisation of policies in respect of trans-Tasman investment. I am very hopeful that those policies can be ironed out because it is of importance to the furtherance of trade that trade liberalisation proceed. I think that can be done. Of course, it is a matter of the rules being abided by. In respect of trade there are no problems. In respect of foreign investment policies there are one or two hiccups. Mr CAMPBELL —Is the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware of the lengthy dispute in the Pilbara region concerning Hamersley Iron Pty Limited in relation to claims for shorter working hours? Is the Government concerned about this dispute? What action is the Government taking in search of a resolution? Mr WILLIS —Yes, I am aware of this claim for a 36-hour week on behalf of members of the work force of Hamersley Iron. They have been applying quite disruptive work bans for several weeks in pursuit of that claim. It has been before the Western Australian Industrial Commission without any progress to this stage. At present some 1,400 workers have been stood down at Mount Tom Price and Paraburdoo. That has been the case as from 1 September. I understand that another 800 workers may well be stood down next week if the dispute is not resolved as the company will, by then, have run out of ore to ship. Of course, I am concerned about this matter, and so too is the Government, for two reasons. The first is that the claim for a 36-hour week is not in accord with Government policy; indeed, nor is it in accord with the prices and incomes accord. Members of the work force at Hamersley Iron are currently working a 40-hour week. I am aware of the fact that workers at nearby companies like Goldsworthy Mining Limited and Cliffs Western Australia Mining Co. Pty Ltd at Robe River are working a 38-hour week, and it would not be unreasonable for the work force at Hamersley to seek to obtain a 38-hour week so long as the workers were prepared to negotiate meaningful offsets in the way that is generally recognised in the application of the 38-hour week so that the cost increases, as a result of moving to a 38-hour week, were negligible. But a move to a 36-hour week is simply not on. I think honourable members would not need any lectures from me to understand that a move to a 36-hour week at this stage, when we are poised for recovery, would certainly not be conducive to that recovery and could well mean that that recovery would not take place. I am concerned also about the future of the iron ore industry. As I understand it, we have a situation in which several contracts are up for renewal next year. At present a delegation from Japan is visiting Australia. That delegation went to the Pilbara recently and saw what one newspaper described as a study in still -life. This was hardly conducive to our long term prospects in the Pilbara. We know that the Japanese are looking continually at diversification of their supplies. It is a matter of concern that Hamersley Iron was in a state of close down when a delegation from Japan went there. The Government has had contact with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Western Australian Trades and Labor Council and the Western Australian Minister for Industrial Relations on various occasions but, I must say, without success at this stage. I call on the workers at Hamersley Iron to take a more realistic approach to their claims, to enter into meaningful negotiations with the company for a 38-hour week, but to foresake the 36-hour week claim at this stage. It is simply not in accordance with the prices and incomes accord and not at all in accordance with what we need in this country for economic recovery. Mr TUCKEY —I address my question to the Minister for Territories and Local Government. Considering the establishment of several camps on the lawns in front of Parliament House, is it now permitted for all members of the public to use this area for camping? In particular, considering that this location is very convenient for a Federal member of parliament, will the Minister give me approval to establish a caravan on the lawns next week for use as a political and residential structure? If not, will the Minister end the present discrimination by removing the present camps? Mr UREN —This Government stands for freedom of assembly and freedom to protest, even when that protest sometimes is directed against this Government. We have always stood for the rights of minorities. Quite frankly, I believe this Parliament should tolerate those minorities, particularly when many of them are suffering greatly in this society today. The camping of people in front of Parliament House has always been tolerated by all governments with rare exceptions. One exception, of course, occurred in the early 1970s. We know that members of the Aboriginal protest movement were removed by the then McMahon Government. At that time we pledged that when we came into government we would alter the regulations, which we tried to do, but we were defeated in the Senate. Since that time no real action has been taken by any government. At present we are discussing this matter within the Government with a view to amending the legislation so that there will be the right of freedom of assembly. But I say in fairness to all those people who have assembled in front of Parliament House that everyone of them has sought a permit before doing so. I am not saying that they needed a permit but, in fact, they all sought one. It has been suggested to me by the Prime Minister that if the honourable member wants to camp there we make sure that he forgoes his parliamentary allowance. Mr GAYLER —Is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs aware that Commonwealth funds are being used by the Director of the Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement in Queensland, Mr Killoran, to visit Aboriginal and islander communities in Queensland for purely political purposes in seeking endorsement for him as a candidate to run in forthcoming Queensland elections. Mr HOLDING —I thank the honourable member for his question. Unfortunately we have been advised through organisations and Aboriginal leaders in Queensland that Mr Killoran has been visiting communities purporting to represent the outgoing Minister for Northern Development and Aboriginal and Island Affairs, Mr Val Bird , and that during the course of these visits-- Mr Sinclair —Tell us about your superannuation, Clyde. Mr HOLDING —The right honourable member will have to use his gaol voice. I cannot quite hear what he is saying. We have been advised that during the course of these visits Mr Killoran has been canvassing votes amongst Aboriginal leaders and communities on the basis of inquiring whether they would support him if he were to stand for election as an endorsed candidate of the National Party. If Mr Killoran wants to stand for election to the Queensland Parliament, I would be the first to endorse his right to do so; but I would suggest that the appropriate course of action for him to follow is to stand down from his position and seek the endorsement of his party. Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I think that the members of the Opposition front bench could set a better example to the House. They have been repeatedly interjecting. Mr HOLDING —I am not able to identify the funds that are being used for this visit as being Commonwealth funds, but I am able to say that the funds being applied by the Queensland Government and the Commonwealth on behalf of what is still the most dispossessed group of people in Australian society are subject to scandalous abuse if they are being used in the way suggested. I would invite the loudmouthed Deputy Leader of the National Party to condemn this scandalous abuse of funds. I invite him so to do, because I believe that this is a mater which ought to be repudiated by the Premier of Queensland. It is a matter which will be vigorously pursued on my behalf with Mr Bird in order that the strength of this allegation is established one way or another and to see that this kind of abuse of public moneys-- Mr McVeigh —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister know that the Premier of Queensland has no parliamentary superannuation fund membership? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Darling Downs knows that that is not a point of order. The House can take action against honourable members raising such matters in a frivolous way. Mr HOLDING —I simply say to the honourable member for Darling Downs that I would have thought that every member of this Parliament would stand prepared to disabuse themselves of this allegation. It brings no credit to Mr Killoran, to the Government of Queensland, or to the National Party-although I suspect that members of that party have long ago abandoned any pretence of credibility. Mr HODGMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Is it correct that the Minister has persistently refused to state publicly his reasons for revoking the deportation order in the Brett Collins case? As the judges consistently upheld the deportation order in the Collins case, why has the Minister reversed their decision? Mr WEST —The honourable member has finally discovered the Collins case, I see. The first question to me on immigration and ethnic affairs is not with regard to policy but with regard to a deportation case. I have not refused to state my reasons. It is simply that it has been the practice of past Ministers not to state reasons in deportation decisions, unless they have actually gone against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to revoke a deportation order. However, I do not mind informing the honourable member of some of my reasoning on this very complex case. First, Collins was a well-known prison activist who is married to an Australian citizen. My predecessor decided to deport Collins, but Collins left voluntarily some time in December last year. My Department informs me that the fact that he left voluntarily cast some doubt on whether a legal deportation order was still in existence and that the real question for me to decide was whether Collins should not be readmitted to Australia on the basis of his previous record. Collins applied to me, not long after I became Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, to re-enter Australia. I deferred that decision for consideration by me and my Department. He applied again recently to re-enter Australia to attend the hearings of a Federal Court case that he himself had instigated. The Federal Court was asked to overturn a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal not to review further his deportation order. I thought that the rules of natural justice were in favour of readmitting Collins so that he could be present during the hearing of the Federal Court case that he had instigated. When he reached Australia, his parole was revoked and he was incarcerated by the New South Wales authorities. After consultation with my Department, I decided that the only way out of this sorry mess was to revoke the deportation order, to settle the matter whether an order was in existence, and then to grant permanent entry to Collins. That was done several weeks ago. I say to the honourable member for Denison, in conclusion on this matter, that the decision to readmit Collins is entirely in accordance with the deportation policy that I announced in this House in May. I said then that future deportation cases would be decided on four criteria: Firstly, the nature of the crime; secondly, the risk of recidivism; thirdly, the contribution that the person concerned might make to Australian society in the future; and, fourthly, the rights of other Australian citizens and permanent residents. On the last three of those criteria, Collins should be readmitted and should not have been deported by my predecessor in the first place. He was a prison activist. There was no real suggestion that there might be a risk of recidivism, and he had a son in Australia and had an Australian citizen as a wife. And in my view, he had some rights. I believe that he should never have been deported in the first place. I might add that on no other case have I received more representations from Federal members of parliament and from respected members of the legal profession . The Human Rights Commission wrote to me about it. Many honourable members opposite have written to me asking for Collins to be readmitted to Australia. Opposition members interjecting- Mr WEST —I can name them. Mr Sinclair —Senator Gareth Evans? Mr WEST —Senator Gareth Evans has written to me. But a number of Opposition members who now see fit to heckle us on this decision have written to me making strong representations on this matter. I conclude by saying that it is not the policy of this Government to use deportation as a weapon to inflict double punishment. It is for the courts of the States and the Federal Court and the Federal Administrative Appeals Tribunal to decide that. It is not a double punishment; it is a measure to protect Australian society. On the three criteria that I have enunciated, Collins should never have been deported. The decision to revoke the order was entirely correct, and at least half of the Opposition members believe that that was the right decision. Mr WELLS —I shall ask my question when the farmyard noises from members of the National Party die down. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will be ordered to sit down if he does not ask his question. Mr WELLS —My question is directed to the Minister for Transport. Is the Minister aware of the deplorable state of the Old Northern Road which provides a link for the residents of the Pine Shire with the city of Brisbane? Is he aware that, although it is a major connecting route as well as a mere dirt track, it is not eligible for assistance under the jobs-on-local-roads program since it is not a local road? Do other sources of Commonwealth funding which would facilitate its upgrading depend on a request from the Government of Queensland? Has he received any such request from the Queensland Government? Mr PETER MORRIS —I am aware of the deplorable condition of the Old Northern Road in the electorate of Petrie. It is the result of the administration of the National Party in Queensland and its neglect of the ordinary basic needs of residents in that part of Brisbane. I have personally witnessed the danger of that road. It is a corrugated, dusty, dirty road and, at times, a quite dangerous road because of the sharp bends and curves and the dust that rises when vehicles travel over it. It is not eligible for funding under our new jobs on local roads program because it is classified as an arterial road. Let me make the point that this year the increase in Federal expenditure on roads will be greater than it has been in any year since Federation. This year the State of Queensland will receive some $262m by way of Federal assistance for roads, an increase of about 45 per cent. Of all the money going to Queensland for arterial roads, national highways and local roads, no application or proposal has yet come forward from the Queensland Government in respect of the Old Northern Road. There have been diligent and persistent representations from the honourable member for Petrie on behalf of the residents of that region. They have certainly had an impact upon me, but I do not have the power to initiate funding for that project. In response to and in recognition of the efforts of the honourable member for Petrie and of the needs for safety of the people who live in that region, I have referred the matter to the Queensland Minister responsible for roads-that very popular National Party member in Queensland-and asked him to consider placing this road on priority for Federal road construction funding. Mr ANTHONY —Did the Prime Minister tell the House yesterday that he had not discussed with the honourable member for Port Adelaide earlier this week the honourable member's desire to return to the Ministry? In view of reports by Miss Michelle Grattan of the Age, Mr Greg Hywood of the Australian Financial Review and Mr Paul Kelly of the Sydney Morning Herald that the Prime Minister did discuss this matter with the honourable member for Port Adelaide, will the Prime Minister now say who is telling the truth? Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, in answering the question yesterday I said that I did not meet the honourable member for Port Adelaide to discuss his desire to return to the Ministry. That answer was correct and remains correct. I imagine that everyone is getting tired of the repetitious attempts of the Opposition to drag around in this matter. Mr Speaker, the position is quite clear. I have answered the question on a number of occasions. Let me make it quite clear that the circumstances surrounding the resignation of the honourable member for Port Adelaide go to matters which are being considered by the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies, and nothing will be done in regard to this matter until that report comes down. I repeat what I said yesterday in regard to the question. The question was: Did I meet with the honourable member for Port Adelaide to discuss his desire to return to the Ministry? My answer is no. In the discussions that arose in the meeting I had with him the issue of his return to the Ministry did arise. The only conclusion to be drawn from the question yesterday and the question today is that the members of the Opposition ought to learn how to get their questions straight. Mr MAHER —My question is directed to the Treasurer. In recent days the Amalgamated Metals, Foundry and Shipwrights Union and the Australian Council of Trade Unions have expressed concern that the new Australian $1 coin will be made overseas, depriving Australians of jobs. The unions have threatened to impose bans on the imported coins. Is it a fact that the $1 coin will be made overseas? If so, what is the background to this decision? Mr KEATING —I am pleased to give the honourable member a reply on this issue in order to shed a bit of light on some of the issues which have been canvassed in the Press in recent days. The first thing I should like to say is that the $1 coin will be minted in Australia at the Royal Australian Mint. The finishing and burnishing of the coin will be completed here but the blanks for the coin will be imported from abroad. I might mention that 60 per cent by value of the imported coin is in the form of Australian content-Australian copper. The coins will be minted from an aluminium-bronze alloy. It might be worth recalling that in respect of the coin the Mint carried out a survey of the public, the vending industry and the banks, et cetera, and looked at the present metals which were used in coinage. It determined that a shaped coin, which Mint officials had in mind as a distinguishing characteristic, was not favourably endorsed by the public, the banks or manufacturers in terms of sorting and vending machine equipment. Therefore the preference was for a round coin. With a round coin it was thought desirable to move to a metal of a different colour, one which did not stain and which was distinctive. Therefore the aluminium-copper alloy was chosen. Tenders were let, but there was not one Australian tenderer. Indeed Austral Bronze Crane Copper Ltd, which of late has indicated some interest in this matter, did not tender. The only tenders received by the Government were overseas tenders. The view has since been put to us by a number of unions that Austral Bronze has said that it was not apprised of the metal content of the coins until the tender was in fact let. The Mint informed me that as early as February this year it approached Austral Bronze about the prospect of its laboratory doing some aluminium-copper alloy samples, but it was not able so to do. Indeed, the superintendent of the Mint met with representatives of Austral Bronze on 4 February and again on 23 March when these matters were discussed. That was, of course, four months before the tenders were even opened. I think the proposition that the Government did not make the tendering available to Austral Bronze does not stands up to scrutiny. Since 1981 Austral Bronze has received all the Mint business except for some of the 50c blanks. This is in line with the Government's policy of Australian preference. Indeed the latest tender awarded to the company involved a preference of some 36 per cent, which was very much beyond the normal 20 per cent which applies. There are employment difficulties, I believe, at Austral Bronze. Frankly, I think Austral Bronze is putting its troubles on to the Government's back by suggesting to the unions, which to this time have believed the company, that in some way the Government discriminated against Austral Bronze for not tendering. It has been indicated to the Government by Austral Bronze that it does not have the technology to handle this metal; that it was not prepared to invest for the supply of 1,400 tonnes of the metal to replace the dollar note, which will be a very big issue of coinage in a short time; that in fact there are continuing orders for the other coins; and that the company is working within its capacity. The company was not prepared to tender. It was not interested. Now that it has some pressure from the unions it has decided to turn that pressure on the Federal Government. We think we have treated Austral Bronze very fairly. In the Budget the Government has allocated funds for the upgrading of the Mint in Canberra where the blanking equipment will be cleared away and the finishing will be improved, with the installation of machines to finish the dollar coin. Indeed, when that blanking equipment is taken from the Mint, Austral Bronze, amongst others, will have the opportunity at least to tender for that blanking work. As the company has been a successful tenderer for a while one would expect that it would be competitive. I think this indicates that the Government has been entirely fair. The claims which some union officials have made-although they may have quite earnestly believed what they said-in fact are erroneous. Mr EWEN CAMERON —My question is directed to the Treasurer. I refer to his claim that the defeat of the so-called bottom of the harbour legislation now before the Parliament would reduce projected revenue receipts this financial year by $ 60m and would threaten the Government's strategy for economic recovery. In the light of this claim, will the Treasurer inform the House as to what effect on the Government's strategy for economic recovery its decision to change the Budget night announcements will have on fuel oil excise, which this financial year involves a loss of $69m in revenue and a total Budget turnaround of $145m? Mr KEATING —We do not need any smart questions from the Opposition to try to smother the fact that it is in the business of protecting the tax avoidance industry in this country. I will give an example of the thorough inconsistency of honourable members opposite. Last year, when they were the Government of Australia, they were in the business of recouping company tax collections, which were denied to the Government by way of bottom of the harbour tax avoidance measures, on current year profits-not the profits on retained earnings in former years or the capital of former years but on current year profits. The Government , in its legislation, proposes to collect money which would have been paid as personal taxation had profits been distributed instead of being stripped as a result of the activities of the tax avoidance industry so that now they can never be distributed. The Liberal Party, in its decaying morality, in its party room the other day indicated to the public that it would vote against the Government's taxation measures in the Senate, thereby ulti- mately denying the public $270m. That exposes once and for all the absolute duplicity of saying, on the one hand, that company tax can be collected but, on the other hand, that in respect of the retained earnings there should be no collection on the very same profits in the very same years. For example, for every $100, $46 would be collected in company tax under the recoupment legislation of the former Treasurer. Under the Government's legislation tax would be collected on the balance of the $100. The Opposition says that in some way that is different money, that in some way it is morally different to collect tax on that money because in the year in question it could have been retained in the company. The Liberal Party members have simply returned to type-gone back to their old colours. Once the spotlight of government is removed from them they are back in the old business of protecting the tax avoidance industry, as they did for five years when the Commissioner of Taxation was writing to the then Treasurer asking him, month by month, to do something about the bottom of the harbour and other tax avoidance procedures-at a time when we saw the greatest tax avoidance scandal of all time. It was exposed only by the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, which was set up in the first place not to investigate tax avoidance but to try to embarrass the Australian Labor Party. Let us be clear about that. There was an adjustment to fuel oil collections because of the perceived hardship which the Government believed would ensue in respect of the rate of collection from certain companies. The $270m in all is money which belongs to the people of Australia, money which will have to be made up, ultimately, by honest taxpayers while honourable members opposite protect the rip-off merchants , cheats and rorters with whom they have been in bed for years. Dr CHARLESWORTH —Can the Minister for Aviation outline what measures he has taken, or proposes to take-- Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Is it not appropriate that members who wish to address the Chair not only sit in their places but also dress appropriately in this place? Could you draw the honourable gentleman's attention to that matter? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The practice of the House is quite clear. Standards of dress are a matter for the individual judgment of a member. An ultimate discretion rests with the Speaker. Mr McVeigh —We are disappointed in him. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Darling Downs has already been warned. He is lucky that I do not take action after that warning. Dr Blewett —Is a tie really-- Mr SPEAKER —I do not thank the Minister for Health for his help, either. That ultimate discretion is a rather difficult matter to determine. It is difficult for the Speaker to be the arbiter of contemporary fashion. I have indicated to honourable members that I do not see the tie as a mark of any particular fashion . Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! A question has been asked and I am trying to answer it in a clear manner so that the House may make up its own mind. I would deplore it if the dignity of the House were disturbed by the dress of its members. The rule I have laid down is neatness, cleanliness and decency. I remind honourable members who are going to be critical of members' standards of dress that behaviour other than dress is also deplorable to the dignity of the House. Although I have indicated those standards for dress, it is still a matter for the individual judgment of the member. If members do not have a high standard in those areas I think the sanction will eventually be passed on them by others. Mr Cadman —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. As a further explanation, can you inform the House of your decision to draw a distinction between visitors to your gallery and members of Parliament? Mr SPEAKER —It is quite clear that a restriction is placed on the Speaker as far as members of parliament are concerned. They are elected by constituents to attend the House and carry out the duties of parliamentarians. It would be a very brave Speaker indeed who interfered with that right of members to attend and take part in the discussions. For dress of people in the gallery, I intend to apply a standard which I believe is one of neatness, cleanliness and decency. Dr Klugman —What standards of decency are you to apply, Mr Speaker? Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for Prospect, with his long experience in this place, should know that they are personal standards for which we each have our own levels. Dr CHARLESWORTH —Mr Speaker, I thank you for putting this issue in perspective. Can the Minister for Aviation outline what measures he has taken, or proposes to take, to give Australian based freight charter companies better opportunity to compete for international freight charter contracts? Will such measures exclude foreign airlines from carrying livestock from the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Quarantine Station to the Australian mainland? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. I note, by way of preface, that honourable members on this side of the House have always had some doubts as to whether the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia understands what precisely is meant by the appropriate standards of parliamentary behaviour, and we have had another demonstration from him today. I also congratulate the honourable gentleman who asked the question on the excellent job he has done quite recently in representing Australia in another sphere. I am sure that all members of parliament will join in that congratulation. I turn to the honourable member's question. I am very conscious of the difficulties being experienced by Australian based air freight charter companies in securing work in the current very difficult economic circumstances. They do face a very considerable downturn in the industry and the Government is keen to encourage greater participation by Australian operators in the carriage of air freight to and from other countries. Rural exporters, in particular, are keen to use air transport in opening up new overseas markets, and it is highly desirable that Australian air freight operators be involved. At the same time it is recognised that any measures that are taken to assist freight operators should not disadvantage Australian exporters. As a result of that, after careful consideration of views put to me, I have decided on measures designed to assist the fledgling Australian based air freight charter industry. From today Australian based charter operators will be given preference in some circumstances over third country operators for the carriage of their cargo. Mr Peacock —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Day after day I have allowed this to occur without drawing attention to it. The honourable member is reading line by line from a document as the Prime Minister and other Ministers have done . I do not want to be taking fruitless points of order, but it is not the purpose of Question Time for five or six minutes to be spent reading from a document. I have watched the Minister carefully, as have other members on this side of the House, and apart from turning his head to the rear his eyes have returned to reading line by line. Mr Speaker, can you give an instruction that this is the time for questions without notice and deal with the matter accordingly? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition knows that the Chair has no power with regard to that matter. Mr Peacock —I ask that the document from which the Minister is reading be tabled . Mr SPEAKER —Order! When I am giving a ruling the Leader of the Opposition will please allow me to finish that ruling. There is no bar on reading material in answer to a question. The Leader of the Opposition knows the standing order which refers to documents on public affairs. If he wishes to take that course, it is open to him. Otherwise there is no substance in the point of order. Mr Peacock —Mr Speaker, I raise a further point of order. As the document appears not to be classified, and the Minister has not claimed it to be so classified, I ask that he have it incorporated in Hansard rather than delay the House. Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I am quite capable of handling this matter without assistance from honourable members on my left. The Leader of the Opposition is out of order himself. He may make his request at the completion of the answer. I call the Minister for Aviation. Mr BEAZLEY —As I was saying, from today Australian based charter operators will be given preference in some circumstances over third country operators for the carriage of air cargo from Australia. For example, in the case of, say, a livestock charter from Australia to Singapore, Australian based operators would be given preference over foreign operators based in other countries. The exercise of this preference in individual cases will be conditional, however, on an Australian based operator undertaking at least to match the quoted costs and date of flight offered by a third country operator. The point that was raised with me about the question of Cocos (Keeling) Islands is very valid. It has been raised with me by other Opposition members from another place. They expressed concern about the possibility that difficulties would arise from a policy which prohibited foreign operators picking up livestock in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands that had been placed there for quarantine purposes and flying them through to Australia. Because of that particular problem-it breached practice-I have decided to take a look at that matter. I have considered representations put to me from them. In many respects I believe this particular trade should be considered as a special case, as a more narrow view to exclude foreign carriers would fail to give due weight to practical and economic considerations. If the Leader of the Opposition is not interested in this, I am sure some of his National Party colleagues will be, as many of their supporters happen to be disadvantaged by the problem. Because of the possible addition of higher costs this unnecessary delay could not be justified and it is, therefore, my intention to continue to allow participation by foreign carriers engaging in the carriage of livestock to Australia via the Cocos (Keeling) Island Quarantine Station. Australian based operators will, of course, still be free to compete for that opportunity on an equal basis. Mr McVeigh —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Under standing order 321, I ask the Minister to table the document from which he read his entire answer. Mr SPEAKER —Was the Minister quoting from a document on public affairs that was not confidential? Mr BEAZLEY —I was quoting from advice given to me. I understand that it is within my discretion to determine whether or not the document is tabled. Mr SPEAKER —In that case, as the Minister does not state that the document is confidential, he must table it. Annual Reports Mr SPEAKER —I present the reports on the operations of the Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff, Department of the Praliamentary Library and the Joint House Department pursuant to section 9B (2) of the Public Service Act 1922 as created by section 6 of the Public Service Acts Amendment Act 1982. The Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff has provided a reliable service throughout the year, not only to the two Houses of the Parliament but also to parliamentary committees. The Department continues to be involved in studies being undertaken for the establishment of an information storage and retrieval system for the Parliament. Computer technology and its application to parliamentary reporting are under close study by the Department with the prospect of improved service to members of parliament in the near future. The report of the Department of the Parliamentary Library is in two parts. The first section reports on activities in 1982 and completes a series of calendar year annual reports which commenced in 1978. The second section reports on the period January to June 1983 and contains a number of statistical tables expressed in financial year periods which will be the form used in future years. Demand for research and information services from senators and members continued at a high level during the period covered by the report. Planning for the new Parliament House and the introduction of new technology is being actively pursued and is likely to lead to a period of change for the Library which will be reflected in the years ahead. Honourable members appreciate the personal services of many staff members around the House. I should like to take this opportunity to draw the attention of honourable members to the retirement of Mrs Bobbie Sluyters in June of this year on medical grounds. Mrs Sluyters has worked in the Parliamentary Library for nearly 20 years and has gained wide respect from senators and members. Her name is particularly associated with the Current Information Service and her energy and helpfulness to senators and members deserves to be noted. I know that honourable members would wish me to express on their behalf our best wishes to Mrs Sluyters for a recovery in her health and a happy retirement. I am also pleased to table the first annual report prepared on the operations of the Joint House Department for the year 1982-83. The diverse functions of the Department are not generally known or acknowledged and the detailed nature of the report should assist in better understanding of its role. The Joint House Department is involved, to a significant extent, in the planning and development of services and facilities for the new Parliament House and references to those responsibilities occur throughout the report. I commend these reports to the House. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Australian Delegation to the United Nations General Assembly-Thirty-seventh Session, 1982. The report was made available to honourable members during the adjournment. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —Pursuant to section 39 of the Maritime College Act 1978, I present the annual report of the Council of the Australian Maritime College for 1982. For those honourable members who can read it is a very interesting report and, for the National Party, there are some very interesting pictures. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —For the information of honourable members present the Industries Assistance Commission's report on certain pigment dye-stuffs and colour lakes-developing country preferences. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 8 of the Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Act 1974, I present an agreement in relation to the provision of financial assistance to New South Wales and Victoria for urban expansion and redevelopment, Albury-Wodonga, 1982- 83. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Department of Science and Technology for 1982-83. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —On behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh), and pursuant to section 6 of the National Water Resources (Financial Assistance) Act 1978, I present documents relating to the provision of financial assistance to Queensland for the Burdekin Dam in 1982-83. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Canberra Development Board for 1981-82. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —by leave-A large number of issues are addressed in this very comprehensive report of the Joint Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee entitled: 'The Gulf and Australia' produced in April 1982. I wish to express appreciation to the Sub-Committee on Middle Eastern and African Affairs, and its Chairman, the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie), for the efforts put in to the compilation of this report. There are matters dealt with in the report on which some of my ministerial colleagues may well wish to comment further in due course. In my own remarks, I wish to emphasise that the report deals with an area of increasing importance to Australia. It covers the strategic significance of the Gulf area and the involvement of the super-powers there and gives close attention to the various regional concerns and factors. The main value of the report lies in its very careful and detailed consideration of the impact which all of these factors have upon Australia, and notably upon Australia's foreign affairs, defence and trade interests. If I could deal first with the question of super-power involvement in the area, I note the assessment in the report that the increased military and political activity of the Soviet Union and the United States of America and their allies has seen the Gulf become an area of increasing tension and possible super-power confrontation which Australia cannot ignore. In addition to the super-power rivalry in an area of such economic importance to the world, the possibility exists that the tragic conflict between Iran and Iraq may escalate, threatening the oil exports of all the countries in the area. In regard to the role of the Soviet Union, the report correctly notes that the Soviet Union has continued its policy of seeking Arab and international recognition of its claims, as a neighbour and super-power, to a legitimate role in the Middle East. The Soviet Union's influence in the region is still, however , secondary to that of the United States. The opportunities for it to increase its role and influence are limited by Arab and Iranian suspicions and by Islamic attitudes to communism. The Gulf states are also very aware of the continued Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Since, however, a primary concern of Arab countries remains the attitude of the super-powers towards the Arab-Israeli dispute, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will continue to have certain advantages over the West and particularly the United States because of the perception that the USSR is inclined towards the Arab point of view. The Soviet Union suffered embarrassment from its impotence during Israel's invasion of Lebanon and has made strenuous efforts to regain its influence in the Middle East. These efforts largely centre on its relationship with Syria. It has significantly increased the delivery of military supplies to Syria, in particular, surface to air missiles. Soviet prospects for injecting itself into the Arab-Israeli peace process remain limited, although it has an ability to disrupt any arrangements which exclude it. Soviet prospects for direct intervention in the Gulf itself also appear slight at present, but any escalation of the Iran-Iraq war could well change the situation. The report notes the intention of the United States to maintain a military capacity in this area of vital interest to it. The American Administration has tried to develop a regional strategic consensus to combat Soviet influence. To this end the Americans have conducted military exercises in Egypt, Sudan, Somalia and Oman. It would also be true to say, however, that moderate Arab states may sometimes be reluctant to be seen to be too close to the United States because of the perceived failure of the Americans effectively to tackle the Palestinian question and prevent Israel from pursuing policies in the West Bank and Gaza which are seen as contrary to resolution 242. The report has noted the importance of resolving the Arab-Israeli dispute. One effect of resolution of the dispute might well be a greater willingness on the part of moderate Arab states to be seen as pro-Western. The report includes a section relating to Australian strategic interest in the area. It notes that Australia has no direct strategic interest, but that it has a common concern, along with other countries, to secure an assured supply of oil and to continue to export to the area. If we widen the definition of strategic interest it might be possible to express some of our very real concerns in the area, which I see as the following: We are vitally concerned that the West and the developing world should be able to pursue balanced economic development through access to reliable supplies of oil at reasonable prices. We are vitally concerned that instability or conflict in the area could lead to heightened great power involvement with dangerous strategic implications. Our communications with Europe, including shipping and air links, depend on the availability of direct and secure routes through the area. The Islamic countries of the region have acquired marked political strategic significance in themselves because of their oil wealth and the growing influence in world politics of Islamic solidarity. I note that the report raises the question of in- volvement by Australia in the steps being taken by the United States to improve its military preparedness in the north west Indian Ocean because of events in the Gulf area in the last few years. The report refers particularly to United States planning for a rapid deployment force and indicates a probability that Australia will be involved, perhaps only as a staging post, if the Rapid Deployment Force, or components of and air cover for it, are ever rushed to the Gulf in a westerly direction from the United States. The present position is however that Australia clearly has its own independent views on developments in the Gulf and the Indian Ocean. In support of our own and general Western diplomatic objectives in the Indian Ocean, Australia deployed a carrier task group in 1980 and has made a number of single ship deployments since then. It is desirable that Australia demonstrate on a regular basis that it has an independent national role to play in the Indian Ocean. The report refers in detail to the very important trade and economic relationship between Australia and the Gulf, and I will comment briefly on some of the matters raised, noting once again that other Ministers are directly interested in the conclusions of the report. In the area of trade and economic relations, the report comments that in general terms Australia is making adequate efforts to ensure continued increase of exports to the Gulf countries. Recent figures show that our exports to the Gulf continue to increase. Provisional figures indicate exports for the year to June 1983 were $1081m. This can be compared with $1051m to June 1982, and $916 to June 1981. Provisional figures for imports for the year to June 1983 were $ 1914m compared with $1936m to June 1982 and $1808m to June 1981. Since the report was prepared an agreement on trade and economic and technical cooperation has been signed with Kuwait. Preparation of similar agreements with the United Arab Emirates and Qatar is at an advanced stage. The report comments on press speculation about Australia being a target for the investment and lending of petrodollars and expresses disappointment that more comprehensive and public figures from Gulf countries as suppliers of capital are not available. This is a matter on which the Treasurer (Mr Keating) might wish to comment at some future time. I note, however, that since 1976 foreign direct investment has been screened by governments of the day against a range of economic and other criteria to ensure consistency with Australia's interests. The Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) might like to respond to the comments in the report concerning language training for Department of Trade staff serving in the Gulf. I should just like to say that I share the Committee's concern that every effort should be made to ensure that, wherever possible, officers representing Australia overseas-whether with the Department of Trade or the Department of Foreign Affairs-should have at least a basic understanding of the language spoken in the country in which they are operating. In regard to oil and its general economic significance, the report does us a useful service in bringing together a great deal of information which point up, correctly, the broad importance of the Gulf countries in the world economy. It is an importance which goes beyond their role as oil suppliers to embrace their significance as a market and as a source of investment funds. In its broad lines , and in the longer term, the report's analysis continues to look sound. It correctly signifies the continuing and probably even increasing dependence of the West on oil supplies from the region-despite all the efforts made over the last decade to change energy balances and reduce dependence on imported oil. It points, too, to the very limited latitude which Australia has to diversify its sources of supply. In the shorter term, however, we have seen since the report was prepared the appearance of an oil supply surplus on a scale much larger than it was possible to anticipate, even as littte as two years ago. The economic recession and changes in oil demand caused by substitution policies and efforts to improve efficiency have had effects on the oil market which the Report correctly anticipated, but they have been of a considerably larger scale than it or any other observer was able to foresee. The combined effects of the price cut and reduced sales values have produced a major drop in Government revenue for the Gulf states. Indeed, what seemed virtually impossible just a few years ago has in fact happened: the massive financial surpluses of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries have not only been reduced; they have in many cases disappeared altogether. In the longer term it is probable that there will be further real price increases as the oil market firms up. But it appears that in the short to medium term the prospects for general economic development, and in particular for an expansion in the Gulf states' trade, are now much reduced, that is, should there be no threat to Gulf oil exports. The implications for maintaining and expanding Australian commercial relations are obviously considerable and are under examination in relevant departments. I should also comment on the reference in the report to the adequacy of energy reporting by our overseas missions. The report notes that problems which had been detected earlier had largely been resolved by early 1982. Since then the Department of Foreign Affairs has continued to work to refine its procedures to ensure that posts are kept briefed on oil market development and that they are given clear guidance on our reporting interests and priorities. The most recent oil market review incorporating an updated list of reporting requirements which was revised in consultation with the Department of Resources and Energy is on its way to posts abroad at the moment. The report raises the question of Australia's cultural relationship with the Gulf area. While recognising the valuable work that has been done on Islam at some institutions-for example, units on the Islamic tradition within the Faculty of Asian Civilisiation at the Australian National University and the study of Middle Eastern Cultures at Goulburn College of Advanced Education-I would agree in general with the tenor of the report, that is, that more courses dealing with the modern history, politics and religion of Muslim countries at tertiary institutions would create greater Australian understanding of a region which is of vital political, economic and strategic interest. The Federal Government has limited influence on courses in this sector of education as tertiary institutions are largely autonomous. But I will suggest to my colleague the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) that she examine what can be done in this area. I conclude by noting that the Middle East remains an extremely volatile area and that I believe continued coverage of developments in the area by the Joint Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee will be of great value. I repeat: I congratulate the members of the sub-committee who have been responsible for a comprehensive and highly relevant report. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah) —by leave-I join the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) in praising the report of the Sub-Committee on Middle Eastern and African Affairs of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. I think it demonstrates yet again the extraordinarily important role that joint committees of this Parliament play in providing an educational forum for the members of those committees. In these circumstances, people who have widely divergent political views can hear at the same time points put to them by a wide variety of people who are noted for their expertise in particular areas. I think that out of this process comes a greater understanding by all members of the parties. I was not a member of the Committee but I was the leader of a parliamentary delegation to the Gulf states in January of last year. Therefore, I welcome the opportunity of responding to the statement to this House by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. On page 3 of the printed copy of his statement, the Minister refers to the: . . . intention of the United States to maintain a military capacity in this area of vital interest to it. That is, the United States. I hope that none of us takes this language to mean that the Middle East is not of vital concern to us as Australians. I think that point was taken up by the Minister in the latter stages of his statement. Unfortunately I am quoted by the Minister. The report said that the Middle East is of vital interest to many countries, not least Australia and Japan. The latter of course derives a great deal of its resources from the region. I mention Japan here because last week the Minister found difficulty in understanding a point I made, that is, that as Japan took an increased self- defence responsibility American resources were released to support the Middle East commitments. So, there is a tie-up of interest in this area. The Camp David process has left the door ajar for further efforts to promote peace in the Middle East. We as Australians are in the Sinai as part of that effort. In making that contribution, we can hardly argue our position on the basis that we are in the Middle East alone because the area is of vital interest to the United States. That simply is not the case. I repeat: This is an area of vital interest to Australia. I think that the following description of the Soviet aims used in the report and by the Minister is perhaps a little too benign: In regard to the role of the Soviet Union, the report correctly notes that the Soviet Union has continued its policy of seeking Arab and international recognition of its claims, as a neighbour and superpower, to a legitimate role in the Middle East. I think that in the last few hours and days we have been treated to an interesting example of what the Soviets regard as legitimate. We know, for arguments sake, that the Soviets have supported some of the most extreme forms of terrorism. At present the Soviets are backing Syria's intransigence in rejecting a framework for an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon. There is no doubt that the Soviets are playing a part in hotting up the already very extreme situation in the Middle East. Is all of this and more merely to be passed off as an assertion of a legitimate role in the Middle East? I do not think it is. We need to look more closely at the actions of the Soviet Union and, where necessary, be prepared to make very clear our opinions about those actions. I turn to the Indian Ocean. On page 5 of the Minister's statement he states: The present position is that Australia clearly has its own independent views on developments in the Gulf and the Indian Ocean. In support of our own and general Western diplomatic objectives in the Indian Ocean, Australia deployed a carrier task group in 1980 and has made a number of single ship deployments since then. It is desirable that Australia demonstrate on a regular basis that it has an independent national role to play in the Indian Ocean. Naturally, we accept that statement completely. We accept the requirements for a national role to defend the Indian Ocean approaches to Western Australia. We do not look askance at collaboration with alies in this role. In saying that, of course, we have never argued that we should count on collaboration. There is no special virtue in being a loner in this difficult world. I hope that the Minister's remarks do not hide the view that we should be exercising a legitimate national role in this area, but at the same time we should be very prepared to join with our friends and allies in exercising a broader role in the Indian Ocean region. It is simply not practicable to dedicate forces and resources to a national system of regular deployments-not if we are to believe the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes), anyhow. So let us do what we can, but let us not make a fetish out of acting on our own. The Minister noted that a carrier task group carried out a mission in 1980. This Government, as we all know, has knocked out the carrier task force from the possibility of taking part in or undergoing activities of this nature. Clearly, we should not talk ourselves into unreal commitments; nor should we place such a low value on collaborating with allies in the wider responsibilities in the pursuit of strategic objectives in the Indian Ocean. I hope we will hear more from the Government on this matter. I hope there will be a stronger collaboration between the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Foreign Affairs so that they both get their sums and their public statements right in relation to Australian naval activities in the Indian Ocean. I believe that Australia has a significant role to play in the Gulf, in the Middle Eastern area, because we have in many areas special skills and experience . This was brought home to me and members of my delegation to the area in January last year. There is a great need for those special skills such as arid country agriculture, which Australia has pioneered in many areas. There is no doubt that Australians, and Australia, are well regarded in the area. We are not seen as being any sort of a threat. In fact, we are seen as being good neighbours, good markets and able to supply much needed expertise. I would like to see the private sector playing a greater role in this area. The private sector has in the past waited for too long in many instances for government incentives before playing what I would regard as its full role in this area of the world. I believe there are great opportunities for Australian private enterprise to operate and be successful in the Middle East, in the Gulf areas. I hope that this occurs more in the future than it has in the past. We need to seek a development of understanding between the countries of the Gulf and Australia and Australians. The Ministers referred to this in the latter stages of his statement. I believe that Australia can play a very real role in training people from the Gulf countries and the Middle East both in their own countries and in Australia. I was very impressed by the obvious interest shown by senior officials and Ministers of all the Gulf countries about the possibilities of their nationals undergoing training in Australia. We should be looking for further developments in this area. I am glad that the Minister will take up this matter with his colleague the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan). As the report notes, this area of the world is of vital interest to all of us. It will certainly not diminish in importance. I believe that we should be very keen to undertake anything that will further bilateral relationships. Certainly we should take every opportunity to learn more of the individual countries involved. I believe that the work of the Committee has done much to enhance the Parliament's understanding of this vital area that is of so much interest not only to us but to the whole civilised world. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —by leave-I have sought leave to make a statement on the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence concerning Namibia. When historians look at the history of this century, they may well characterise the sixties and seventies as the decades of decolonisation. During that period, over 70 former colonies achieved political independence. Only a few such territories remain on the decolonisation agenda. The territory of Namibia is one of these and it represents perhaps the most intractable problem of all. Namibia has been a constant preoccupation of the United Nations since its formation, and indeed has been a direct responsibility of the United Nations since 1966 when the South African mandate was terminated. South Africa has, however, refused to allow direct United Nations administration of the territory and Namibia remains under de facto rule by the Pretoria Government. In 1975, South Africa acknowledged that the territory has a separate international status and from 1977 it accepted that the ultimate status of Namibia was as an independent state. The arguments since then have focused on how best to bring Namibia to independence. The historical background to the question and the points at conflict are clearly outlined in the Committee's report. I congratulate the Committee on its thorough research and its accurate appreciation of the issues involved. I believe that the report will commend itself to both sides of the House, especially as successive governments have commanded bipartisan support in their general approach to Southern African issues. The Committee's report is broadly divided into two sections. There is, firstly, a review of the history of the negotiations for a settlement. That is followed by a commentary on the handling of Australia's relations with an independent Namibia. I should like to comment on the two sections in turn. Australia has followed closely the progress of negotiations towards Namibian independence. We have supported calls for early independence for Namibia through free elections under the supervision and control of the United Nations, and the efforts of the Contact Group to negotiate a settlement in accordance with Security Council Resolution 435, which endorsed proposals for a ceasefire and a political settlement. Honourable members may have seen Press reports of the visit to South Africa, Namibia and Angola by the United Nations Secretary- General, Mr Perez de Cueller, in late August. The aim of that visit was to secure agreement on the procedures for implementing the United Nations' plan for Namibia's independence as set out in Security Council Resolution 435. The Secretary-General was able to reach agreement with the South African Government on the outstanding issues then remaining in these negotiations and there are now no elements in the Resolution 435 package delaying a settlement. The South Africans have stated, however, that they would not move to implement the plan until agreement is reached on the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola. While this issue is extraneous to the independence settlement in terms of the issues covered in Security Council Resolution 435, it is clear that the negotiations are effectively at an impasse until there is some movement on the Cuban troops question. Discussions between Angola and the United States on the question of Cuban troops have been initiated, but they are proceeding slowly and there is no indication whether they are likely to be successful. Recent successes by the anti-Government movement the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola -UNITA-which is considered to be aided and abetted by South Africa, have made it less likely that the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola Government- the MPLA Government-in Luanda could dispense with the services of the Cubans, even should they wish to do so. In the meantime, international concern over the linkage of Namibian independance to the Cuban troops issue, and the consequent delays in the progress towards the ultimate goal of an independent Namibia, is growing, among black African States. Any further linkage to a settlement in Angola would of course only result in further delay. While the Australian Government appreciates the Contact Group's efforts to secure a settlement in Namibia, we share the concern of other interested parties that the implementation of resolution 435 has been delayed for so long. It is clear now that the essential elements of a settlement in accordance with resolution 435 have been accepted and that the independence of Namibia is being held up by the introduction of other issues not encompassed in the United Nations plan. This is an unfortunate development, which we hope will not prove insurmountable. Australia for its part has played an active role in relation to United Nations efforts to bring independence to Namibia. Australia has been a member of the United Nations Council for Namibia since 1974, and is one of only four Western Members of the Council. Australia was also represented at the International Conference on Namibia at Paris in may of this Year. Thus the Government accepts, and is in fact acting in accordance with, the Committee's recommendation that Australia continue its efforts to exercise a moderating influence in respect of Namibia at the United Nations. Honourable members will also recall that the previous Government offered to supply forces for the military component of the United Nations Transition Assistance Group, UNTAG-the group to be established under the United Nation plan to monitor a ceasefire prior to elections in Namibia. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has reacted positively to my proposal that this offer should stand. Australian involvement in UNTAG would demonstrate the Government's continuing commitment to an internationally agreed settlement for Namibia. A chapter of the Committee's report deals with the status of Walvis Bay, a South African enclave within Namibia. The Government has no difficulties with the Committee's comments on this subject. The Government believes that the enclave should form part of a united and independent Namibia. This policy is based not on whether South Africa has a legal or historic right to administer Walvis Bay, but on moral and pragmatic considerations. Australia therefore supports Security Council Resolution 435 of 1978, which calls for the integration of Walvis Bay into independent Namibia. The report rightly devotes considerable attention to the role of the South West Africa People's Organisation, SWAPO. Australia acknowledges SWAPO as one of the major nationalist groups in Namibia and one which has an essential role to play in the settlement negotiations. We are unable, however, to recognise SWAPO as the 'sole and authentic representative' of the Namibian people, as the United Nation General Assembly has done. We believe that it is for the Namibian people to decide in a free vote who should govern them, and Australia does not, as a matter of principle, accord 'sole representative' status to any political party. Australia is also unable to endorse armed struggle as a means for achieving independence for Namibia. Nonetheless, we understand the frustrations which have led many countries and people to conclude that armed struggle may inevitably occur as a last resort to end institutionalised racial discrimination in southern Africa. Australia continues to make modest contributions to the United Nations Fund for Namibia and the Commonwealth Special Fund for Namibia. Honourable members will know that the Jackson Committee is currently reviewing the Australia aid program, inlcuding the question of aid to southern Africa. The second part of the report deals with Australia's relations with an independent Namibia and makes several recommendations. Essentially, the Government accepts these. It is still not clear, of course, when and how Namibia will achieve independence and my comments on our relationship with an independent Namibia must necessarily be general ones. As I have implied, Australia looks forward to Namibia's early independence on the basis of an internationally agreed settlement. We would welcome and support any request by Namibia to join the United Nations and the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in 1975 in Kingston in fact agreed that an independent Namibia would be welcomed into the Commonwealth. Australia would of course be pleased to establish diplomatic relations with an independent Namibia. The attitude of an independent Namibia to the Non-Proliferation Treaty would be of particular interest to Australia. Given its proximity to South Africa-which refuses to sign the Treaty-and the negative attitude to the Treaty of a number of black African countries, in the light of South Africa's attitude, Namibia may be unwilling to adhere. We believe it important that nulclear suppliers adhere to the Treaty and would wish to encourage Namibia to do so. Once again, I commend the Committee for the research and analysis demonstrated by its report. It is a most useful document and one which is accepted by the Government, I am sure all honourable members will join me in expressing Australia's strong concern that the achievement of Namibia's independence be delayed no longer, as any further delay would merely serve to contribute to instability in southern Africa. Mr DOBIE(Cook) —by leave-I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) for the statement he has just made relative to the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, of which I was proud to be Chairman. I was also proud to be Chairman of that Committee when it brought in its report on the Middle East. At the beginning I would like to say that I am appreciative of the bipartisan approach adopted by the Minister. I wish him well in maintaining his moderate line on all foreign affairs issues which he has shown to date. I know that it is not going to be an easy task, but I wish him well. Mr Jacobi —A very difficult one. Mr DOBIE —As the honourable member for Hawker points out-and he would know-it is a very difficult task for the Minister to perform. It should be emphasised that the Namibian issue remains one of the longest-standing problems within the whole United Nations calendar, but I think breaks are being made and I am hopeful that settlements will be made in the near future. When the report was presented a year ago members of the Committee were of the view that negotiations 'appeared on the verge of a breakthrough'. However, events since then have not met this expectation. Along with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, I was encouraged by the visit of the Secretary-General, Senor Perez de Cuellar, to Southern Africa to secure agreement on some of the technical matters. Whichever way we look at it, it is quite clear now that any solution to the situation on the subcontinent of Southern Africa, centres on the presence of Cuban troops in Angola. Perhaps we should be looking then with equal concern to the situation within Angola and the 40,000 troops now reported to be there. When we presented the report the figure was said to be 20,000, and here we have, within a year, reasonably authentic calculations that the figure has risen to 40,000-a most alarming situation. I am pleased to see that the Foreign Minister said that the present Prime Minister has reacted positively to endorse the decision by the former Liberal Government to supply forces for the military component of the United Nations Transition Assistance Group to be established under the United Nations plan to monitor the ceasefire prior to elections in Namibia. I trust that the Minister maintains this resolve and is not deterred from this most practical expression of Australia's bipartisan commitment to an internationally agreed settlement on Namibia by any sections of this Parliament or his own party. I was pleased to see too that the present Government has moved quite firmly and positively into not recognising the South West Africa People's Organisation as the sole representative. I refer the House to page 96 of the report under review: The Committee sees merit in the reported SWAPO offer at the pre-implementation meeting in 1981-- now, of course, two years ago- to give up on its United Nations-assigned status as 'sole and authentic' representative of the Namibian people during the transition period prior to independence . . . As one of the few members of this House who have actually visited Namibia, I can say that to presume that SWAPO represents the Namibian cause for independence is infantile and totally out of character and does not bear any relationship to reality. When I presented the report of the joint committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on Namibia to the chamber on 24 August last year, I pointed out that the longer the guerilla war continues in Namibia the greater will be the opportunity for unrest and a possible increase in Soviet influence in this region'. I said that while the front line states would like a Namibian settlement and were pressing this on SWAPO, as they still are, some analysts have argued that SWAPO is also under pressure from the Soviet Union, as its main backer and supplier of weapons, to delay negotiations in order to continue destabilisation of the region. I again wish the Minister for Foreign Affairs strength and courage in his resolve to meet the problems within his own Party. It is a matter at which we should be looking most carefully. While not moving away from the difficulties that are being put in the way of an international settlement of the Namibian issue by the Republic of South Africa, I believe we should be equally aware that there are other sinister forces in the sub-continent of southern Africa and that the Soviet Union-no friend of the Foreign Minister-is not exactly leaving the matter undone and without concern. I continue with the report. We agree that the institutionalised racial discrimination in southern Africa has been a problem. We hope that that too will be resolved. I also noticed that the attitude of an independent Namibia to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, would be of particular interest to Australia. I would also point out to the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) that on page 128 of the report it mentions that in 1979 in Namibia a total of 16.72 million tonnes of uranium ore were milled, producing 4,980 tonnes of yellowcake. I suspect that some of the concern for Namibian independence-the route along which it is going-and the role of the Soviet Union in this area is not quite a pure one in its relationship to the independence of the Namibian people. Perhaps I am cynical, but I suspect that it had some relationship to the fact that Namibia is a major producer of yellowcake in the world. I suspect that this is the cause for left wing concern with the settlement and perhaps left wing confrontation and obstruction in this matter. I pointed out that the problems that are now existing in Zimbabwe and the problems that are existing in Botswana and, I believe, confronting the people of Angola, are related not just to the fight for freedom of these people. I believe the whole of the southern African continent is very much in the sights of the Soviet Union and its satellites. As I said earlier, I believe that, most regrettably, we must reach the conclusion that now the problem in Namibia must be related, contrary to the view we had in the report only 12 months ago, we must be of the opinion that a presence of the doubling of the number of Cuban troops in Angola should be something that concerns not just the honourable members in this House or the members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. I hope those members from this House and the Senate who are going to the United Nations General Assembly this year will bear in mind that the presence of the Soviet Union is not just in sensitive military areas in Korea, as we have discovered this week, or in fermenting trouble in the Middle East, as we have heard in the last report, but is well established and well founded, to the great distress of the Western world, in southern Africa. As I said earlier, I wish the Foreign Minister success in his resolve within his own Government. He has the Prime Minister on side to have this multinational force in Namibia before an election following a ceasefire. I wish him equal success-we have had encouragement from honourable members on his own side during my speech this afternoon-in withstanding the pressures, which I noticed during a recent visit to Timor, when it concerns what the Government is really going to do about helping the people of Namibia. I thank the Foreign Minister, in a spirit of bi-partisan friendship, for his kind remarks about the character of the report upon which he has now commented. (Quorum formed) Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure by the Government to honour its commitment to provide real term increases from the tax sharing arrangements to local government in 1983-84. 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 BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(3.48) —I believe that the disinterest of the Australian Labor Party in this matter of public importance was demonstrated by the fact that it was necessary to call a quorum to get some Labor members into the House. Prior to that call I was able to count three Government members in the chamber. Only three Government members had an interest in local government and wished to hear the debate. I have put forward this matter of public importance for debate to have honoured the promise of the Labor Party at the last Federal election to maintain the real value of the general revenue grants paid through personal income tax sharing to the 839 local governments throughout Australia and to the 10,500 elected councillors who bear the work load of local government. This Labor Government has dishonoured yet another promise. It has shamefully withheld from the third sphere of government its proper proportion of Federal revenues. The great shame in this matter is that the Opposition has to suggest to the Labor Party that it should honour at least one of its promises. The categorical promise that I have mentioned was to maintain in real terms the Commonwealth's funding to local government in 1983-84. I quote from the Labor Party's own policy: Labor will allocate at least 2 per cent of Federal personal income tax as a general revenue grant to local government. The allocation in any year to be not less than the real value of the previous year's allocation. I repeat that Labor has said that this general revenue grant should not be less than the real value of the previous year's allocation. In 1982-83 the consumer price index rose by 11.2. per cent and local government's share of personal income tax collections rose by only 8.2 per cent. As a result, local government authorities throughout Australia have been underpaid in excess of $13m, or $15, 400 per authority. They have been sold down the drain by the Labor Government. This has occurred at a time when the same Federal Labor Government has increased grants to the States by 11.8 per cent, in effect giving the States an increase in real value. Quite obviously local government, in spite of the expansion of a Commonwealth department, does not have the financial and political muscle of the States to get its share of Commonwealth grants. Just as obviously to the Hawke Government, there is more political mileage in this election year in Queensland to be seen to be generous to the States. The Federal Government's political generosity does not extend to local government, that is obvious. What a huge expense local government authorities will face. With an almost record deficit in this nation's history this Government, in a give away Budget, could not honour at least this one of its election promises. Its integrity is again quesitoned by the people of Australia. This sellout of local government is the last of a long list of broken promises. Local government, in fact the people of Australia, are in a state of shell-shock following the massive dishonouring of promises by the Hawke Government. The hypocrisy of the Government is revealed in an answer that was given on Tuesday in the Senate by the Minister for Resources and Energy, Sentor Walsh, when he implied that the relevant consumer price index figure is the estimate of 7.5 per cent for the 1983-84 Budget. Of course, this figure is reduced by the artificial influence of the Medicare program on the CPI. No one would believe the Minister as far as this is concerned because he does not even read his own policy. The policy specifically states that the Government will maintain real value. Those in local government throughout Australia believe, and so do I together with all other members of the Opposition, that an undertaking was given to match the revenue sharing grant in 1983-84 with the CPI increase of 11.2 per cent in 1982-83, the year in which the Commonwealth on behalf of local government collected the personal income tax which is now to be shared. Senator Walsh misled the Senate in his reply to the question from Senator Archer last Tuesday. The Australian Labor Party has talked in State and Federal terms of the constitutional recognition of local government in Australia. I quote from ALP policy. Labor will work to have local government's rights and responsibilities recognised in the Federal and State constitutions. I firmly believe that such recognition is worth nothing unless local government is given the means and the funds to carry out its responsibilities, which are ever-increasing. Without an accepted participation in the Commonwealth's own revenue base there can be no partical constitutional recognition of local government in Australia by the Labour Party. The Party's repudiation of its promise to maintain the real value of tax sharing arrangements is a repudiation of its intentions of constitutional recognition. The whole deceitful exercise raised questions for future distributions. The Medicare legislation introduced into this House on Tuesday last specifically excludes the one per cent Medicare levy from the local government share of tax collections. As I mentioned earlier, the artificial reduction of the CPI because of the Medicare levy influence will not in any way decrease the escalation of costs which will be felt by local Government throughout the coming year because of the Government's near record deficit of $8.3 billion and because of its very slender grip on the wages and incomes accord which hopes to restrict wage increase to 7 per cent in the coming year. Local government costs in the coming 12 months will suffer, I believe, at least a 10 per cent increase. In this realisation one looks at Labor's abdication of its promise to local government in regard to the effects of its current policy at the end of 1983-84. Labor's Budget indicates that for 1983-1984 pay-as-you-earn taxation will increase by only 4.7 per cent and total collections for personal income tax sharing-excluding, as I mentioned before, the Medicare levy-will increase from $ 22.967 billion to $24.383 billion, an increase of 6.2 per cent. This is in comparison with what I believe is a real increase of 10 per cent in costs to local government. At this time next year local government will face the same problem as it does at the moment-increased costs and increased responsibilities, and less Commonwealth funds to meet those responsibilities. I make mention also of the delivery of those funds from personal income tax sharing collections. I understand from at least one local government authority that the distribution of these funds by the Commonwealth was delayed until as late as last Friday. That is many weeks behind what has normally been expected. Mr Newman —Tasmania's was announced only yesterday. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Tasmania apparently is in the same situation. I ask the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren), who is at the table: What financial advantage was there to the Commonwealth in the deferral of these funds ? Perhaps it would get at least 12 1/2 per cent interest on the $459m of funds whose distribution was deferred. This has placed just another burden on local government finances and the manner in which they are relegated by the Government . The Government should realise that the days are long past since local government was able to rate sufficiently on land values to provide the services applicable to that land or for specified services. A consistent escalation of local government responsibilities has been handed down from successive State and Federal governments, which has not been matched by funds from those governments. As a result, because of actions of this Parliament, the rate base can provide only about 50 per cent of the funds necessary to carry out these additional responsibilities in areas such as health , welfare, child care, care for the aged, sport, recreation and a host of other areas which were once and still are basically other governments' responsibilities. For instance, in this last decade many country shires have had to face the pressure of new mining, industrial and land development, yet they see the real income from these developments hived off to the State and Federal governments. To carry out these services at the local level local authorities have to be guaranteed funds-as of right not as a result of begging from the other more affluent spheres of government. So much for Labor Party rhetoric on constitutional recognition. If it cannot understand the difficulties and the problems of local government as they exist today, it must not understand what ' constitutionality' means to this very important level and sphere of government. I was appalled, as many others in this chamber would have been, at the Government's 'presentation pack' in relation to local government, which followed the Budget two weeks ago. I predict, and I know, that the Government will rely heavily upon this discredited document in defending itself in the debate on this matter of public importance. The document is discredited because, in the face of a decline in the real value of its personal income tax sharing allocation, the Government has sought to present the whole package as an increase of 45 per cent on the 1982-83 equivalents. It is interesting to note the difference between this presentation and Senator Walsh's answer in the other chamber. Let us look at the major items covering this increase. The community employment program figure is a good example of accounting and funding gymnastics. Local government is expected to receive $130m extra for roads, water supplies and employment programs for which it has to find a further 30 per cent from its own resources. This means that local government will have to find additional revenue of approximately $54m to match Commonwealth funds, or about $64,000 per authority. Add this to the decrease of $13m in real terms in the personal income tax sharing allocation and local government is out of pocket by $67m, or $80,000 per local authority. I refer to local authorities spread right around Australia. This is a significant additional burden that the third sphere of government is called upon to bear. The responsibility to carry out Commonwealth program has fallen on the local authorities. Let us look at the Commonwealth's real contribution to the overall $300m community employment package designed to place 70,000 Australians in work over a six months period. As a result of this program the Federal Government will save an estimated $100 per week for 26 weeks on the unemployment benefit from 90 per cent of the 70,000 people who will come from the ranks of the unemployed. This amounts to $164m. The clawback on taxation from these employees , including the Medicare levy, might be estimated at approximately $60m. This represents a recovery of $224m, or a net Commonwealth contribution of a mere $ 76m, just slightly more than the contribution by local government. The point is surely this: Local government authorities have to budget for additional income if the Commonwealth program, our program, is to be fulfilled. To do this the authorities have been given less in Commonwealth grants and will have to restrict services in other directions or redirect their priorities. If these amounts cannot be raised from the rate base of the authorities it must surely mean a diminution of traditional services, which will have human and social consequences. Not only are the authorities under great financial pressure from the Commonwealth but also the States have been responsible by decreasing financial aid as the Commonwealth grants become available and giving local authorities more responsibility and less authority. Assistance to local government on water programs is far too small to be effective and is no substitute for the bicentennial water resources program of the Fraser Government which Labor dismantled. I know of one local government authority which could spend the Queensland commitment by itself. The aerodrome local ownership plan is not always seen to be an arrangement to assist local governments or the ratepayers. Yet that item has been given a guernsey in the Government's propaganda pack of $ 44.7m. We can look at road funding. It is a combination of acts put into place by the previous government. My colleague the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt)- Mr Hunt —They will not give any money out of the bicentennial road fund. Mr BRAITHWAITE —That is right. The money is not being made available in some cases. But this Budget provides-as though it were a significant increase-for a program which was instituted by the previous Government. It is just a lot of hypocrisy. It is a real nonsense to suggest that in the 1983-84 Budget the Commonwealth has assisted local government to overcome the financial pressures it faces or that it has given more independence and freedom to local government. In fact, the original concept of the personal income tax sharing arrangements, which were introduced in 1976 by the Fraser Government, was to give unconditional funds to local government and to allow more independence and freedom. Credit must be given to the Fraser Government which embarked on a federalism policy to include local government in an arrangement in which its constitutionality would be recognised in a practical manner. This was demonstrated by the increase of 21 per cent in the personal income tax sharing grants given to local government in the previous year. It amply demonstrated the coalition's recognition of the worth of local government. By decreasing this grant in real terms and placing on the shoulders of local government the responsibility of partially funding and implementing its own Commonwealth program, the Commonwealth, in just six months, has destroyed all the former initiatives and severely weakened the structure of local government in Australia . I repeat what I said earlier. Local government had the clear understanding from the Labor Party's promise in its policy that it would match in its grant for 1983-84 the consumer price index increase of 11.2 per cent. The manner in which this promise can be fulfilled is for the Government immediately to propose an amendment to the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act of 1976 to provide for a real term minimum guarantee to local government general revenue sharing arrangements in 1983-84. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government)(4.03) —I want to thank the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) for raising a matter of public importance about the Commonwealth's approach to local government. At the outset I want to nail the false and misleading arguments put by the honourable member. I can do that in simple terms. If the honourable member looks at all the Australian Government programs involving local government he will see that $994m is to be made available this year and that only $687m was made available last year. That is an increase of over $300m or 45 per cent. So let us get this matter in its proper perspective. In contrast to the neglect shown by the Fraser -Anthony Government, this Government has a commitment to a fuller recognition of local government as a genuine partner in the nation's three-sphere system of government. This Government has created for the first time in the nation's history a Commonwealth ministry for local government. The Government is not hiding behind anything. It is being responsible for this matter. It wants to work in co-operation with both State and local governments. I should remind the House that the previous Federal Labor Government in 1972-75 , of which I was a member, made the historic breakthrough of being the first Government to give direct Commonwealth payments to local government. Labor was committed to expanding the capacity of local councils to fulfil their functions, especially in areas of need. In retrospect I think that some errors were made in the years 1972-75 in the way funds were distributed. Since that time, of course, local government has become more sophisticated and now it is better placed to have a major role, in co-operation with the State and Commonwealth governments, in advancing the well-being of their communities in the interests of the Australian people. The provision of tax sharing payments for local government was altered by the previous Federal Government through the Local Government ( Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act of 1976. It should be remembered that the Act was introduced as a part of the previous Government's new federalism ' initiatives' within an overall policy of public sector expenditure restraint. We know that in all cases its new role was small government, and there was a cutback of funds, particularly public sector funds. The provisions of the Act were seen as a means of absorbing the specific purpose payments to local government into a system of general purpose grants to the States for local government, thereby transferring responsibility for certain services in which the Commonwealth had previously played a policy and planning role as well as a financing role. Yet the honourable member for Dawson talked about a dribble. Nobody withdrew more from those services, particularly specific purpose payments , than did the Fraser-Anthony Government. The effect of this shift to general purpose funds for local government and the winding down of specific purpose payments was a net reduction-I stress the words 'net reduction' so that they will get through the honourable member's head-in the total amount of funds provided for local government by the Commonwealth at that time. I believe there is evidence to suggest that there was some damage to equity and efficiency as a result of the 'ad hoc' arrangements of the previous Government and the constraining actions of some States. Labor in opposition recognised the value of general revenue assistance for local government and made a commitment to retain the funding at 2 per cent of Federal personal income tax. That commitment was honoured in the 1983-84 Budget allocation for tax sharing funds for local government. In 1983-84 local government will receive a total of $459m in tax sharing funds. That is an increase of $35m over the allocation of $ 424m provided by the then Fraser-Anthony Government in 1982-83. In assessing the basis for this increase Cabinet compared the real value of the grant with the level of inflation during the year in which it is to be spent. In the Budget year 1983-84 this is estimated to by 7.5 per cent on a year to year basis. General revenue assistance for local government has been increased by 8.2 per cent, which more than accounts for the projected increase in costs in the coming year. But my role as Minister for Territories and Local Government is not only to administer the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act but also to provide a focus for local government in its approaches to the Commonwealth and to co-ordinate Commonwealth assistance for local government. My Department, in consultation with other Commonwealth departments which make the payments in respect of local government, made an assessment of total estimated Commonwealth payments to local government in 1983-84. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table showing these payments for the years 1979-80 to 1983-84. Leave granted. The table read as follows- SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT PAYMENTS TO OR FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES, 1979-80 TO 1983-84 ($ thousands) 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 States- Local government tax sharing grant(a) 221,739 300,786 350,865 424,486 459,336 Direct payments- Nursing homes 1,076 1,488 2,401 2,995 3,842 Home nursing 394 411 518 678 767 Aged/disabled persons' homes 1,979 3,210 3,956 7,799 9,627 Aged/disabled persons' hostels 282 1,412 469 220 150 Delivered meals subsidy 885 1,349 1, 668 1,848 1,976 Handicapped persons assistance 47 . . . . 236 133 Children's services 6,894 9,721 11,503 15,482 26,279 Community Youth Support Scheme 847 . . . . . . . . Homeless persons' assistance 8 15 . . 25 228 Subsidy for migrant aid . . . . 8 31 34 Arts 81 126 303 308 367 Aerodrome local ownership plan 3,439 3,952 6,364 29,564 44,700 Total direct payments 15,931 21,684 27,190 59,185 88,103 Other payments through States- Assistance for Exmouth Shire 352 . . . . . . . . Community health facilities 543 558 . . . . . . Home care services 4,226 4,331 4,098 5,892 5,939 Senior citizens' centres 4,097 4,881 4,720 7,742 7,895 Children's services 4,744 5, 658 5,029 4,898 n.a. Urban flood mitigation 762 126 . . . . 4,120 Urban water supply 250 250 . . . . . . National estate 402 393 298 413 (b)420 Roads 131, 420 141,866 167,307 177,983 (c)291,100 Urban public transport 63 . . . . . . . . Wage pause-special employment program . . . . . . 2,923 (d)51,485 Total other payments 146,967 158,063 181,452 199,851 360,959 Northern Territory- Local government tax sharing grant(a) 1,062 1,440 1,680 2,033 2,200 Direct payments- Delivered meals subsidy . . . . 2 3 3 Children's services 298 246 295 443 491 Arts . . . . . . 14 n.a. Aerodrome local ownership plan . . . . . . . . 600 Total direct payments 298 246 297 460 1,094 Other payments through the Northern Territory Government- Children's services 2 10 3 11 n.a. National estate . . . . . . 3 n.a. Roads 519 750 818 876 12,100 Wage pause-special employment program . . . . . . 476 768 Total other payments 521 760 821 1,366 12,868 Community employment program- general (e)53,000 Country town water supply 16,100 Jobs on local roads (see above) Grand total 386,519 482,979 562,305 687,381 993,660 (a) The Local Government Tax Sharing Grants are paid, in the first instance, to the States/Northern Territory, but are shown in this table separately, because of their importance. (b) Estimate very approximate as calculated by applying the same ratio (21%) of the total State grant that was passed on by the States to local government in 1982-83. (c) Total moneys allocated to local roads from Road Grants Act, Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program and Jobs on Local Roads (excludes 0.7 m JOLOR allocation to the A.C.T. but includes S.A.). (d) Includes some funds for community organisations which cannot be delineated from payments to local government. (e) Estimated at up to 2/3 of the $80m allocated nationally to local government and community groups. Sources: Derived from Budget Paper No. 7 1983-84 and Departmental estimates. Mr UREN —The table shows the figure I stressed to the House earlier. It shows that in 1982-83 local government was allocated $687m and that in 1983-84 the allocation is $993.7m. As I stated earlier, the figure is $994m in round figures . This is an increase of over $300m and represents an increase of 45 per cent over the figure for last year. The increase is made up mainly of programs specifically directed to areas of need, about which the honourable member would not have any real understanding, and it is a nationally important initiative for recovery. The major increases comprise funds for the community employment program; $62m is estimated to assist local councils through the jobs on local roads program; $16m for country town water supply improvements; and a further $ 53m for use by local councils from the $160m available to the States, local government and community groups. Assistance for road programs, excluding jobs on local road programs, increased by $63m under the Roads Grants Act fund and the Australian Bicentennial Road Development program. Total local road allocation in 1983-84 is $122.3m, or 67 per cent higher than the allocation for 1982-83. In addition, assistance for the aerodrome local ownership plan has been increased by $15m, and assistance for local government children's services has increased by $11m. There is no doubt that local government has been afforded a significantly higher level of funding by the Hawke Labor Government than it received under the previous Government. But effective inter-governmental relationships involve much more than a mere flow of funds-something that the previous Government utterly failed to comprehend. The Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act has operated for seven years without review or any assessment of its impact or effectiveness. I shall soon be announcing the membership and terms of reference of an expert committee of review of local government financing, including financing from Commonwealth, State and local government sources. Such a review will place us in a better position to make allocations for local government which strengthen the capacities of councils and promote equity and efficiency. This Government has also accorded local government a higher level of recognition as a partner in the nation's system of government. For instance, local government was represented at the National Economic Summit Conference and is represented on the Economic Planning Advisory Council, known as EPAC. A sub- committee was formed out of the Australian Constitutional Convention to propose a form of constitutional recognition of local government, and we shall soon be receiving the report of the Advisory Council on Inter-Government Relations on the responsibilities and resources of local government. That report should generate constructive debate on the potential and capacity of local government. My own Department will be working in consultation with other Commonwealth departments and the States and local government to establish a co-ordinated system of information at a local area level-something that the former Government again failed to comprehend. An initial allocation of $250,000 has been made for the purpose of making available information on public finance and social and economic conditions at a local level. We are also upgrading the facilities for the training of local government elected members and staff. This year the local government scholarship scheme will recieve a 40 per cent increase on last year's funds, providing-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member for Dawson has had his say. He was heard in silence. I ask him to accord the Minister a similar opportunity. Mr UREN —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am glad that you have come to my rescue , because very little decency has been accorded to me. There have been many interjections. We know that our policies are hurting the Opposition tremendously . The Opposition knows about the whole shallowness of its role in local government. In a few seconds time, I shall give some details about the real role of Federal government responsibility concerning local government. I was stressing that this year the local government scholarship scheme will receive a 40 per cent increase on last year's funds, providing $35,000 for programs conducted at the Australian Centre for Local Government Studies here in Canberra . It is well known that funds for those local government studies have been frozen for a number of years. It is important that officers of local government departments, and aldermen themselves, should have the opportunity of greater training in the future. When my Department was formed, I inherited the office of Minister responsible for local government, and the present Federal Government, which has such a commitment to local government, had four Federal officers in the office of local government. That was the basis of the new Department of Territories and Local Government. What is really needed is a spirit of co-operation by the three levels of government. If we are to overcome the problems, there must be an interrelationship between Australian Government officers concerned with local government, State government officers and officers of local government at the local level. It is only when we break down the differences between the bureaucracies and get a better understanding between the officers and the politicians who are trying to work in the interests of the people that any real progress is made. There is another interesting program in the fine print of the Budget. We have also made available $1.5m for studies in the western regions of Sydney and the western regions of Melbourne. These are areas of great social concern. Unless there is this interrelationship of the Australian, State and local governments working together to overcome many of the social problems in such areas, we shall have appalling conditions in the future. We are witnessing an initial stage of a historic progress in the development of local government. Wherever I have been in honourable members' areas, the response of local government towards me as the responsible Minister has been to applaud the policies of this Government. There is a wonderful spirit and relationship between us. There is a feeling that at last there is some hope of a breakthrough. I stress that our approach will be gradual, but it will be a co-operative approach. This Government is committed to working co-operatively with the States and local government to strengthen democracy in our nation. It is only when the three levels of government work together in the interests of the people, and particularly with Federal Government that is closer to the people, that that aim will be achieved. We on this side of the House believe in giving responsibility to people and we are against the concept of sectarianism and withdrawalism which, when in government, the Opposition certainly followed in relation to local government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The discussion is concluded. Mr FRY(Fraser) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, I present the minutes of proceedings of the Committee's consideration of proposals for variations of the plan of lay-out of the City of Canberra and its environs- (1) 75th Series (Item 2) and 79th Series, and (2) 80th Series. Message received from the Senate concurring in the resolution of the House relating to amendments to the resolution of appointment to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(4.18) —I move: Customs Tariff Proposals Nos. 12 and 13 (1983) and Excise Tariff Proposals Nos. 4 to 7 (1983). The Proposals I have just tabled relate to proposed alterations to the Customs Tariff Act 1982 and the Excise Tariff Act 1921. Excise Tariff Proposals Nos. 4, 5 and 6 (1983) and Customs Tariff Proposals No. 12 (1983) formally place before Parliament, as required by law, tariff alterations made by Gazette notice. Excise Tariff Proposals No. 4 (1983) contain the following alterations: A decrease in the excise duty on stabilised crude petroleum oil from $216.11 to $ 199.97 per kilolitre. This alteration follows the Government's decision to adjust the import parity price for stabilised crude petroleum oil, set on 1 April 1983 to reflect a reduction in the credit term compensation component of the import parity price. The need to adjust the excise rate arises from this alteration together with revised arrangements for the collection of the crude oil levy. These arrangements which operate on and from 1 July 1983 were announced by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) on 30 June 1983; an increase in the excise duty on naturally occurring liquified petroleum gas from $36.63 to $48.57 per kilolitre. This change followed a new average wholesale price for naturally occurring LPG being set by the Minister for Resources and Energy in accordance with government policy. Excise Tariff Proposals No. 4 (1983) are operative on and from 1 July 1983. Excise Tariff Proposals No. 5 (1983) alter the concessional excise tariff treatment available to goods for international organisations following a review of those concessional arrangements. Excise Tariff Proposals No. 5 are also operative on and from 1 July 1983. Excise Tariff Proposals No. 6 decrease the excise duty on lighting kerosene, power kerosene, heating oil and fuel oil as announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on 26 August 1983. The proposals became operative on and from 8 p.m. eastern standard time on 29 August 1983. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 12 are complementary to Excise Tariff Proposals No . 6 and decrease the customs duty payable on imported lighting kerosene, power kerosene, heating oil and fuel oil. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 12 were operative on and from 8.00 p.m. eastern standard time on 23 August 1983. It will be noted that Customs Tariff Proposals No. 12 are operative back to the time of the introduction of the 1983 Budget changes while Excise Tariff Proposals No. 6 are not. This is because the Customs Act allows concessional Gazette notices to be backdated whereas the Excise Act does not. The excise changes will be backdated to Budget night in a subsequent Bill. Excise Tariff Proposals No. 7, which operate from tomorrow, alter the concessional excise tariff treatment available to goods for non-diplomatic trade commissioners following a review of those concessional arrangements. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 13 (1983), which operate from tomorrow, contain developing country preference changes resulting from the Government's decisions on recommendations made by the Industries Assistance Commission in its report on certain pigment dyestuffs and colour lakes-developing country preferences. The Government has accepted the Commission's findings that imports of pigments and colour lakes from India, the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Korea are causing injury to the Australian industry. Accordingly, the developing country preference has been withdrawn from these three sources. In future, importations of pigment dyestuffs and colour lakes from these countries will be dutiable at the general rate of 35 per cent. Proposals No. 13 also include a change relating to textile toys emanating from the Industries Assistance Commission's report on miscellaneous manufacturing group B: Dolls, toys and models. The tariff item relating to such toys is being reworded to include within its scope only those goods that the Industries Assistance Commission intended to be covered. 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 Ruddock) adjourned. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(4.24) —I ask leave of the House to move a motion to discharge certain Customs Tariff Proposals which were moved earlier in the session and which constitute part of order of the day No. 38. These Proposals were incorporated in the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1983 which has now been assented to. Leave granted. Mr KERIN —I move: That Customs Tariff Proposals No. 1 1983, constituting part of order of the day No. 38, Government Business, be discharged. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 24 August, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(4.25) —The principal purpose of the Public Service Amendment Bill is to ensure that the Government's community employment program and two other programs can operate effectively in the Public Service. The community employment program, modelled on the wage pause program of the previous Government, was enacted with the support of the Opposition in the May sittings of the Parliament. I will later address some comments to the effectiveness of this program; that is, the community employment program. Nationally, $300m will be available to the community employment program in 1983-84, of which $50m will be made available to Federal departments and authorities. The Community Employment Act provides that Commonwealth departments may incur expenditure for carrying out approved projects, and that Commonwealth authorities may enter into agreements with the Commonwealth for the purposes of carrying out approved projects. Division 10 of the Public Service Act of 1922 provides for temporary employment in the Service. However, the difficulty confronting the Government in engaging young unemployed people under these provisions was the requirement of section 82 that applicants for temporary positions had to be chosen on the basis that they were the best qualified persons for work. The community employment program has different criteria for the selection of people to participate in the program and it includes a provision that preference be given to those who have been registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service for some nine months or more . The proposed amendments do not change the merit criteria for appointment to temporary positions generally in the Public Service, but they make a number of special qualifications. The provisions to be enacted qualify section 82 so that where employment is offered firstly under the Community Employment Act; secondly under the national employment strategy for Aboriginals; or, thirdly, under the Commonwealth work experience program, persons chosen for the purposes of the program or project by the CES shall be appointed. Honourable members may wonder, as I did, why similar qualifications were not proposed to the temporary employment provisions contained in the enactments of various Commonwealth authorities. My research into that matter revealed that in relation to Telecom Australia, Australia Post, Trans Australia Airlines, the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, the Canberra College of Advanced Education, the Pipeline Authority, the Australian Film and Television School and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation temporary employees are not required to be the best qualified for the available work or appointed on merit. It may surprise honourable members-it came as a surprise to me-that such qualifications are not insisted upon by other authorities, but that appears to be the case in relation to those I have mentioned. I have not checked all the enactments of all the authorities of the Commonwealth but I assume the draftsmen and the advisers of the Minister for Finance and Minister assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters (Mr Dawkins) have checked all such enactments and that no further amendments will be necessary to facilitate the introduction of this scheme in the Public Service. A further technical amendment proposed by the Bill relates to the definition of 'department' to ensure that full effect is given to that definition as amended in 1982. This amendment is to facilitate the earlier amendments in the form proposed. The Opposition supports the amendments, as it supported the introduction of the community employment program. There are very good reasons for the extension of the operation of the community employment program to the Commonwealth Public Service. The Commonwealth has invited the participation of State governments, their authorities, local government and voluntary organisations. Their participation is essential for the success of this program. The sum of $250m has been allocated for that purpose. In 1974, as a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, I participated in an inquiry into special employment programs for Aboriginals. The special program which we looked at in northern New South Wales was called the special works projects scheme. Our Committee inquiry showed us high levels of participation by local government, local authorities, State departments and local employers in those very special schemes. But very few, if any, Commonwealth authorities were involved. Few departments of the Commonwealth were found to have engaged young unemployed Aboriginal people, and yet clearly opportunities were available in communities to do so. This lack of example by the Commonwealth and its agencies was a severe embarrassment to me and to other members of the Committee. It is the Opposition's earnest desire that on this occasion the Commonwealth will fully participate in this program and that, particularly in the national employment strategy for Aboriginals, opportunities will be found for engagement. It is not enough to amend legislation. A commitment in all departments, all authorities and all agencies to find suitable tasks and job opportunities is required. On behalf of the Opposition, I make it clear that I will be seeking regular reports to the Parliament detailing which departments and authorities are participating in these programs. In the Committee stage of the Community Employment Bill my colleague the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) commended for consideration a particular program for Commonwealth participation. I reiterate his suggestion for noting by the Minister and his officials. The honourable member suggested that repair and maintenance programs in various Commonwealth factories be commenced. He noted that a dozen or so factories now in the Department of Defence Support are in urgent need of attention and urged that repairs be pursued, in the national interest, as a matter of priority. In commending this Bill, and offering it a speedy passage with Opposition support, we should not, however, ignore the reality of unemployment and that this program for the Public Service and generally will not create, in real terms , extra employment for Australians. The Budget, so recently presented by the Treasurer (Mr Keating), recognises that this year unemployment is estimated to rise by some 90,000 people. It is asserted that the community employment program will create up to 70,000 jobs for an average duration of only six months. The reality of these figures cannot be ignored. It is only through a real economic recovery that lasting employment opportunities will be created. A wages policy is crucial to this economic recovery, as Treasury noted in Budget Statement No. 2. The Opposition recognised this in May when it proposed the following second reading amendment to the Community Employment Bill. Whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House- (1) is of the opinion that the Government should acknowledge that permanent jobs will only be created when economic recovery occurs and should do its utmost to implement policies consistent with the following extracts from the National Economic Summit Communique: (a) There is a recognition that to achieve recovery will require restraint in expectations and claims from all sections of the community except the impoverished (paragraph 2); (b) It is a legitimate expectation that income of the employed shall be increased in real terms through time in line with productivity (paragraph 8), and (c) The preservation of the private sector as a profitable operating sector is essential to Australia's well being and to encourage job creating investment from both within Australia and abroad (paragraph 9), and (2) Resolves that the Government should seek to extend the wages pause and subsequent wage restraint until economic recovery, increased investment and consequent job creation have commenced strongly. The honourable member for Balaclava made other pertinent observations about the Community Employment Bill which should not be forgotten. He stated: First of all, the Bill seeks to provide temporary employment for less than 10 per cent of the unemployed. Secondly, it does so in a manner and by criteria very similar to those adopted by the previous Government when distributing the $ 300 million saved from the wages pause in respect of Commonwealth employees. Thirdly, I have no doubt that the Fraser Government, had it still been in office in August, would have introduced a similar program to this. He further stated: The program in this Bill had its genesis in the wages pause program of the Fraser Government which the then Opposition roundly and wrongly condemned. My colleague said that the wage pause and the government's incomes and prices policy should have one overriding economic objective and that is limiting the increased growth in wages. He noted the problem of wages growth outside the centralised wage fixing system at that time in the building industry with its consequential flow-on effect. That problem is more real today with the $15 to $ 20 wage increase outside the centralised system paid by H. J. Heinz Co. Australia Ltd. These increases, with consequential flow-on effects, argued by the President of the Australian council of Trade Unions, Mr Dolan, as inevitable will occur on top of a general wage increase of 4 per cent accepted by the Government as a permissible outcome from the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission inquiries proceedings at this time. These increases, with any further indexation awards, make the Government's Budget wage growth forecasts of 7 per cent in the year ahead unlikely and an almost impossible outcome. The tragic effect will be increased inflation, loss in real value of funds for the Commonwealth Employment Program and a reduction in the estimated number of jobs to be created. The reality of this can be seen in the figures that were released today by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. I think every honourable member would be alarmed to learn that, whereas this community employment project will create something of the order of 70,000 jobs for some six months duration, in August a loss of 52,000 jobs occurred. There is in this for the Government a clear warning of the consequences of its reckless policy of full wage indexation. Many Australian businesses simply cannot survive under indexed wage rises, which will force many employers to offset higher wage costs by reducing their number of workers. The August fall in the number of Australians at work has not been matched by an equal rise in unemployment only because the level of discouraged workers who have not bothered to register is now at the highest level ever recorded. The labour force participation rate is now only 59.8 per cent, the lowest level since official figures were first collected more than 20 years ago, and compares with a 61.3 per cent participation rate when the former Government lost office in March. These latest job losses put at risk the Government's Budget objective of increasing employment by about 1 1/2 per cent over 1983-84, which I have already said is going to be disastrous. Unemployment appears to be set to rise even higher than the Government's wage forecast because of the Government's full wage indexation policy. That needs to be understood. Whilst the community employment program-and its extension to the Public Service-is an initiative, it will only be a panacea in part. My colleague the honourable member for Balaclava also noted that the $300m for the community employment program was achieved at the expense of programs of the former Government axed by the present Labor Government in May which would have also created additional jobs. Again I will quote the honourable member: During this financial year we were looking at a wages pause program which had job creating benefits as great as any proposed in the Bill. The former Government proposed welfare housing, airport upgrading, the Australian Bicentenial Road Development Program and water projects- and the Northern Territory railway- all of which were important for job creation. The present Government, in saying that its razor gang has removed these projects, is using mirrors to pretend that it has provided $300m for the creation of extra work. In fact, people who are concerned with the Brisbane Airport work and other such projects- such as the Northern Territory railway- will have cause to wonder. I believe that in the end most of what is proposed will be nugatory and that all of it will represent a cruel deception and illusion to the unemployed. But it is not just the Opposition which has its doubts about the success of the community employment program in the light of our economic situation. Deborah Hope, in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of Friday, 2 September, commenting on the Government's job creation scheme, stated: But some social analysts and economists are arguing that the money could be put to better use and that the scheme could actually worsen the lot of Australia's long-term unemployed. While some are likely to benefit from greater work skills and boosted morale, many more could end up back on the dole queue and even more disillusioned than before. The Government admits the scheme will do nothing to reduce the level of unemployment. By the end of June this year, nearly 720,000 people were looking for work, a rate of 10.3 per cent. According to the Budget papers, the Treasury expects unemployment to grow, rather than fall, in 1983-1984, from an average of 540,000 a month last year to an average of 680,000. This is in part because the labour force is expected to grow at a faster rate than unemployment. The figures I gave, which were announced by the Bureau of Statistics today, very much confirm that proposition. Deborah Hope added: It may have been a more courageous and constructive advance for the unemployed if CEP funds had been allocated to make small capital loans to the unemployed to set up small business that would at least contain the potential for a continuing independent income. This proposal is strongly supported by the welfare organisation the Brotherhood of St Laurence. The Brotherhood's social and economic policy director, Peter Allen, claims the European example of governments promoting community industry could be followed. According to Mr Allen, European governments are expressing increasing dissatisfaction with work experience and training programs as responses to the present job crisis. A report being prepared by the EEC and expected later this year is expected to lead to a substantial increase in government support for permanent rather than temporary job creation programs. This is taking place against a background of predictions for Europe that total employment within the EEC will fall by about one per cent over the next three years, and a growing realisation there that a lift in economic growth, when it occurs, is unlikely to lead to a significant increase in jobs. There is one aspect of administration which has caused me considerable concern. Honourable members may not have seen the article entitled: 'Wage pause fund in limbo', in the Canberra Times last week. It makes certain startling allegations requiring urgent clarification. The report alleges that the $200m allocated by the former Government's wage pause program appears to have dried up and that the Government is unaware of how it is being spent. Mr Dawkins —Has it? Mr RUDDOCK —I am interested to hear that interjection because the people who were speaking on behalf of the Government were suggesting that the money had been spent or was committed. It was noted that in July the funding of State programs was suspended when only 10 per cent of the available funds had been spent and States were denied funds until their backlog was reduced to only one month's allocation. The reporter's inquiry of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations to ascertain the current position brought the response that the scheme was effectively wound up on the basis that money was committed, or there were enough applications to take up the rest. However, no information was available as to how the States had spent the funds allocated before the freeze. The most alarming statement was in the final paragraph. It states: But since August, the energies of the Department appear to have been directed away from monitoring the older job-creation scheme in favour of establishing administrative machinery for publicising the Community Employment Program initiative announced by the Treasurer Mr Keating, in May which is to run for three years. This matter requires urgent clarification. I trust that the Minister will be briefed to clarify these questions. There are reports emanating from South Australia that participation in the community employment program is being made conditional upon applicants for employment joining appropriate trade unions, in some cases the Public Service associations. As far as I could see, there was nothing in the Commonwealth guidelines about such a condition of participation by the unemployed. I would like the Minister's clarification on this matter and his advice that it is contrary to the spirit of the scheme. There can be no basis for compulsory unionism by stealth. The Minister will be aware that International Labour Organisation conventions protect freedom of association, but they eschew compulsion. Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, but it further provides that no one may be compelled to belong to an association. This is the test to which members of the Government and members of the Australian trade union movement must direct their minds. If they believe in and support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they cannot in conscience condone the philosophy of compulsory unionism. The Opposition's position is clear: It supports a strong and virile trade union movement, but it must be based on voluntary membership. If the Government's objective is otherwise, it should be pursued directly and not by subterfuge, and particularly not at the expense of the unemployed who may be engaged only on a short term basis. There were some figures emanating from South Australia suggesting that something of the order of $250,000 of the community employment program could find its way into the hands of unions through membership fees collected at $75 per head on the basis of the number of participants for South Australia. I think that is very significant. If $250,000 of community employment funds are to find their way into union coffers, I think that is a very real matter of concern and one that must be remedied. Finally, I would like to raise another matter in relation to the Public Service Act generally. That is the Act that we are amending on this occasion. Yesterday during Question Time the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made it clear that the services of the present Chairman of the Public Service Board, Sir William Cole, would no longer be required. His term as a distinguished, non-partisan and independent chairman of the Public Service Board is to be brought to an end by the Government. There are widespread rumours which the Prime Minister has refused to deny, that Sir William Cole is to be replaced by that long term servant of the Australian Labor Party, Dr Peter Wilenski. The Government knows that the position of Chairman of the Public Service Board is a very sensitive one and it knows that the position has a great bearing on the performance and morale of the Public Service as a whole. That is why it is proposing to put one of its own followers into the position as Chairman. By doing so, the traditional independence of the Public Service, which is so essential if it is to provide the Government with objective, independent advice, will be seriously jeopardised . I think the Public Service will be harnessed more to meet the subjective demands of the Labor Party than the Australian community if such an appointment goes ahead. I believe it would be disastrous and the manner in which it is being pursued casts very grave doubts upon the Government's credibility. This position needs to be explained. As the Minister has responsibility for the Public Service Board and the Act, as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, I certainly hope he will take the opportunity in this debate to explain that matter to us all today. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(4.48) —I listened with interest to the comments from the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock). I was quite amazed to hear his speech which went on for 20 minutes. Only in the last two minutes did he make any reference at all to the issue of morale or reform generally in the Australian Public Service. I think it is very typical of the attitude members of the Opposition have had to the Public Service when they were in government over the last seven years. I was quite amazed by the honourable member's moral indignation and his discussion about performance and morale in the Public Service when the previous Government, of which he was a supporter, spent the last seven years of its administration blaming the Public Service for every single fault that that Government made. The Public Service Amendment Bill before us today-it is a very straightforward Bill-deals mainly with administrative measures to provide temporary employment opportunities in the Public Service under the community employment scheme. But I believe this Bill, which amends the Public Service Act, must be seen in the context of the Labor Government's commitment to ongoing reform of the Public Service and sound administrative practice. The Labor Government is concerned about setting high standards for public administration and ensuring that efficient management practices are adopted throughout the Public Service. We on this side of the House have been so concerned about the low morale in the Public Service which was generated by the previous Administration and years of neglect of very constructive policies for the Public Service that while we were in opposition we established a special task force on government administration to develop strong and effective policies on public administration to be implemented on attaining government. Our policy paper on the quality of government was distributed publicly last year and was widely acclaimed for its sensible and constructive recommendations. We are now proceeding to implement these recommendations under the leadership of the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins). I am delighted that these reforms are now taking place. They are welcomed by the Public Service generally. As a representative in this House of many public servants-in fact 68 per cent of my work force-I can assure the honourable member for Dundas that, in fact, morale is improving quite dramatically in the Public Service. Public servants welcome these reforms. We are not interested in reform simply for reform's sake. Rather we have closely examined all the recommendations of previous inquiries into public administration. There were many inquiries because the previous Government had a policy of: 'When in doubt set up another review'. The only trouble is that it did not act on any of the recommendations of those reviews. Honourable members will recall that the Coombs Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration made recommendations early in the 1970s. Very few of those recommendations were taken up by the previous Administration. We then had the report of the Reid Committee of Review of Commonwealth Administration. I was a member of the Public Accounts Committee which inquired into the training of senior managers of the Public Service. This Government has taken a strong policy on government administration. It is prepared to implement many of the recommendations of these reports. The quality of government paper is our blueprint which we are now putting into effect. We believe that good administrative practice is essential for good government. We believe strongly that the people of Australia are entitled to good management of our resources. To this end the Minister for Finance announced yesterday the first of a series of budgetary reform measures which will ensure greater public accountability in the management of resources. In presenting the departmental Estimates of 1983-84, the Minister drew attention to the new format of the document which provides a cross reference to data in the Budget Papers and contains a great deal more explanatory information. This will be of great assistance to the general public in obtaining a better understanding of government activities. In addition, the monthly statement of Commonwealth financial transactions also contains more explanatory material than in the past. This will facilitate a greater understanding of these government procedures. Other reform measures which illustrate the Government's commitment to promoting sound management practices are the new measures introduced to ensure better control of resources. Public servants are resource managers as well as policy managers. I will comment further on this later on. To this end human resource budgeting has been integrated into the Budget process. Now all proposals for new staffing are to be considered by the Minister for Finance. A further major reform is the requirement that all future legislation presented to Parliament will be accompanied by financial impact statements. This will allow informed public debate on the impact of new legislation and it will ensure sound economic management of resources. The Australian Labor Government is committed to a steady program of reform in public administration. This Government, unlike the former Government, is concerned about implementing constructive reform measures combined with sound management practices which will ensure the efficient use of resources. We understand that it is essential that Public Service morale is maintained and that constructive reform measures need to be adopted in order to ensure good government in Australia. I believe a great deal of reform is required to correct the imbalance in the number of women-the lack of women-particularly in the top echelons of the Public Service. In the 1982-83 Public Service Board annual report which was released this week the statistics speak for themselves. In the First Division there are no women. In the Second Division there are only 30 women out of a total of 1,310 ; that is, only two per cent of Second Division officers are women. In the Third Division there are 18,642 women out of a total of just over 69,000; that is, only 26 per cent of Third Division officers are women. Clearly much greater attention must be paid to providing equal employment opportunities in the Public Service. The Government has already stated its commitment to the Sex Discrimination Bill. This will be an important beginning. In addition, a Green Paper discussing affirmative action proposals for public and private employment is being prepared and is expected to go before the Cabinet this month. A further measure which will be of great assistance is the upgrading of the Office of Women's Affairs and its move to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. In time all these measures will help to redress the present imbalance and will promote equal employment opportunities in the Public Service. Public Service senior management practices have also received attention . I am glad to see that the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) is in the House because he, like myself, was instrumental in putting out a number of proposals in relation to these issues. Mr Ruddock —He is a very constructive contributor. Mrs KELLY —He is very constructive. I am very pleased to see that the Public Service Board has adopted many of these proposals which will be followed through by the Minister for Finance who is present in the House. The Labor Government recognises the importance and significance of the efficiency of senior officers in the Public Service. It acknowledges that good management is necessary for good government. This view has been reinforced by report after report including the two hundred and second report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts entitled 'The Selection and Development of Senior Managers in the Commonwealth Public Service' and the report of the Committee of Review of Commonwealth Administration which is known as the Reid report. The report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts pointed out that the efficiency of senior Public Service managers is crucial to overall effectiveness and that there is 'an urgent need to improve public service management'. The report of the Committee of Review of Commonwealth Administration reinforced that view and indicated that a crucial factor in upgrading the performance of the Public Service lay in 'the quality and experience of senior management'. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee responsible for the preparation of its 202nd report I welcome the progress already made by the Public Service Board in implementing some of the report's recommendations. The Public Service Board is convinced-as outlined in its annual report tabled yesterday-that it is essential and in the interests of effective performance of the Australian Public Service to upgrade further the selection and development of senior managers in the Service. Decisions already taken by the Public Service Board include a management course for all new entrants to the Second Division and a program of senior executive conferences to cover practical management issues for Second Division officers. These and other decisions are welcome. For too long there has been little recognition of the value and significance of senior managers in the Public Service. These reforms are not meant as criticisms of existing Second Division officers. They are simply a recognition of the fact that a government relies heavily on its senior public servants for advice and for the implementation of its policies. It therefore needs to ensure that senior public servants have the best possible training and qualifications for the job. All these reforms are long overdue. Most of them have been recommended for years but, until now, they have been ignored. I am particularly pleased that I have been able to contribute to the development of the Government's public administration policies, both as a member of the task force on the transition to government and as a member of the Public Accounts Committee-as is the honourable member for Bradfield. I was also a member of the ongoing task force of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on public service matters. It is most rewarding to hear sensible and constructive debate in this chamber on public service issues. I am only sorry that the honourable member for Dundas did not devote more of his time to discussing these matters. I hope that the honourable member for Bradfield who will follow me in this debate will give some heed to these points and make some constructive contribution to this debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! It might be timely for the Chair to intervene. Whilst the honourable member for Canberra is inviting other honourable members to transgress the question of relevance it might be timely if I drew the honourable member's attention to the fact that she has been accorded considerable latitude. I would like her to be more directly relevant to the Bill which, in itself, is not as widely embracing as her remarks would suggest. Mrs KELLY —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Public Service Amendment Bill which is before the House enables the temporary employment provisions of the Public Service Act to be broadened so that unemployed people can gain temporary public service employment under the community employment program. In Canberra, where there is no State or local government, the Government has allocated an additional $1.5m over and above the per capita grant of $3.367m to compensate for the lack of State government contributions. That is very significant because it is the first time that the Australian Capital Territory has received recognition of the fact that it does not receive State topping-up funds. These funds will be of enormous benefit to the community where youth unemployment over the past years has been the highest in the country-up to 40 per cent. The funds will allow many valuable local community projects to go ahead and will be of enormous benefit to local residents as well as the unemployed. In Canberra, the Public Service is the largest source of employment. This Bill will be of great assistance in generating more employment opportunities. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(4.59) —I should congratulate the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) for her contribution to the examination of public administration in recent years, especially for the role she played in the preparation of the Report of the Selection and Training of Senior Managers which was the 202nd report of the Public Accounts Committee. I feel however that the Department of Finance Minute procedures, which will enable this Parliament to see what the Government's views are on our recommendations, would be a more appropriate opportunity for us to debate the questions of public administration, notwithstanding of course the fact that there are very real problems in that area. The issue before us today is unemployment. It is for that reason that I wish to address specifically that area. This Bill has the principal purpose of ensuring that the Government's community employment program, which the Opposition parties support, will be implemented in full by all government departments, statutory authorities and instrumentalities which are responsible to this Parliament. Some $300m has been made available for the community employment program during this financial year. I understand that some $50m will be made available to Federal departments and authorities at this time. Under section 82 of the existing Public Service Act, which is subject to amendment in this Bill, applicants to temporary positions have to be chosen on the basis that he or she would be best qualified. That of course has traditionally been the principle of selection within the Public Service and one which the Opposition parties certainly endorse. However, in the context of major unemployment, especially youth unemployment, which the nation is facing, there is no doubt that the question of need must be taken into consideration. That is why we agree with the proposal in this Bill that the definition be amended insofar as it refers to personnel who will join the Service as a result of going through the community employment program. Therefore, we must seek people who are best able to gain something because of their needs caused by long term unemployment. On the general question of unemployment, recent statistics from the economic intelligence unit of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in Paris-of course, Australia is a member of the OECD-predicted the very sad situation which faces not only this country but all the other Western nations as well. It suggests that rising directly from the micro-processor revolution 35 million people will be unemployed in the world's major industrialised nations by 1985, leading, it suggests, to an even more staggering 65 million to 70 million by the mid-1990s. It follows therefore that solving the unemployment problem in this nation as elsewhere is the most vital task for all governments in the industrialised democracies. On the second of this month, the Sydney Morning Herald made the point: High unemployment is here to stay. That is the gloomy message in the Federal Government's Budget Papers. In the face of this prediction, questions are being asked about the wisdom of the Government's $300 million community employment programme (CES) for short term job creation which was announced last month. The guidelines which have been set down for the CEP are very specific. Its target group is those who are least likely to benefit from improved economic activity; that means those who have been looking for work for a long period as well as those who are disadvantaged in the work force, such as Aborigines, migrants with language difficulties and the disabled. The Commonwealth proposal to fund this program at a cost of $1.3 billion over three years is estimated, according to the Treasurer (Mr Keating), to create approximately 40,000 jobs of an average six months duration, in this financial year. It is hoped that there will be an increase of some 70,000 jobs a year when the scheme is in full operation. However, if one is prepared to judge that on the basis of jobs for three to six months duration alone, it suggests to me that it is creating employment over only a 12-month period for approximately 35,000 people only, which is certainly not the impression one gains from reading the releases of the relevant Ministers. While some are likely to benefit from greater work skills and boosted morale, it is an unfortunate fact that many more could end up back on the dole queue even more disillusioned than before and, in many cases I would suggest, even more disadvantaged. The Government admits that the scheme will do nothing to reduce the level of unemployment overall. We must note that, by the end of June this year, some 720,000 Australians were looking for work. That is a rate of 10. 3 per cent. Today's unemployment statistics reveal that only 100 jobs, in seasonally adjusted terms, have been created since the Labor Government came to power. In fact, between July and August, 52,000 jobs had been lost. Since March, the unadjusted figures show employment has fallen by an enormous 68,300. It is therefore difficult to see why although the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has seen fit to boast on the basis of last month's figures that Labor's policies are already putting Australians back to work. Quiet clearly on the basis of the statistics announced today, that is not so. As a member of the Opposition I do not draw any satisfaction whatsoever from having to make that observation. Nevertheless, as a parliament, all Government and Opposition members alike must appreciate the realities of the problems facing Australia and see what we can do to solve them. Mere histrionics will not achieve that. The continuing very high level of unemployment and the fall in the participation rate are obviously reminders to us all of the difficulties of trying to apply a wages policy which will return full wage indexation regardless of capacity to pay and industry productivity. The fact that some 52,700 people actually left the work force in August obviously shows a lack of confidence in the ability of the Government's programs and policies to create new permanent jobs. I seek leave to incorporate a table in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- JOBS: CIVILIAN LABOUR FORCE Raw Figures Unemployment Participation 1983 Employment Unemployment Labour Force rate rate March 6,300,800 731,600 7,032,400 10.4 61.3 July 6,284,500 684,800 6,969,300 9.8 60.4 August 6,232,500 684,100 6,916,600 9.9 59.8 March/Aug. -68,300 -47,500 -115,800 -0.5 -1.5 July/Aug. -52,000 - 700 - 52,700 +0.1 -0.6 Seasonally Adjusted Unemployment Participation 1983 Employment Unemployment Labour Force rate rate March 6,263,200 713,200 5,965,100 10.1 60.7 July 6,282,800 718,600 7,001,500 10.3 60.6 August 6,263,300 713,200 6,976,500 10.2 60.3 March/Aug. + 100 +11,300 +11,400 +0.1 -0.4 July/Aug. -19,500 - 5,400 -25,000 -0.1 -0.3 Based on ABS figures. Mr CONNOLLY —I thank the House. According to the Budget Papers, the Treasury expects unemployment to grow rather than fall during 1983-84 from an average of 540,000 a month last year to an average of 680,000 this year. Of course this is partly due to the fact that the labour force is expected to grow at a rate faster than employment. However, employers will need firm evidence of improved profitability and demand before they are again likely to hire labour. In addition, jobs lost during the recession are not likely to be replaced as they have been effectively wiped out by labour-saving investments. Therefore, quite obviously we must seek new areas of employment and keep control over wage costs. The Treasury has suggested that any wage rises higher than the 7 per cent forecast could result in another increase in the jobless rate. That is obviously so, because the Government has already stated that it believes a minimum wage increase of at least 4 per cent will have to be taken into account by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. I would like the House to give further consideration to what the alternatives to the CEP may be. I refer specifically to the possibility of providing small capital loans or grants to selected unemployed to set up small businesses. Local community groups comprising businessmen, retired bankers, accountants and so forth could well provide expertise which should be used as a basis for advising unemployed people to enter into regional or local enterprises which would meet the requirements of the community. Undoubtedly some of these would be successful and, from that success, in turn additional employment opportunities would develop for others. Such an approach would not be more expensive than the present scheme. It could well be substantially more useful and undoubtedly less wasteful. At best I believe that the CEP will affect fewer than one in 10 of the unemployed. It may have been a more courageous and constructive advance for the unemployed if the funds allocated for the CEP had been made available to the unemployed, to set up businesses which would at least contain the potential to give them continuing independent income. For example, a loan of $8,500 which is the basis of the cost to the Government per individual entering the CEP could well be enough to set up many in their own small businesses and thus achieve independence. Ken Davidson of the Age in an analysis of the CEP recently made the point that it: . . . resembled little more than an unimaginative rehash of the Whitlam Government's regional development scheme. I have to say on record that, while I believe the administration of the regional employment development scheme-the RED scheme-was in many respects a shambles, in fairness it would have to be said that in some areas at least a number of regional projects were worthwhile. This, of course, does not in any sense underestimate the fact that those projects were achieved at enormous cost. Nevertheless, when that program was introduced, unemployment was less than 5 per cent. Unemployment is now 10 per cent plus. In other words, programs of that nature which make work in the short term to try to keep the statistics low over a 12-month period by giving people three to six months work experience, are simply not enough and do not go to the heart of the problem, which is to establish a framework of economic policies which will enable employers, through the private sector-not simply through the Government-to be a primary source of additional employment opportunities for the Australian people. The long term, hard core unemployed will not be satisfied and their problems will not be solved by simple methods of using temporary jobs for three or six months duration. It would have been much more fruitful if the Government had looked at ways of providing job experience and retraining for the jobs which will need to be filled if there were a general economic recovery which, of course, we all hope we will see in the not too distant future. With unemployment heading towards 11 per cent and an entrenched structural problem, participants in the CEP will, after three or six months, undoubtedly in many cases still end up on the unemployment queue. The European experience in this matter is well worth considering because those countries went into the recession before Australia. There are some indications that the western European countries and the United States may well come out of it ahead of us. They have examined these matters in some depth. The general consensus contained in the European Economic Community's report on this matter, due for publication later this year, is likely to recommend a substantial increase in government support for permanent, rather than temporary job creation programs. In other words, the proposal I noted earlier, of giving individuals the incentive and the capability of going out into the community to try to do something to help themselves is of great attraction to the Europeans who have already gone down the make work type route and have not found it satisfactory. The European predictions of a lift in economic growth, when it occurs, is unfortunately, unlikely to lead to a significant increase in job opportunities. Thus we must look to the development of the business co-operatives or public mini-business and private sector partnership. Again, these matters have been explored in Canada, the United States and parts of western Europe. Regrettably, we have not seen them considered by this Government, nor by its departmental advisers. The small sums of money required to set up such enterprises often do not attract existing financial institutions and for that reason it will obviously be necessary to look to the Government for greater support. I take this opportunity to mention briefly to the Government and to the Parliament some of the work that we have been doing in Sydney in the Youthwork program which I established in my electorate in 1979. After four years it is now possible to say without much doubt that our unemployment program has been successful. Let me say at the outset that the principle behind Youth- work was that we wanted to give-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —I think the honourable member would understand that if honourable members contributing to the debate are allowed to move away from the Bill we will enter a very wide and interesting area of conjecture. Youthwork programs are hardly the essence of the situation. Mr CONNOLLY —They are, because they demonstrate the alternative to money spending under CEP. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I remind the honourable member that they are relevant only in respect of the management of the scheme through employment in the Public Service . Mr CONNOLLY —CEP is only a facet of total expenditure. The Commonwealth is identifying expenditure under CEP. Many hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent in local communities and Youthwork is the sort of program which fits into the CEP analysis. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I require the honourable member to be relevant to the aspects of the Bill to which I have referred. Mr CONNOLLY —I am asked to return to the effect of CEP in relation to employment in the public sector. I am concerned that there will be limitations on the ability of CEP trainees to be adequately used by departments and statutory authorities within the control of this Parliament. Therefore, I totally support the observation made by my colleague the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) who opened the debate on this Bill for the Opposition, that he will require the Government to provide this Parliament on a regular basis with information on the number of CEP trainees taken on strength by departments. It is only fair to add that I would also like to see that we are advised exactly what activities those CEP trainees will be encouraged to perform while they are in government service. As I noted earlier, while we have difficulties in our longer term perception of the Government's attitude towards the solution of the problems of unemployment, we support this legislation because quite clearly it is not satisfactory for a program of this nature to be directed at local and State governments as well as the community as a whole unless it is also possible for the Commonwealth Government to set a standard. I believe most firmly that the opportunities within the nation have not yet been fully explored. Australians must be given a chance through the initiatives of government to make a contribution to overcoming what is obviously today and is likely to remain for some time, the greatest problem facing our nation. Mr PORTER(Barker)(5.16) —I shall be brief as I understand an arrangement has been made by the two Whips in relation to the timing on the Public Service Amendment Bill. I will make three points. Firstly, this legislation will allow the recruitment of temporary employees into Public Service departments and, I understand, some statutory authorities, when they are referred to those departments by the Commonwealth Employment Service. One of the purposes of the Bill is to train people under what is known as the national employment strategy for Aboriginals. I, like many other members of Parliament, employ NESA trainees. I am glad that this Government has continued to fund this initiative of the previous Government. It is a worthwhile scheme assisting Aboriginal people to find long term employment. The second matter I want to raise is the blackmail arrangements imposing closed shop regulations on the employment of the unemployed under the schemes which are the subject of the Bill-those conditions being imposed by the State Government in South Australia under the Australian Labor Party Premier Bannon. This matter was referred to briefly by the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock). I refer to the conditions which I am told the South Australian Government will impose under this program-that is, 'before non-unionists are employed or apprentices have completed their indentures and are employed as tradesmen, the employing officer shall obtain in writing from them an undertaking that they will join an appropriate union within a reasonable time after commencing employment and will remain a member of an appropriate union whilst employed on a project funded under the scheme'. Those are the conditions which I understand South Australian Premier Bannon will impose on the funds provided by this Government for the employment of unemployed people. In other words, before the unemployed can obtain a job they must agree to join the South Australian Government's closed shop arrangement. The unemployed are no longer able to choose whether they want to joint the relevant union. Mr Dawkins —I hope you are not misleading the House. Mr PORTER —You can ring up your Leader while I complete my speech. Mr Dawkins —You are the one who is making the allegation. Mr PORTER —I am, and if you would like to check with the Leader in South Australia- Mr Dawkins —What is the basis for your allegation? Mr PORTER —He is your colleague. You can easily come back and correct the situation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! I ask the honourable member to disregard interjections and direct his remarks through the Chair. Mr PORTER —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am rather grateful for the interjections. They obvioulsy show the Government is embarrassed by the Premier' s action in South Australia. I hope that they will correct the situation. The Commonwealth Government has the obligation to impose conditions on the funds which are being made available to South Australia. I believe that the conditions imposed by the South Australian Government for this closed shop arrangement are contrary to the ideals of the Australian people. I believe they are also contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I will refer briefly to two articles of that Declaration. Article 20 states: 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. 2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association. How do Premier Bannon's conditions of employment stand against that Article? Article 23 states, in part: 1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. I repeat the words 'to protection against unemployment'. It would appear to me that if an unemployed person does not want to join a union he is being denied employment and, therefore, that protection against unemployment is being violated by South Australian Premier Bannon. I make the point, and I hope that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) can answer me. Finally, I refer to another State-Victoria. In Victoria the allegation has been made in a newsletter by the Victorian Aboriginal Community Task Force on Land Rights and Compensation that Premier Cain is going to use the funds provided by the Government under this scheme to employ people whom he would otherwise have had to employ anyway. I quote the allegation from the Task Force's newsletter: Cain's proposal is to be funded from Commonwealth/State Employment funds CEP. What is the State putting in?-Absolutely nothing either now or in the future! This is in relation to the employment of 25 people to undertake work in relation to the land rights legislation in Victoria. Under the heading '25 Community Land Rights Officers-Temporary Jobs or Land Rights?' the newsletter continues: The concept of employment 25 Community Land Rights Officers is sound providing a longer term of training and employment is offered These are the words of the Victorian group: As well, the purpose of this concept should not be seen as a 'temporary job creation scheme'! I raise the matter with the Government and I ask: Is that employment program that apparently has been nominated by the Premier of Victoria within the guidelines set down by the Government? I understand those guidelines to state quite clearly that the State is not supposed to replace services which would have been funded in any event. In other words, is he using Commonwealth funds for unemployed people to fund positions which he would have funded in any event? I believe these questions deserve serious consideration by this Government and I trust that the Minister will provide answers to this House. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(5.23) —At the outset I would like to make a couple of comments with respect to the contribution to this debate by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). It seemed to me that that contribution was a judicious mixture of quite sensible suggestions combined with some negative comments which really will not advance the interests of unemployed people in Australia. He indicated at the outset that he thought solving the unemployment crisis was one of the most vital tasks confronting democracies. Certainly we on this side of the House would not quibble with that. He adverted to the record of the Labor Government since it was elected on 5 March and then took something of a negative approach with his analysis of the effects on the economy of the election of a Labor government. I simply remind the honourable member for Bradfield that the Labor Government was elected at the end of a period of 12 months in which the economy has been described as being in a state of free fall. During the preceding 12 months an additional 260,000 persons were relegated to the unemployment scrap-heap. So much for the previous Government's record on these matters. He adverted briefly also to the Labor Party's wages policy. The House need not be reminded that the Opposition has yet to come to a viable, sensible wages policy. It has a number of different positions, and obviously that is a source of some embarrassment to it. I advise the honourable member for Bradfield that, given that ongoing embarrassment, it may be appropriate not to raise the matter until such time as the Opposition has clarified its position. He then made a couple of sensible suggestions-and they go to the very heart of the debate-about the appropriateness or otherwise of employment creation schemes along the lines of the community employment program. When the Public Service Amendment Bill 1983 was brought before the House my colleague the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters ( Mr Dawkins) indicated that the initiative was expected to create up to 70,000 jobs nationally in its first year of operation. The honourable member for Bradfield had some problem with that figure, and it is perhaps a quite valid comment that, when one analyses those figures, the precise number of full time positions created might seem to be open to some debate. What certainly is not open to dispute is that the initiatives cannot be seen in a vacuum; they bring on multiplier effects in the economy. It has been estimated that for each position created directly under the community employment program an additional two persons would be employed in the private sector. I think it most important that we examine the situation inherited by the Australian Labor Party on 5 March before we can place much credence on the sorts of comments made by the honourable member for Bradfield and some of his colleagues. If he uses the 1982-83 price index it is possible to work out the amount of moneys set aside for employment creation programs by the conservative coalition compared with the last year of the Whitlam Government. The Whitlam Government, in 1982-83 prices, allocated in the vicinity of $1,300 to each unemployed person who took part in an employment creation program. That compares with the period of the Fraser Government when the amount dropped to in the vicinity of $530 per person engaged in a work creation program. Of course, that is a drop in the vicinity of 60 per cent in real terms and I think goes some way to indicating the priority that the previous Government accorded to job creation as a concept. Whilst the employment situation was in rapid decline the previous Government deemed it appropriate to offer proportionately less assistance to those people in greatest need. During its period in office the conservative coalition displayed considerable hostility to the concept of community based public sector job creation schemes. During 1982-83 the 53 per cent of allocations set aside for direct employer subsidy and rebates in effect became counter-productive. Because they were based on the state of the labour market, as soon as the labour market collapsed in 1982 the effectiveness of that sort of allocation collapsed with it. For the Labor Government to make any meaningful impact on unemployment will require a growth rate in excess of 5 per cent each year. Relative to other Organsiation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, Australia has not fared well with its growth rates to date. Because a long term growth rate of this order cannot be guaranteed it seems to me imperative that we give greater attention to job creation schemes or any other method by which employment and jobs can be created. An effective program of planning, implementation and evaluation of job creation schemes is to a large extent predicated on the sort of organisational structure that one sets up to administer those schemes. The honourable member for Bradfield adverted briefly to what he described as the shambles of administration under the old regional employment development scheme. I simply comment that the administration of that scheme had hardly been set up when it was dismantled. There really was not sufficient time to iron out the various problems that arise when one sets up any major scheme. It must be said that this target of achieving full employment is one of the urgent priorities of this Government. It was certainly central to the program that we put before the people during the election campaign. To a very large extent it was the perception that the Liberal Government had lost control of the economy and had no genuine concern for the interests of those who were unemployed that led to the results on 5 March. As I have indicated, there has been an obvious reluctance on the part of the Opposition to embrace the concept of employment creation schemes. That reluctance was changed only when the imperative of the forthcoming election made the Opposition act somewhat hastily in setting up what were, in effect, the very types of job creation schemes that it had for so long abused. The need to be seen to be doing something went down in history as the Liberal Party's approach to some of these issues. One of its members made that comment in 1982. Certainly, as it turned out, this was a positive thing for those who obtained employment under the various job creation schemes put forward by the Fraser Government. There is no doubt about that. The job creation schemes that we have carried on with and of which we have changed the concept certainly do not pretend to be an answer to an employment crisis that was foisted upon us largely by the contractionary policies of the Fraser Government. They are, however, an important start to fulfilling this Government's great task-indeed, great duty-to provide work for all Australians who wish to work. We have heard in previous speeches the dimensions of the crisis confronting Australia and, indeed, the world, in terms of the seemingly intractable problems relating to the necessity to provide work. The Opposition, of course, is more inclined to a 'do nothing' approach because it has a philosophical view that at the end of the day market forces are a more appropriate method by which jobs may be created. If one looks around the various economies I think one would have to be a supreme optimist to be relying on market forces alone to get us out of our current predicament. The conservative policy or by definition lack of policy, is becoming increasingly less tenable in a rapidly changed Australian and world economy. Further, it is finding less and less support even amongst those with whom the Opposition would profess to have a philosophical affinity. Witness for example, the latest report of President Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers entitled 'Unemployment; the Failure of Private Enterprise'. That report noted that unemployment had been creeping up since World War II and now constituted, in the advisers' view, a permanent feature of capitalist economies. Economist's and business people, the report said, now accept as normal an unemployment rate of 6 to 7 per cent. This bland conclusion masks an implied acceptance of permanent misery for millions of unemployed persons. It is a conclusion that must not, and under this Government certainly will not, be found acceptable. An understanding of the nature and dimensions of the unemployment crisis must not, as seems to have been the case in the United States, be allowed to develop into this defeatist approach. Why should governments engage in employment creation programs, and what type of programs should be supported? Notwithstanding optimistic growth forecasts in the European Economic Community, as the member for Bradfield mentioned, it is predicted that total employment in the EEC will fall by approximately one per cent over the next three years; that is, whilst the economy will grow significantly, jobs will still be permanently lost. Growth of itself is a necessary but not sufficient prerequisite to a return to full employment. The European response to unemployment has seen a multitude of training schemes, job creation programs, et cetera. There are some lessons that we might learn from their European experience, lessons that might be adapted to our own community employment program concepts in the longer term. The major distinction between the European approach and our own is the increasing importance placed upon the objective of creating permanent, as opposed to more temporary, jobs. While there are wide variations in the type of job creation initiatives tried in Europe, they increasingly share the objective of creating jobs that provide secure long term employment. Mr McVeigh —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have listened very intently to the honourable member. I think he should address himself to the Bill . I have some difficulty in relating unemployment in Europe under a community aid program to the Public Service Amendment Bill. I would just like to correct that because he is a new member. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! I acknowledge the point of order. I ask the honourable member to have regard to the fact that the primary purpose of this Bill is to facilitate the introduction of the Government's community employment program in the Public Service. Mr GRIFFITHS —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is necessary to change the Public Service Act to allow people to be employed on a temporary basis pursuant to that Act, operating in concert with the CEP program. I think the CEP program is one of the most important initiatives of this Government in terms of addressing what is a quite fundamental problem. The projects that have been established or are in the process of being established are coming increasingly under the control of local communities. Mr McVeigh —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise another point of order. I do not want to labour the point, and I understand your difficulty, your being a tolerant man, but the honourable member has laughed at your ruling. That is what upsets me. It is not the fact that he is not following your ruling but the fact that he has disobeyed you, the most senior member of your Party in New South Wales, that grieves me. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Darling Downs would certainly understand that I am inclined to be more tolerant of the newer members of the House. Nevertheless, the question of relevance has to be properly regarded by all honourable members. I ask the honourable member to direct his remarks more appropriately to the Bill. Mr GRIFFITHS —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I certainly will not abuse your tolerance. One previous speaker from the other side of the House during the course of his contribution-his remarks were not ruled out of order-discussed the provision of small capital loans to community organisations or businesses to assist in the objective of job creation. The suggestion I indicated earlier was quite a sensible one. Certainly, it is one to which I would be sympathetic. There are a number of options available to governments in terms of job creation. They encompass another suggestion that was made by the previous speaker-the use of retired people or those who can otherwise provide expert technical advice to various groups setting up job creation schemes. I think that is a sensible suggestion. On that note I will not abuse your tolerance any further, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters)(5.40) —in reply-I thank the honourable members who have contributed to the debate on the Public Service Amendment Bill. As you, Mr Deputy Speaker, were required to point out on a number of occasions the debate ranged fairly far and wide. I certainly would not want to respond to many of the points which were made in the course of the debate. There were, however, a couple of matters which I specifically would like to address. The honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) raised the question of funding under the wage pause program and rather misconstrued what the Government has been doing in that area. What was happening until a couple of months ago was that a substantial amount of funds had been advanced to the States under the wage pause program, yet it had come to our notice that very little of those funds had actually been spent by the States on the purposes for which they were provided, that is on job creation schemes-in short, the provision of jobs. Therefore the Commonwealth took the view that it was not appropriate to continue to advance funds to the States at a rate which far exceeded that at which the States were able to use the funds. We were also concerned that the States ought to accelerate their activities in this area. Therefore we suspended payment of funds until such time as the States had used up a larger amount of funds that had already been advanced to them. As a consequence of that action a number of States have accelerated their activities. As soon as the States have spent a fair proportion of what has already been advanced to them the funds will begin to flow again. The Government had absolutely no intention to slow down that program, in fact the contrary is true; it is trying to encourage the acceleration of that program. Mr Ruddock —All the moneys committed will be spent, will they-the $200m? Mr DAWKINS —Yes. The arrangements, which were entered into by the previous Government just before the election, required regular monthly payments to be made under that program. Those regular monthly payments proceeded until such time as the Government discovered that they were being advanced vastly in excess of what the States were using. Therefore, the monthly payments have been suspended, but they will commence again as soon as the Government is satisfied with the performance of the States. The moneys, as indicated initially under the program- Mr Connolly —What control mechanisms have you? Mr DAWKINS —The States are required to report to the Government on their progress. Indeed, they are required to comply with the guidelines which were set down by the previous Government and agreed to by the States. At the moment I am waiting for the States to advise me of the latest position in terms of their expenditure under that program. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) is required to ensure compliance with the guidelines. My task is merely to ensure that the right amount of money is provided in accordance with the needs of the States. I simply indicate that the fears which the honourable member for Dundas has in relation to that area are unfounded. I refer briefly to a point made by the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) concerning the operation of some of the job creation schemes in South Australia. In the first instance I wish to make the point that it is simply not good enough for members to come into this House and make wild allegations on the basis of apparently scanty and probably vastly inaccurate information about the operation of these schemes in particular States. If honourable members wish to make allegations like that and if they are going to accuse governments of non- compliance with basic human rights or with the abrogation of international conventions, I think that the Government concerned is at least entitled to know the basis of the charges which are being make. The honourable member was asserting that it would be a requirement in South Australia that union membership be compulsory before unemployed people could participate in job creation schemes. That is certainly not a requirement of the Commonwealth sponsored programs. What the honourable member is getting confused about is that in some cases, in some areas of work, it is an award condition that preference be given to union members. In that circumstance this Government is certainly trying to negotiate, with the co-operation of the trade union movement, that where membership may be a requirement the question of membership fees be waived. In relation to these job creation schemes it is important that we have the co-operation of the trade union movement, because legal requirements are provided in awards which control the wages and conditions in particular areas of employment and a flexible approach needs to be taken when trying to get job-creation schemes under way. The trade union movement has welcomed the Government's unitiative in this area and is being co-operative in relation to the implementation of these job creation schemes. I think therefore that the honourable member for Barker has entirely misconstrued and misrepresented what is in fact happening on the ground . I repeat: When an award requires that a worker be a member of a union or that preference be provided for a member of a union, the Government is currently having discussions with unions about waiving or reducing membership fees to allow those conditions to be met but without inflicting a penalty on the unemployed. Mr Porter —You will apologise when you find out I am right, will you? Mr DAWKINS —The honourable member for Barker continues to make these assertions. Mr Porter —The assertion was made three months ago in South Australia and not denied by Premier Bannon. Mr DAWKINS —The honourable member has been invited by me during this debate and I invite him again to bring forward the evidence on which he makes those charges . Mr Porter —It was made in the State Parliament House, and he has not denied it. Mr DAWKINS —It is simply not good enough for the honourable member for Barker or anyone else to make these wild allegations. Mr Porter —That's the condition set down by the South Australian Government. You just ring him up. Mr DAWKINS —I am not making the allegation; the honourable member is making the allegation. If he is going to make those allegations and probably mislead this House, I think he needs to have regard to the severity of that. If he is going to make those charges he should at least provide the evidence on which the charges are made. I thank the House for the debate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Dawkins) read a third time. Debate resumed from 24 August, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your indulgence to suggest that the House has a general debate covering the Live- stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Amendment Bill 1983, the Grain ( Export Inspection Charge) Amendment Bill 1983, the Eggs (Export Inspection Charge) Amendment Bill 1983 and the Edible Oils (Export Inspection Charge) Amendment Bill 1983, as they are associated measures. Separate questions will of course be put on each of the Bills at the conculsion of the debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering these four measures? There being no dissentient voice, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(5.50) —On behalf of the Opposition, I move: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst not opposing the Bill, the House is of the opinion that: (1) rural industries, which are struggling to emerge from the worst drought in history, are not at this time able to bear the burden of such massive increases in charges; (2) industries should not be expected to contribute 50 per cent of the costs of Commonwealth inspection until the Export Inspection Service restructuring is completed and the service is as efficient and cost-effective as possible; (3) there is inadequate industry participation in inspection procedures, and (4) there has regrettably not been full consultation with industry on all aspects of development of the Export Inspection Service and inspection charges'. These Bills yet again demonstrate this Government's total lack of understanding and sensitivity about the rural sector. Our agricultural industries are struggling to emerge from the worst drought in history. Economically speaking, they are still in a very critical situation. Yet this Government proposes in these pieces of legislation massive cost increases to the rural sector. Worst hit is the export meat industry where it is proposed that inspection charges for adult cattle be trebled from $1.80 to $5.40 per head. How the Government can expect the industry to bear such a massive cost impost is simply beyond comprehension. It was the policy of the previous Government to move to 50 per cent cost recovery from industry for the provision of export inspection services. No one denies this and, indeed, we still maintain support for that policy. What we do not agree with is the Australian Labor Party Government's timing in moving for full 50 per cent cost recovery now. Quite apart from the fact that rural industries are simply not economically strong enough to bear such a burden at this time, largely because of the drought, it is also totally inequitable to expect industries to pay increased charges for an inspection service which is yet to be proved. It is a classic example of trying to put the cart before the horse. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) the day after the Budget made a lengthy statement to the Parliament on the Commonwealth Export Inspection Service. That statement demonstrated that while considerable progress has been made there is still a great deal of work in the pipeline before the service can be regarded as fully-fledged, cost-effective and efficient. For example, the Minister said in his statement that new inspection procedures for products such as wheat and other grains, wool, dairy products, fish and fresh and processed fruit and vegetables would take full effect from July 1984-a full year away. Similarly, he told us that under the Export Control Act the total legislative framework for export inspection is being fundamentally rebuilt and that, over the next 12 months, comprehensive ministerial orders relating to inspection practices and controls will be issued for all commodities under the control of the inspection service. The Opposition does not disagree with any of these developments. Indeed, as I stated last week, virtually all the work that is under way was instigated by the previous Government and the previous Minister for Primary Industry, the Hon. Peter Nixon. What I am highlighting is simply the fact that there is a lot of work still to be done before inspection procedures and controls, and the overall service, are fully operational in their intended form. One of the major reasons for industries, particularly meat and livestock industries, opposing the move towards full 50 per cent cost recovery at this stage is that the inspection service is not yet proved to be as cost-effective and efficient as possible. They claim, and with some justification, that the Government, by increasing the charges now, is calling on them to help prop up a continuing inefficient and costly organisation. So, the first question the Government has not justifiably answered is: How can it impose on industry such massively increased charges when the nuts and bolts of the inspection service, procedures and ministerial orders are still being worked out? The Minister, on National Farm Report the day after the Budget, answered a question about the increased export inspection charges by saying: Well the problem I had there to argue against this was that it was the policy of the previous Government. That is a lame duck excuse, if ever I heard one. His Government, in forming its Budget and policy on these charges, concluded that there are good grounds for re -endorsement and implementation of the existing policy. Those are the very words of the Minister in his second reading speech. Yet the day after the Budget he tried to squirm away from the issue saying that he could not fight it because it was the policy of the previous Government. No wonder he gets rolled all the time , be it inside or outside Cabinet. Another question that is left completely up in the air by the Government in these amendments is whether the cost recovery stops at 50 per cent. To farmers this is a most important issue. The Budget Papers and the supplementary paper provided by the Minister simply state the decision to increase the proportion of the export inspection charge to 50 per cent from 1 October 1983. But the Minister, in his statement to Parliament the day after the Budget, said that an examination of the basis for the Department's present charging arrangements for all inspection services is being undertaken by a firm of consultants. He further said: There will be consultation with industry and other relevant bodies before the Government takes a final decision on any revised charging arrangement. Exactly what is meant by 'a final decision on any revised charging arrangement'? The Minister has further clouded this area in his second reading speeches concerning charges for livestock and eggs. In those he said: . . . In setting a recovery rate of 50 per cent from industry for the provision of export inspection for all primary produce commodities, the Government has been mindful of the fact that further efficiencies in the delivery of these services are possible of being achieved and therefore considers that industry should not be expected to pay the full cost of operating the current service. Undeniably implicit in that statement, which I stress relates to export inspection for all primary produce commodities, is the fact that when the further efficiencies are achieved industries will be required to pay the full costs. This is a matter of major importance. The Minister has made this a totally clouded issue and I call on him, here and now, to clear it up once and for all. In so doing I point out to him that if it is the Government's intention that the cost recovery be 50 per cent and no more-I and all other members of the National Party and members of the Liberal Party who have as our policy 50 per cent as a maximum sincerely hope that this is the case for farmers under this Government, which hates farmers-I suggest that he has effectively misled the Parliament and he has undoubtedly misled industry by his ministerial statement of 24 August which stated: There will be consultation with industry and other relevant bodies before the Government takes a final decision on any revised charging arrangement. There was no consultation with industry prior to the announcement of the revised arrangements to achieve 50 per cent cost recovery, revised arrangements which I understand to be a final decision. Apart from the extraordinarily bad timing in trying to increase these charges on rural industries now; apart from the fact that the inspection service has not yet proved itself to be cost-effective and efficient; and apart from the confusion as to whether 50 per cent cost recovery is the policy, there are several other reasons why industries are opposed to these Bills. I will refer in further detail to the meat and livestock industries in a moment. But, firstly, let me outline some of the concerns that are common to all industries affected by these Bills. A prime concern is that growers are being asked to pay 50 per cent of the costs but will have no say in ensuring that those services are being provided as economically and efficiently as possible. It seems to me to be a perfectly legitimate and very significant concern. The Minister is strong on assurances that things are proceeding in full consultation with industry. But wheat growers argue that they have no say in the way the inspection services are operated and that they should have far greater control over the management of the services. Egg producers tell me that the inspection procedure is not yet known and will not be implemented until 1984. They say that current inspection procedures are far from satisfactory and that the industry requires a full review of their cost effectiveness. Barley producers believe inspection services could be provided at a significantly lower cost by greater use of commercial organisations. Quite clearly, industries want far more input into the development of inspection services, and this is an area where I would hope the Government will place considerably more emphasis and consultation. In this context, I was interested to see that the Minister, addressing the annual conference of the Cattlemen's Union of Australia in Caloundra this morning, announced that an interim inspection policy council is to be set up in connection with moves towards a single national inspection system. It is proposed that the interim council be made up of a chairman appointed by the Minister, a producer representative nominated by the National Farmers Federation , a processor representative, a consumers' representative, a fishing industry representative, a representative of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, a member with special qualifications, delegates from the New South Wales and South Australian governments, the Secretary of the Department of Primary Industry, and the Director of the Export Inspection Service. The question that arises about all this is: Why did the Minister make absolutely no mention about it at all in his ministerial statement just two weeks ago? The answer, of course, is that two weeks ago the idea was not even in the Minister's head. He suddenly tumbled to the fact that he was going to get a tough time over the increased inspection charges from the Cattlemen's Union this morning in Caloundra. But everyone knows that Queenslanders would not give anyone a tough time. So he dreamed up this interim council so that he could promise them consultation and involvement. The Minister insulted the Parliament. He would not come here and tell us. He treated this Parliament with contempt. He has no respect for it. He just uses it for his own convenience. He has gone up to Queensland, to Caloundra, and has bypassed the Parliament and made a public statement, when he could have made it on two occasions to this Parliament, the supreme representative of the Australian people and industries. I know how it concerns you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that a Minister would bypass the national Parliament for cheap political gain. Mr Fisher —Shame! Mr McVEIGH —I can understand how National Party members are enraged, because they are men of quiet dignity and simple courtesy who would not do that sort of thing. I fully endorse greater industry involvement in the development of the national inspection service. But I totally reject the way that this Minister is plucking ideas out of the air willy-nilly, just so that he can look good in public, because it is a totally different story back here; when he has to convince his colleagues, and where the real show matters, he gets bowled for a duck. The cattle and sheepmeat councils of Australia have placed a submission before the Government seeking a review of the inspection charge decision. Specifically, the two councils have requested: Firstly, that the Government review the proposed increases in export meat inspection charges with a view to increasing charges by no more than $1 per head of cattle slaughtered; secondly, that the current maximum rates of charge specified in the Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Act 1979 be increased to a charge no greater than $3.60 per head of adult cattle slaughtered; thirdly, in view of the industry contribution to funding inspection, that far greater opportunity exists for industry to participate in an effective way in the development of broad policy within the Export Meat Inspection Service; and, fourthly, that the Government give a commitment to consult, in future, with the industry before deciding on increases in export inspection charges. I stress those last two requests because they prove that the Government, certainly up until this morning's announcement of this interim council, has fallen down badly on its oft-stated commitment to consultation. Even the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) hardly ever uses the word ' consensus' any more. The cattle and sheepmeat councils have yet to receive the benefit of an official response to their submission. The Government is not interested. It does not concern the Government. It is not treating this matter as one of urgency. It wants to get the increased charges in by 1 October. But if the Minister's answer to my question in Parliament yesterday is accurate, the response to their proposals is in the negative; and that is certainly consistent with the attitudes expressed by the leaders of those two organisations when they emerged from a meeting with the Minister on 30 August. The President of the Cattle Council, Mr Maurice Binstead, said in a statement that the Minister appeared ' powerless' to do anything about the decision or to represent the industry further. It obviously does not have much confidence in the Minister. The President of the Sheepmeat Council, Mr Ralph James, said that the meeting had been 'no joy'. On National Farm Report on 31 August, when Mr James was asked whether the Minister indicated that he was not able to persuade Cabinet about the true facts of the matter, he replied: Yes, I think that came out. He believed that. His-- That is, the Minister's- very words were 'Well, I lost'. The Minister seems to know those words and to repeat them a lot. Mr Lloyd —'They are all dills'. Mr McVEIGH —I understand that he said that to some people, but he denied that in the Parliament. Mr Binstead was also reported in the Canberra Times on 31 August as saying that the Minister indicated that he would talk to the Prime Minister about it, but that the councils 'didn't receive a lot of hope'. In other words, the Minister could not perform any more where it really counted-in convincing his colleagues. Perhaps he would be good enough to tell the House-not people outside the House; come clean here-whether he even bothered to see the Prime Minister and whether there was any serious consideration of the cattle and sheepmeat council's submission. Another point that needs to be made about this Minister's performance is that the National Farmers Federation, the Cattle Council of Australia and the Sheepmeat Council of Australia are all on record as saying that there is a total lack of understanding of rural issues in the Government's senior decision making body, the Cabinet. What a massive indictment that is of this Minister. Let me just point to some of the reasons why the meat industry is so much up in arms about these proposed increased charges. The increases will add more than $25m to industry costs in a full financial year. Mr Lloyd —How much? Mr McVEIGH —$25m. Mr Lloyd —That is disgraceful. Mr McVEIGH —That is disgraceful, as the honourable member for Murray says, and he knows where that $25m will come from. It will not come from the Government. It will not come from the workers in the industry. They will just strike and look for increased wages. It will come from the rural people. I do not believe that it is right for this Government, firstly, to reflect on farmers, but equally important to treat farmers' wives and children in the cavalier way in which they do. Mr McGauran —That is right. The Government hits the families. Mr McVEIGH —The Government does not like the wives and families of farmers. That disappoints me and I know that it upsets my colleagues in the National Party. In the coming 12 months, the Australian meat and livestock industry will be placed at a $40m disadvantage compared with competitors for international meat sales. Overseas countries pay for these meat inspections and other services themselves. For the common good, all people participate. But here the Government expects the Australian farmers to pick up a $40m disadvantage on world markets. The increased inspection charges amount to a massive hike of 200 per cent; in other words, they have been trebled. The cost to the sheepmeat industry will be $5m in the next 12 months. Total levy charges, including meat inspection fees, will have risen by a massive 600 per cent, from $1.56 to $10.98 a head on cattle slaughtered. Just think of the disastrous result on farmers' incomes of an increase from $1.56 per head to $10.98 per head on cattle slaughtered. Mr O'Keefe —Think of Aberdeen and Gunnedah. Mr McVEIGH —The honourable member for Paterson-a man with great experience in the cattle industry, a man who established an abattoir to create employment and to give a service-knows and is concerned about workers in the slaughterhouses at Aberdeen and other places in his electorate. Mr O'Keefe —And Gunnedah. Mr McVEIGH —Gunnedah. The honourable member is concerned for everyone-unlike the Government, which is not concerned about the farmers but is just looking for jobs for people. We are concerned about everyone. I just wish that the honourable member would tell the Minister for Primary Industry- Mr Hunt —Where is John Kerin? He is not here. Mr McVEIGH —The honourable member for Gwydir says that the Minister is not here. He is not even interested enough to stay here for the debate. Mr Duffy —He has had to go for a television interview. Mr McVEIGH —I know. The Minister is nervous. He had to go to the dry cleaners. If the Minister wants to find out anything about the meat industry, he should not go to the academics or to his Labor Party Caucus for information. Let him ask the honourable member for Paterson, who will take him through some abattoirs and explain the industry to him. He will take him out to see a few farmers, and he will just indicate to the Minister, this academic Minister who does not really know about things that matter- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! I ask the honourable member to return to the Bill. Mr McVEIGH —All of this adds up to a massive penalty against a major export industry. The Government, in its wisdom, seems to be blissfully unaware that the beef industry is trying to recover not only from the drought but also from several years of severely depressed prices. The sheepmeat industry is currently experiencing severely depressed prices. Furthermore, as the Meat Exporter and Abattoir Consultative Group told the Minister on 31 August: . . . the speed of its introduction (that is, the increased charges), coming without warning, has left many in the industry with forward commitments that now will have to bear the additional cost in a period when trading is extremely difficult. Industry has been presented with this fait accompli without any discussion on the matter by your Government, which has, above all else, contended that consultation is the basis of consensus. In other words, the Government, again in its ignorant wisdom, has placed the industry in even greater difficulty than it was already facing. Mr Deputy Speaker, I know that you will understand this: An exporter of meat does not slaughter meat today and sell it tomorrow; he sells it months ahead. Maybe you can raise this matter in Caucus, because the Minister would not understand and would not care. The simple fact is that the producer, in his costing procedure, has allowed a cost for slaughtering of $1.56 per head, but due to the action of this Government and this Minister it has gone up to $10.98 per head. Mr Deputy Speaker, you can see that a charge like that, thrust upon somebody in this way- it is like a thief in the middle of the night-can lead to bankruptcy. I hope you can take that matter to Caucus and thereby bring some sense into this situation and help those people who are placed in that position. Mr Hunt —John Brown ought to know better. Mr McVEIGH —He is not here either. I have not seen him all week. The Government is trying to hike up inspection charges massively despite the fact that several central improvements to the efficiency of the inspection service have yet to be implemented and despite the fact that a single national meat inspection service is not yet established. This morning the Minister gave us a statement. He did not say anything about what is happening in Queensland. He talked about New South Wales and everywhere else. He goes around the country mouthing platitudes and repeating meaningless words about a national meat inspection service. Why not tell us what is happening in Queensland? He did not say anything about that matter in the legislation. This rise in inspection charges is despite the fact that the total cost of Commonwealth export inspection services has soared from $ 33.6m in 1977-78 to over $70m in 1983-84. I suggest that that $40m is better in the pockets of Australian primary producers than in the coffers of the socialists. The rise in charges is also despite the fact that, far from achieving a strong decentralised management system, the Export Meat Inspection Service staff numbers in Canberra have actually grown. The previous Minister wanted to set up a decentralised system. What happened under these socialists? The system has grown but all its staff have been placed in Canberra. We know how many cattle they kill here. So, by moving for 50 per cent cost recovery at this time, the Government is merely asking industry to pay a far greater contribution towards maintaining a costly and inefficient service. The Cattle and Sheepmeat Councils' submission states: The current inspection system is still inefficient and costly-the major changes designed to improve its cost effectiveness are yet to be implemented. The Minister, in his address to the Rural Press Club in Perth on 31 August, noted that the previous Government, in its May 1981 Review of Commonwealth Functions, set out a timetable to achieve 50 per cent cost recovery from all industries by July 1983. He said that had the previous Government stuck to its timetable, there would have been no products on which 50 per cent of export inspection charges were not already being recovered. What this Minister and this Government have not recognised is that the previous Government, while still adhering to the policy, accepted that it would be inequitable to seek to achieve 50 per cent recovery from industry under present circumstances. The Minister would love to be able in this House and around Australia to blame us for something. He must blame himself. Strangely, he does not like it. Mr Duffy —The Minister is back, Tom. Mr McVEIGH —I am glad he came back. We always know that when somebody cannot stand the heat in the kitchen he leaves. Indeed, the previous Minister last year agreed with the Cattle Council of Australia that it would be inappropriate to move to full 50 per cent recovery until the inspection service had fully got its act together. This Government, in its usual way, has blundered into a decision without giving any consideration to its implications on industry, on employment, on export potential, on producer returns and on the national economy. It has chosen to try to slug industry with these increased charges at the worst possible time. There is no justifiable reason why the Government should move to full 50 per cent cost recovery in one hit. It could, and should, have announced its policy intentions and then staggered increases in line with the industry's capacity to pay, in line with improvements in the inspection services, and in full consultation with industries. It is the blundering, ill-considered and totally unfair way in which the Government has gone about this issue that the Opposition objects to so strongly. That is the reason for the amendment we have put forward. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Tuckey —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(6.16) —As has previously been said, this legislation has been introduced to enable the Government to recoup 50 per cent of the cost to the Commonwealth of inspections for export at certain export establishments and other things. It is helpful to trace briefly the history of export inspection charges since they were first introduced in 1979. Indeed it is instructive to consider some of the history of the Australian export meat industry and the requirements that importing countries have imposed on the development of meat inspection facilities in Australia. In the early part of this century meat inspections were carried out only by the States. Inspections were conducted by what in those days were termed as lay inspectors. However, complaints came from the United Kingdom that evidence of disease was found in briskets of Australian beef. As a result of these complaints, the Federal Government appointed veterinary officers to provide export inspection services in all States. In 1916 an historic event occurred when the Commonwealth established its own export inspection staff in all States involved in meat export. This initiative was taken following a growth in the export trade, particularly in respect of mutton and lamb, to the United Kingdom and complaints that lesions of caseous lymphadenitis were detected in some carcasses. In the early 1960s the United States of America, through its agencies, required exporting countries to comply substantially with United States standards of inspection services, particularly in regard to product integrity. During the late 1960s the United States of America introduced legislation which required that the meat inspection and hygiene standards of exporting countries be no less than the standards observed in the United States of America. In August 1974 the Federal Government requested the Industries Assistance Commission to extend its inquiry into the financing and promotion of rural products by addressing itself to aspects of financing of export inspections of rural products. The Commission proceeded with its considerations and, in conjunction with its report on short term assistance to the beef cattle industry, it included a recommendation on the financing of export inspections of beef. It should be noted that the Commission's consideration of this important aspect was constrained by the terms of its original inquiry. A detailed investigation by the Commission did not take place. However, in the evidence before the Commission several witnesses stated that the maintenance of minimum export standards was necessary. A view was advanced that a failure to conform to standards would erode exporters' positions in foreign markets. It was urged that export inspections facilitated entry of Australian goods to foreign markets, and in a warning to the Australian beef processing industry it was suggested that failure by any individual exporter to conform to standards could bring whole industries into disrepute and place the Australian export meat market in jeopardy. It is significant to recall a further proposal by one industry body-the Australian National Cattlemen's Council-to the Commission at that time that the cost of financing meat inspection and maintaining export standards should be shared by the industry and the Australian Government. A further suggestion was that there should be only one meat inspection service in Australia, an inspection service administered by the Australian Government to ensure that inspections were to a uniform standard throughout the nation. As a result of the additional requirements placed by the importing countries on the Australian beef exporters to ensure that the export product met their standards, a number of private export establishments upgraded their existing facilities to ensure that they were able to meet the higher standards. Given this background, one of the reasons the Government maintained minimum standards for exports of products from Australia was to improve the competitive position of these products in the export market, that is to say, the products concerned comply with standards required by importing countries. It is easy to perceive that benefits accrue to the industry as a result of these export inspections by way of markets obtained, or retained, or by better prices through higher quality . The Government has foreshadowed measures to take effect from 1 October 1983 with respect to objective trade description measurement which will improve the competitiveness of Australian products on the overseas market. Furthermore, it is true to say that the effects of export inspection also enhance national prestige. All meat slaughtered in Australia and intended for export is subject to inspection by the Export Inspection Service to the extent that only wholesome , hygienic meat is exported. Because of the present requirements of our major importers these objectives can be carried out only by continuous supervision, including the individual inspection of all animals, both prior to and after slaughter. However, current methods of inspection are under review. The Department of Primary Industry employs approximately 1,800 persons on meat export inspections. These persons are generally located at registered export meat establishments which are entirely equipped with special facilities required to allow processing of meat for export. The great Australian meat export industry will account for some $1 billion in export earnings in 1983-84. It is helpful to recall the statement by the then Treasurer in his 1978-79 Budget Speech: Consideration has been given to levying producers to recover a greater share of the costs of providing export inspection services. In fact, the levy is placed on processing. In a ministerial statement, on 24 May 1979, the then Treasurer said: Steps will also be taken to recover a greater proportion of the costs incurred by the Commonwealth Government in providing cattle disease eradication and export inspection services. He continued: To this end the disease eradication component of the livestock slaughter levy will be increased from $1 per head to $3 per head from 1 July; and arrangements, effective from 1 July, will be made to recover, in respect of meat, wool and grains, approximately 50 per cent in total of the costs incurred by the Commonwealth in providing export inspection services for those commodities. These measurers are estimated to yield additional revenue of over $30 million in 1979-80. The Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Bill was introduced on 28 May 1979. The Bill provided for recovery of meat inspection costs through charges on livestock slaughtered at registered export establishments. The Bill provided for recovery of approximately 50 per cent of the cost to the Commonwealth of the inspection. Since 1979 the Commonwealth has had a policy aimed at 50 per cent recovery. I understand it is intended to adjourn the debate on these Bills. Therefore, I seek leave to continue my remarks when the debate is resumed. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. (Budget Debate) Debate resumed from 25 August, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! I remind the House that since an honourable member is about to make his maiden speech, the usual courtesies should be afforded. I call the honourable member for Chifley. Mr GORMAN(Chifley)(8.01) —Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to present my maiden speech in this House, which should be the highest of all forums in Australia. I take this first minute or so to congratulate you on being elected to your high office. I would also like recorded my congratulations to Mr Speaker and his other deputies, and I wish them every success in their future duties. Firstly, I would like to go back in time some 16 or 18 hours to last night. When I arrived home at my unit I decided to peruse these notes for my speech. Suddenly there I was giving the most profound, informative maiden speech this House has heard for many years. In fact, just as I completed my speech my Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, and all honourable members from both sides of this House stood and applauded me. You can imagine, sir, how, in my moment of greatest triumph, I was woken from my pleasant dream and suddenly faced the cold, shuddering reality that I had to deliver my maiden speech a second time. At this stage I would like to congratulate my predecessor, Mr John Armitage, for the way he represented the electorate of Chifley and, prior to that, the electorate of Mitchell. John was the first member for Chifley, which is located in the outer western area of Sydney. The Chifley electorate was created with the electoral redistribution of 1969. John Armitage is known personally to many present members of this House. I would like it recorded that I appreciate his efforts on my behalf and admire John's diligence and hard work in the electorate . It was his effort, with the help of members of the local Australian Labor Party branches, that maximised the Senate vote in my area for the ALP senators. For many years I have learned from John Armitage and that association has been of great benefit to me personally. I have been able to see by the result what hard work in the electorate can achieve for a local member. But no two tradesmen are exactly the same, or work in exactly the same manner. Any innovations which I may introduce, or any additional services offered in Chifley, will be implemented with the sole aim of ensuring that all my constituents in Chifley receive their full benefits. The same dedication will be given to all who seek my or my staff's help and assistance, as was given to them by John Armitage. I could not let this night pass without offering my personal thanks to all the members of the ALP within my electorate of Chifley. The rank and file members of the Australian Labor Party are the true backbone of the Party. They come from all walks of life and from all nations of the world. They are the boys and girls , the men and women who carry out all the tedious jobs and who come out rain, hail or shine on polling day without reward and work on behalf of the Party. To them, one and all, I sincerely say: 'Thank you very much'. I now thank all the constituents in my Federal electorate of Chifley. They, like the millions of other Australians, voted for this Australian Labor Government led by our Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, which is committed to take Australia out of the economic problems brought about by the inept policies of the previous Government's seven years in office. The people of this great nation showed on 5 March 1983 that they were sick and tired of a government which was committed to the mighty dollar. The previous Government allowed the board room directors of the multinational companies to rape and plunder this great country of ours at will. The report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union blew up in the previous Government's face. It was not its intention that this should happen. This Australian Labor Government will ensure that the riches of this land will, and must be, more evenly shared by one and all Australians. It is refreshing to find from time to time that Mr Speaker's chair is occupied by female members of this House. For many years, like so many thousands of Australians and I must say like my father, I considered that a woman's place was in the house, and certainly under different circumstances from that which now exists in this House. But having worked with so many women during the past 25 years not only in the work force, but also within the various community units of which I belong and now with the female members of this House, I offer them my sincere best wishes. I know that we will spend many years on this side of the House together, thanks to the electors of this country. Before coming to the core of my maiden speech, I must point out a couple of items that have been on my mind for some considerable time. The first, but perhaps not the most important, relates to the previous Government. There is no need for me to continue to condemn the previous Government as the voters of this great nation did that on 5 March and will, I am sure, continue to vote for the Australian Labor Party for many elections to come to ensure that this great country of ours goes forward to its rightful place in the world of today. However, I am forced to admit that there are honourable members of the Opposition in this House, both past and present, who have earned their rightful place in the history books of this country and also in the Guinness Book of Records. It is fair and just to admit that. I believe that the previous Prime Minister-what was his name-and other honourable members of the present Opposition will be recorded as the most hardworking, experienced and certainly the most efficient taxidermists this country has ever, or is ever likely, to produce. The present state of this country's economic position proves that very fact. It is an honour to have been elected and sent to this House, not as a knight in shining armour on a big white charger to change Australia today and the world tomorrow, but as a worker not only on behalf of the constituents of Chifley, but also on behalf of the policies of the Australian Labor Government and, in turn, all Australians to work on the various Caucus and parliamentary committees. It is the varying degrees of success that we, as members, obtain for these committees that give us the job satisfaction we seek and enjoy so much. I would like to record in Hansard the total co-operation given these various committees by all of the Ministers of the Australian Labor Party Government. The core of my speech deals with the famous three R's, not the three R's of our much younger days. For the benefit of the younger members of this House, they were 'reading, riting and rithmatic'. The three R's of this modern day and age are reconciliation, reconstruction and recovery. The first-reconciliation-was demonstrated at the recent National Economic Summit Conference and will prove to be one of the keys to the Australian Labor Government's three-point plan for final success and economic stability. The second, and equally as important as reconciliation, is reconstruction. Reconstruction has already commenced with the Hawke Government's May economic statement. All honourable members will agree that this was continued by the Australian Labor Government's first Budget on Tuesday night. As can be seen, this is the start of the many innovative programs that will eventually flow like a tidal wave in the months to come. It will give hope to our fellow Australians who are underprivileged, whose existence is characterised by a relative poverty not only of the material things of this life but also, perhaps more importantly, by their inability to see for themselves and their children any brighter horizon where they can hope to break free from their existing circumstances of poverty. It is most important to point out that no government can correct the present economic situation in one term; it will take two or three terms to do this. That is not asking too much from the constituents of Australia when one considers that this Labor Government started $9.6 billion in the red or, to be more precise, with a deficit of $9.6 billion, which our first Budget has already reduced. Noticeably we must reconstruct our nation and recover our sense of justice. We must continue to promote national reconciliation, reconstruction and recovery, especially in forums such as the recent National Economic Summit Conference and, further, the more recent discussions held with the Australian Council of Trade Unions on superannuation and associated problems. With reconciliation and reconstruction will come the rebirth of this nation and a total form of recovery. I trust that we, as trade unions, employees, employers and government, are on the road to realising that the cake will never even make it to the oven unless we stop trying to pinch the ingredients before they are even mixed, let alone cooked and ready to share with all Australians. There will be a great future for all Australians when the policies of this present Australian Labor Government develop into reality. The recent Summit and the accord on prices and incomes between the Government and the ACTU have shown that it is not always necessary to enshrine such objectives in legislation with penalties, et cetera; rather it is a matter of awakening consciences to responsibilities of all parties as we are all partly responsible for the future. This Government-whose policies I naturally support-declared its intentions to remedy injustices not by dragging down any other than the fraudulent, the charlatan, the oppressor and the operators of bottom of the harbour schemes, but by building up those who are in need. Our first Budget shows this Government's true intention to do so by the help and assistance given to those most in need. I refer to increases in pensions and unemployment benefits. I could go on and on . But these benefits have been well publicised and well documented in all newspapers and on television and radio. It is said that everyone who comes to this place comes with certain ideals and a few brilliant projects in mind. I, like most honourable members, also have ideas that will or may help bring about this country's reconstruction and recovery. I would like to share with honourable members in the House ways to recovery and perhaps beyond. Shortly before the recent election and, during the campaign, there was quite a flurry to be polite about it over proposals to channel inland the excess water of certain coastal rivers. There was of course a lot of criticism and political opportunism at the back of these proposals. By referring to them I do not wish to stir up the controversy that they caused; I wish to revive the proposals themselves. I mentioned them because, in some ways, they resemble a project which is dear to my heart and about which there has been no little discussion over the past few years. The point I wish to make is that I believe much of our discussion has been wrongly centred. I further believe that grand, bold ideas for massive public works stir the public's imagination as did the Snowy Mountains construction. If the plans are carried out, even slightly imperfectly, they can more often than not be a source of pride which is beyond price. It is to this end that I suggest the Government, in the next few years, look at a second, third or fourth major public works similar to the Snowy Mountains scheme. Perhaps the next project should be the turning of the waters of the Clarence River on to the north coast of New South Wales. If this and many other coastal streams are finally turned to the west and controlled through the western plains this country will become a total food supplier to the world, and will continue for eternity. This will be for the benefit of all mankind. The scheme to which I referred on the Clarence River was considered at the time as complementary to the Snowy Mountains scheme and would work in different periods from the full flow levels of the Snowy Mountains scheme. This would give New South Wales additional power if and when the scheme were in operation. Various arguments will be put forward as to costs and the funding of the various projects. I must say that if there were to be a fear of a war starting money would be the last of the worries of this or any government. Perhaps it is a challenge for this Government and the Opposition to work together for once. If this were to happen this country would take its rightful place amongst the great nations of the world. I wish to quote a statement made many years ago in this House by a then member of the Opposition. He stated: Whether we are in opposition or in office, the time has come when we must pool all our mental resources and engage in some concerted thought about these most elementary and fundamental features of the greatest problems which confronts us today. This speech was made by Mr Bob Menzies. It was his maiden speech. It certainly calls for the Opposition and the Government to work together today as well. We must do something to stop the unproductivity, in all senses of the word, of pure money making and seizing of industrial power purely for its own and money's sake such as we have seen in the continuing and unedifying spectacle of the fight for the control of Grace Brothers and other companies, even companies such as the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. BHP may be inefficient and General Motors- Holden's Ltd may have repatriated too much profit overseas, but at least they produce something and employ people even if, unhappily at the present moment, in diminishing numbers. This fighting like ravaging wolves and worse that went on for the control of Grace Brothers is something I am sure most Australians would dearly love to see stopped. A punitive capital gains tax would be applauded by the vast majority of Australians if it stopped activities such as these which put people right on the street without any compassion as we have seen in the recent Grace Brothers-Myer shop swap and the Victorian Waltons shutdown. This type of operation must be stopped. It is interesting to note how history repeats itself. On looking through some previous maiden speeches I noticed continual references to the housing and coal industries. In the last few weeks other honourable members have mentioned these same problems. Even as late as today my friend the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Hollis) mentioned the problems in the coal industry. As far back as 1929 Mr Ben Chifley, in his maiden speech, discussed similar problems; not that I would place my friend the honourable member for Macarthur in the same category as Ben Chifley. Honourable members would all agree that Ben Chifley was the greatest Prime Minister Australia has prior to our present Prime Minister ( Mr Hawke). In 1953 Mr Gough Whitlam mentioned the problems in the housing industry. I must say that it is strange how this industry has again raised its head over the few months that I have been a member of this Parliament. In conclusion I mention that I am proud that I come from Blacktown in New South Wales and that I represent the seat of Chifley. The State of New South Wales has the pride and privilege of having supplied the greatest number of Labor members to this House as well as the other place. New South Wales also has the longest serving State Labor Government in the history of Australia. But first and foremost I am an Australian and very proud of it. I would like to thank personally all the staff in Parliament House and all the staff in the various departments with which I have come into contact. My congratulations go to all honourable members, especially new members like myself. My area wants many things but mainly it wants jobs, jobs and more jobs. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —The House is about to hear another maiden speech-this time from the honourable member for Wannon. I ask all honourable members to observe the usual courtesies. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(8.14) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your elevation to office. In so doing I ask you to convey my congratulations to Mr Speaker on his elevation to office. I commend you and Mr Speaker on the fair and impartial way in which you conduct the House. I stand in this chamber very conscious of the honour accorded to me by the people of Wannon. I am very much aware of my responsibilities as their representative in this House. I stand here very much aware of the support of so many in the by-election brought about by the retirement of the Rt Hon. Malcolm Fraser after 28 years of tireless service to the electors of Wannon since he was first elected in 1955. I doubt that many people in this House fully realise the extent to which Malcolm Fraser worked for the people of his electorate. He was a most impressive local member. I can assure honourable members of this House that the people of Wannon remember their previous member with respect and gratitude for the way he served them. He worked tirelessly for their interests and no task was too much to ask. I share the pride of the people of Wannon that Malcolm Fraser went on to be Prime Minister of Australia, the second longest serving Prime Minister in Australia's history. In the turmoil of party politics it is easy to criticise, but I would be failing in my duty if I did not remind the House of his achievements-his achievements in international affairs, the way he enhanced Australia's reputation and standing overseas. I would be failing in my duty if I did not remind the House that Malcolm Fraser led his Government to not one but three election wins. In two of those elections, the coalition parties won with greater majorities than this House has seen before-majorities that will stand in the record book for many years. I would be failing in my duty if I did not acknowledge that Malcolm Fraser is a great Australian, was a great Prime Minister and, perhaps most significantly for this occasion, a great member for Wannon. I can do no better than quote from a paper recently published in Quadrant written by Dr John Carroll titled 'The Tragedy of March 5th, 1983: A Personal Tribute to Malcolm Fraser'. In his paper, Dr Carroll says: Very few Australians are aware of what the nation has lost. The significance of this moment may take years to impose itself . . . It is now on record the number of world leaders who have paid tribute to this Prime Minister's statesmanship on the international stage. Less well known is the reported comment of Henry Kissinger at a private dinner. Dr Kissinger said, in relation to the Prime Minister's grasp of foreign affairs, that he was a kind of genius. Similarly a leading international banker compared his grasp of finance very favourably with that of any American President he had known. Although this is the Budget debate-and I will touch on the Budget shortly-I would firstly like to enlighten honourable members about the electorate of Wannon-an electorate proud of its history and achievements. Wannon is the third largest electorate in Victoria, covering more than 31,000 square kilometres. Located in south-western Victoria, it stretches from the South Australian border east to the centres of Stawell, Ararat and nearby the town of Great Western-the home of Australia's most famous champagne cellars and a place all honourable members, I am sure, would have reason to appreciate. In the south east is Warrnambool, the seaside city well known for many things including the factory of Fletcher Jones and Staff, a business famous Australia- wide for high quality woollen clothes and the progressive system of ownership-a system where the majority of ownership is in the hands of the staff. In the centre of the electorate stands the city of Hamilton, so aptly named the wool capital of the world. In the south west is the port of Portland, a magnificent deep water port with so much potential and the site of Victoria's first European settlement in 1834. In the north west bordering South Australia is the little town of Apsley which I am bound to mention, not only because I live there but also because I am proud to note that my predecessor, Malcolm Fraser, mentioned Apsley in his maiden speech. With considerable foresight the previous member for Wannon realised the potential of agriculture in the area-a potential that is still being recognised in this area despite the difficulties facing agriculture today. Throughout the electorate of Wannon we have a diverse range of agricultural industry, including wool growing, beef production, cropping, dairying, timber milling, fishing and horticulture. Wannon can boast Victoria's largest merino stud, Australia's best known Hereford stud and, as I have said, Australia's best known champagne vineyard. But not only do we have all these primary industries; there are also many supporting decentralised secondary industries-many of these secondary industries processing locally produced goods. Included in these are woollen mills and textile factories to process locally grown wool, butter factories to service the dairy industry and abattoirs to process sheep, lambs and cattle. Other decentralised industries within Wannon include engineering works, agricultural equipment manufacturers and many service industries. The strength of these industries lies in the fact that nearly all of them are owned by efficient small businessmen, they are efficient because they have adapted to the changing world. The people of Wannon are proud of the fact that our region is a productive area of Australia making a real and valuable contribution to the wealth of Australia, much of it earned through export income. More importantly, this wealth is spread widely throughout and shared among many. It is certainly not concentrated in the hands of the few. Most importantly, this generation of wealth is due to the efforts of many small businesses owned and operated by Australians. Unfortunately, like much of Australia, we have felt the pains of the recession, a recession partly induced by events overseas but compounded and exacerbated by the recent drought. I wish I could say that I am confident that the Budget will give us hope that the Government will give us a lead to cement the base of recovery, to lower interest rates and to reduce inflation-at least in the short term-to the level enjoyed by our export competitors and lead to a recovery to reduce unemployment. Sadly I have many doubts. While it is true that the drought has broken giving primary producers new hope, one good season does not make up for a drought. We must not forget that recovery from such a devastating season takes years. It is timely to remind ourselves that agriculture is still the nation's biggest export income earner. The people of Wannon are proud of their contribution to this. It is also timely to remind ourselves that exporters generally are not in a position to pass on costs of production like most secondary and tertiary industries, costs that all too often bear little relation to the profitability of primary industries, despite enormous gains in productivity. Exporters do not have the luxury of passing on costs and must be price-takers and not price- makers. The Australian Government's decision to devalue the Australian dollar was a small mercy but it has not really rectified this imbalance. We in Wannon, as indeed does all of Australia, need policies that will encourage a healthy primary industry sector that will encourage our young to remain in the country and not drift to the city or join the ranks of the unemployed. It is timely to remind ourselves that history has shown again and again that a country which runs down agriculture is destined to decline. Agriculture and associated country industries will decline if they are saddled with higher and higher fuel, freight and communication costs while at the same time world prices for our exports are at best static and have in many cases declined in real terms. Wannon is fortunate to have its own deep water port-Portland. Exports from the area presently being shipped from Portland include grain, live sheep and timber. This financial year trade through the port is expected to be 1.5 million tonnes. As I have said, the potential to increase this trade is tremendous. But Portland is a town under a cloud-a cloud of uncertainty. I refer to the partly finished Alcoa aluminium smelter. Alcoa has so far spent $250m in building this smelter-a massive outlay-and it is less than half way. This outlay has been more than matched by the State Electricity Commission of Victoria in building a huge power line to service this enormous project. But now all work has ceased at the site. Despite 17 months of negotiation it appears that no agreement can be reached between the Victorian Government and Alcoa on the price that Alcoa will pay for its electricity-17 months of uncertainty that is sapping the confidence of the people of Portland. For the sake of the nation as well as for the sake of Portland, the Victorian Government can no longer deny Alcoa the opportunity to proceed. Because of the uncertainty about the future of the smelter project, we have an unfinished special purpose bulk berth at the port of Portland. Work on this project has also stopped. The aluminium smelter, if the project proceeds, would be the biggest user of this special bulk handling facility, using it both for importing raw material through the port and exporting aluminium ingots. The spin -off for the port would be much greater. It would provide the means to allow other exports to pass through Portland. It would increase the exports of meat, wool, dairy and timber products-all products grown or processed in Wannon and neigbouring areas, including the south east of South Australia. My predecessor, Malcolm Fraser, was instrumental in fighting for wool sales to be held at Portland. Despite much opposition he succeeded, and Portland had its first wool sale just over 20 years ago. His continuing efforts for the electorate in this and many other areas are examples that did not go unnoticed, least of all by me. I stand in this House as the member for Wannon, but I recognise, as does every honourable member, that I am not here solely as the representative of an electorate whose name, incidentally, comes from the Aboriginals of the area. I am here also as a member of the Parliament of Australia. Our responsibilities extend to all Australians. Our responsibilities extend to providing an honest and frank assessment of the Australian economy. We are facing an economic crisis , a crisis exacerbated by the world-wide recession and compounded by the recent drought. We must be honest and frank and admit that the fact that we have been so severely affected has to some extent been of our own doing. The Treasurer (Mr Keating), in his Budget Speech, said: Our economic problems are deep seated and they cannot be resolved quickly or by precipitate action. Having said that, I must ask: Why then does the Government increase its gross receipts by 8.6 per cent? Why increase taxes when the rest of the community must tighten its belt? Why increase spending by 15.8 per cent, requiring increased borrowings, and at the same time leave the rest of the community with more repayments and high interest rates? Because of this we now have a projected Budget deficit of $8.4 billion; in other words, creating a new debt for every Australian, a new debt for every man, woman and child-of over $500 each. Can a government earn the respect of its people by urging restraint while at the same time not practising restraint itself? It is time for us to be honest and frank and for governments, all levels of government, to lead by example. That example, I suggest, with respect, has not been a very good one for some years now. The Treasurer says that our economic problems are deep seated, and they are. That they are so deep seated has, as I have said, to a large extent been of our own making. It is time we faced the problem that lies behind this. This can be summed up in one word-short-sightedness. All levels of government are to some extent guilty. In recent years all three sectors have been living beyond their means. All three sectors have been short-sighted. For too long we have been borrowing too heavily, and now we are paying the penalties. We are now facing the heavy burdens of interest payments and capital repayments. We have been living in a fool's paradise. Too often we have kidded ourselves that we can have more and more for less and less effort; buy now, pay later. Unfortunately, later is becoming now. To say that this has been short-sighted would be an understatement. It is even more unfortunate that governments have a way out, a soft option if you like. That soft option is called inflation. We all know about it, we all talk about it , but what do we do about it? Inflation allows a government to increase taxes without admitting it. Inflation favours borrowers at the expense of lenders, because inflation effectively reduces the repayments on past debts. Inflation encourages industrial unrest. Inflation favours the strong at the expense of the weak. The greatest burden of inflation is borne by lower income groups. Inflation encourages the misallocation of resources. The world famous economist John Maynard Keynes said: There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of economic destruction and does it in a manner not one man in a million is able to diagnose. With so much against inflation, why do we not halt it, assuming, of course, we do not plan to overturn the existing basis of society? The overriding question should be: Can we afford to continue with this soft option? I suggest, with respect, that the challenge facing this Parliament is to give a lead to the people of Australia by recognising that governments are elected to set the example for the rest of the community, by showing responsible long term financial management that will lead to lower inflation rates. This is fundamental to a real, sustained recovery. Give a lead by being honest with the people of Australia, by telling the facts, by explaining that governments cannot go on spending more and more when the nation cannot afford it, by explaining wage rises above productivity rises lead to higher unemployment and are inflationary. We must be frank. Like all economic crises, the way out will be slow and painful. While there are hopeful signs, governments must resist temptation and not mislead people by suggesting there are easy cures. Such action leads only to cynicism. There will be false dawns. History does repeat itself. In time, with a responsible lead from this Parliament, the nation will prosper again. The degree to which it prospers will be reflected by the degree to which this Parliament shows responsible leadership to guide-I emphasise the word 'guide'-this country to worthwhile and achievable long term goals. As governments do not have a monopoly on wisdom, to do more than try to guide is not only presumptuous but can often prove to be counter productive. In conclusion, may I say that the long term goals, the goals that the people of Wannon and the people of Australia should expect of governments are to have the opportunities and the freedom of choice to better their own future. It is the role of government to provide the sound basis on which to build, the most important ingredient of which is a sound financial base. The resilience of all Australians can and will do the rest. It is through the combined efforts of individuals that our greatest future lies. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Again I ask the House to extend the usual courtesies on the occasion of a maiden speech. I call the honourable member for Leichhardt. Mr GAYLER(Leichhardt)(8.37) —I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Upon my election as the representative for Leichhardt, I undertook to represent all of the people of far north Queensland, irrespective of political persuasion. Tonight I address this House, mindful of that commitment. The problems in the north and the aspirations of northerners transcend political boundaries. In the brief time available this evening I will inform honourable members of both the problems and the aspirations of those Australians in the far north. It is not that I believe that many of the problems that exist in the tropics do not exist elsewhere in Australia. However, I do believe that far north Queensland has lagged behind other parts of Australia in terms of interest shown by successive State and Federal governments. Successive conservative governments, both at State and Federal levels, have not acknowledged or recognised the contribution that my electorate makes to the national welfare. Often the assistance that was needed in that area was not forthcoming. The division of Leichhardt is almost twice the size of Victoria; of course, Wannon is only a small section of Victoria. Leichhardt is the only electorate which shares an international border. It contains a high proportion of Aboriginals and Islanders-in fact, more Islanders than any other electorate in Australia. Leichhardt is rich in its human resources and also in its natural bounty. No other part of the nation has the potential for growth as does my electorate. It is a rich provider of resources and wealth, not only for the people who live within its boundaries but for the whole of Australia. Tragically , it also has an unemployment rate in Cairns of 22 per cent and in the more remote areas of the electorate of up to 50 per cent. It is my aim and that of the Hawke Administration to redress this situation. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke ) has already foreshadowed decisions that will bear that out. Firstly, the Government has decided to go ahead with the national communications satellite system. This will bring Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio and bring television to people in Leichhardt who at present receive no service at all. Communications play a vital role in an area as remote and far flung as far north Queensland. At a time when people living in metropolitan areas are taking for granted forms of communication such as basic radio, television and telephone, there are people living in remote areas of Australia, particularly far north Queensland, who do not have the benefit of those forms of communication. The satellite system will ensure that everyone within the electorate can be connected, for example, to the automatic telephone network. Secondly, the Government has decided to establish a second regional radio network for the ABC. This will make it possible for the ABC to offer a much wider choice of programming to all its listeners in the country. Whilst communications are undoubtedly the major consideration in my part of Australia, so is the upgrading and construction of an adequate road system. The Government is increasing total road funding to Queensland this financial year by 40 per cent. That will mean that a total of $253m of Commonwealth money will be spent on Queensland roads. However, more attention, funding and effort are required on the road system radiating to the remote areas in the Gulf of Carpentaria, Cape York and other areas rich in primary production. Another $12. 4m will be spent on roads in Queensland under the community employment program. The development and prosperity of north Queensland depend on its great primary industries. One of the first actions of this Government was to channel $11m into the Queensland sugar industry. A new organisation, the Fishing Industry Consultative Panel, has been established to provide comprehensive advice to the Government on the fishing industry. Because Leichhardt sits astride our northern coastline, it is an area with a special interest in defence and border protection. The Government has shown a clear commitment in this field by significantly increasing defence spending in real terms. Through the allocation of the recent Budget there is presently proceeding a full scale review of our coastal surveillance arrangements headed by the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley). This is a critical area and the issues of surveillance and defence in northern Australia should be given top priority, as events in the past have so clearly shown. The tourist industry is a major industry in north Queensland. I applaud the grant of $1m this financial year to subsidise diesel fuel costs to Barrier Reef island resorts. The tourist industry will also benefit from the substantial boost in funding we will provide to the Australian Tourist Commission. A study is under way into provision of low cost accommodation and negotiations have begun with the domestic airlines on a 30-day fixed air fare and all-inclusive air-rail-coach tickets to attract more people to far north Queensland. A further decision has been taken to reinstate the exemption from sales tax for certain tourist boats, and this is being backdated two years. Finally, the Government is to build new office accommodation worth more than $6m for government departments in Cairns and on Thursday Island. This is part of a major program in five States to help stimulate the building industry. Commendable as that activity by the Government has been, some areas still need attention. I should mention the major issues that are concerning the people of Leichhardt, and I will take the opportunity to suggest some of the ways in which these problems can be met. Whilst the Government has given $11m of carry-on finance to the sugar industry, I have made the Prime Minister aware that there is a need for further assistance to the most needy cane growers-those in the wet belt from Tully to Mossman-who suffer as a result of climatic conditions in the tropical region of far north Queensland, which I hasten to add is the only tropical area in the world predominantly inhabited by Europeans where successful primary production is carried out. There is a need to ensure the continued viability of Cairns's largest employer, North Queensland Engineers and Agents Pty Ltd. As it is the area's largest employer, and since the Royal Australian Navy has in its wisdom classed further Fremantle class patrol boats as a low priority, many of those jobs are now at risk. The Government is to be commended for its attempts to procure further contracts during the recent South Pacific Forum. However, I would remind the Government that it is necessary to provide work for the employees of NQEA by December of this year. Unemployment in the Cairns area is running at 21 to 22 per cent and, as I said previously, is as high as 50 per cent in outlying areas. There is a need to give the electorate of Leichhardt high priority in the Government's community employment program, under which Queensland will receive $ 41m this financial year. I applaud the Army for undertaking a study into the establishment of a citizen based unit similar to Norforce in the north of Queensland. It is a small step towards improving the defence of Australia's most vulnerable area. I urge the Government to consider also the eventual strengthening of naval and air force facilities in the Gulf of Carpentaria and on Cape York. No other part of this nation contains the natural beauty of far north Queensland, from the marvel of the Great Barrier Reef to the last frontiers of the cape and the gulf. We are blessed with verdant rain-forests and the rich agricultural lands of the Atherton Tableland as well as the beauty of wilderness , rivers and the tropical coastline. Here lies enormous potential for tourism. On behalf of the people of northern Queensland I sincerely welcome the Government's Budget commitments to increase the efforts to direct tourists to this country. I cannot complete this speech in good conscience without mentioning to the House the deplorable neglect of the Aboriginal and island people in the far north of this country. Although I will have more to say on this issue in the future, I thank the Government for its 28 per cent increase in spending for both Aboriginal and island people. Given the time at my disposal, I am unable to canvass all the issues that confront the people who live in the electorate of Leichhardt. That is a task which I will accomplish over the months ahead. Suffice it to say that my electorate, for the first time since the National Party of Australia won it eight years ago, has had a chance to come out of its slumber and to progress to the stage where it is on an equal footing with the more favoured areas of south- east Australia. The Hawke Government was elected after making specific promises about development programs for north Queensland. Those promises will be honoured . The people of Leichhardt and the rest of north Queensland will, within the first term of the Hawke Government, come to see that the choice they made on 5 March was an eminently sensible and, more particulary, a responsible one. I should not conclude this evening without paying special tribute to one of my predecessors. He is the former Labor member for Leichhardt, Bill Fulton. He represented the electorate for 17 years and it passed from the Australian Labor Party on his retirement in 1975. Bill Fulton was a worthy representative of this area, and it was during his period as the member that advances were made for the betterment of the electorate. I boldly make the claim that advances that occurred in Bill Fulton's period as the member for this electorate will be reborn during the term of the Hawke Government. We have had eight years of idleness, disinterest and decline. I pledge to the people of Leichhardt that they have the prospect of new directions, new bonds of co-operation and new initiatives in promoting economic well-being in our remote but treasured part of Australia. People sometimes believe that those of us who come from north Queensland call ourselves north Queenslanders before we call ourselves Australians. That is not true. However, I would like to point out that I intend to use all the well-known vigour of a north Queenslander to represent my electorate. The people of far north Queensland have visions for the future of our region. We have every confidence in our future. All we ask of Canberra is that it share with us our visions and our confidence. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(8.50) —I congratulate the three honourable members who spoke before me in this debate tonight-particularly the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker)-all of whom made their maiden speeches. I refer to small business and the Budget. The Budget was a disaster for small business. In both the Budget and the May mini-Budget small business has been ignored. The Budget expands the public sector and squeezes the private sector. No incentive is given to small business to make profits and create wealth. There is no incentive for investment of new or venture capital in small business. The Budget is a big government Budget, a public sector Budget. It does nothing to promote the growth of a vital and prosperous entrepreneurial small business sector. It does not promote private enterprise. The Budget predicts a fall in private sector investment and a growth in the public sector. This Australia cannot afford. This is a misleading and tricky Budget. The Government deliberately tried to soften up the community prior to its delivery. Some people are tempted to say it is not much different from a Liberal Budget. Some say that it is a non-event Budget. This myth is dangerous and must be destroyed, for the truth is that it is a dangerous Budget. The Government's presentation of it hides the real deficit increase of $3.8 billion-a massive $4 billion increase on the previous years deficit under the former Government. The Budget attempts to buy the vote of the unemployed and Aboriginal lobbies, but it does nothing to create the community wealth from which to pay for this. The mini-Budget's imposition of tax on lump sum superannuation payments is a new tax on capital, a tax on people's savings. It is a tax on capital gains. It is the small business sector that is hit hardest by this lump sum superannuation proposal, for lump sums are often used by people retiring for investment in small business. Small business employers and employees are both hit by this proposal. Small business traditionally provides for lump sum schemes because of the costs of funding pension schemes. The Government's superannuation lump sum proposals discriminate against owners of small businesses. Bona fide redundancy payments made to wage earners are exempt but similar payments to owners of businesses are not. Reference must also be made in a Budget context to the method of implementation of the prescribed payments tax-the withholding tax proposals. The Government's implementation of this proposal shows its total ignorance and lack of understanding of how business and the private sector operate. The effect on cash flow of the additional cost of servicing working capital will be too much for many small businesses to absorb. The Budget is a public sector Budget. It does nothing to contain the size of the public sector and admits to a shrinking and contracting private sector. It does nothing to create a climate of confidence for small business. The private sector provides 75 per cent of jobs. Most of these jobs are in small business. The Budget does nothing to give small business confidence to expand and grow, nothing to encourage individual entrepreneurs to invest. The Government does not understand that jobs cannot be created until there is a higher level of private investment in this country. In Australia the size of the public sector, the bureaucracy, grows day by day as the private sector shrinks. As this continues the social and economic structure of the country changes. We are becoming a big government state. By the process of gradualism, accelerated by this Budget, the social and economic fabric of Australia is being changed. The middle income earner is being attacked by stealth. There is no tax relief for the middle income earner. There are increased costs and charges. There is no increased deduction for private school fees; in fact, there are increases because of the Government's education policies. There is no change to the spouse rebate, or to rate and land tax rebates and the dividend rebate has been abolished. Middle Australia is being forced to become a supplicant of this Government. By stealth we are becoming a socialist and socialised state. This Budget rapidly accelerates this state of affairs. Strong government action needs to be taken to reverse this process. Incentive needs to be given to individuals and the private sector. The balance must be reversed. Affirmative action is needed to reverse this trend. The community is short of capital investment. In the last 20 years Australia, like other Western countries, has overspent on government, and underspent on private capital investment. Affirmative action is needed to reverse this trend, to encourage the creation of profits, savings and capital. Let us not forget that capital is created by profit and profit means jobs. We are in a time of recession but at the same time the economy is going through massive structural change. The nature of the corporate sector and the private enterprise system is changing. Large companies are shedding labour and jobs are being lost. These large companies are concentrating on maintaining productivity rather than making profits to enable them to expand further and to create more jobs. In addition to shedding labour, large companies are shedding some functional departments. Advertising departments, car pools, engineering sections and public relations departments are being done away with. This, of course, provides some openings for small business to grasp opportunities. Large corporations, instead of expanding and investing in new enterprises, are merging and/or taking over existing ones to maintain profitability and increase productivity. The large corporate sector seems to be in a cycle of decline. Investment by individuals in shares listed on stock exchanges is discouraged. This Government has abolished the $1,000 dividend rebate for individuals. This shrinks the private sector even further. There will be very little opportunity in the future for growth and the creation of jobs in the larger big business, corporate sector of the economy. It is only through small business that the economy can be revitalised and grow. Fortunately, small business, by its very nature, provides this opportunity. The nature of the production process is also changing. The consumer is rejecting many mass produced items. Many mass producers themselves are locked into high cost structures. Consumers are looking more and more for the specialised product made by small business. At the same time, through lower costs of production, small business is more flexible and able to take advantage of technological change more cheaply, quickly and efficiently than the larger corporations. It is through investment of capital in the small business sector that jobs can be created. This Budget does nothing for small business and the creation of those jobs. This Budget hits the competitiveness of Australian industry. Australia's inflation rate is predicted to be at least double that of its major trading partners. It is an inflationary Budget feeding on inflation. The Budget puts up costs for every small business in Australia. Cost increases are now perpetuated by regular indexation of excise. In turn, these increases feed on themselves and create greater cost increases which are again passed on, and so the spiralling costs to business, the consumer and the community continue. Road transport freight costs will rise as a result of the increased fuel excise. The Long Distance Road Transport Association and the Australian Road Transport Federation have warned that many small carriers will be forced out of business by this Budget-by the fuel price rise and the new prescribed payments tax. These freight cost increases will reach into every business in Australia-a country that should have incentives to conquer the tyranny of distance. I turn to the wine industry. This Government has specifically and selectively attacked the smaller and independent wine producer in its introduction of a tax on fortified grape spirit. The added cost burden of this tax is great. The producer is expected to pay the tax at the time of production, which can be from three to 15 years before the wine is sold. This will force many producers out of production of fortified wines. Australia's famous ports, muscats and tokays, which enjoy world-wide acclaim, could be lost to the nation. There will be job losses as a result in country areas. Mr Hodgman —It is a shame. Mr SHIPTON —It is a shame. Imported wine not subject to the tax will flow into the country and force Australian producers to go out of business. The effect of the six-monthly indexed excise proposed in the Budget will increase the cost of an average 750 millilitre bottle of fortified wine by 33 per cent and the retail cost of an average two litre flagon by approximately 44 per cent. Wineries will also have to bear costs associated with the additional working capital needed as a result of the Government's measures. The tax has been introduced by a government that has no idea of how industry works. The Government is destroying this wine industry. The Government has created confusion and uncertainty with its sales tax proposals. Many of the anomalies are only just being realised. The Government has no idea of the diverse range of industries affected. Take the new 20 per cent tax on oils, lubricants and greases used in manufacturing. These were previously exempt as aids to manufacture. Undoubtedly any small business engaged in manufacturing is affected. The government's proposals cut across the notion of what is actually a sales tax-that is, a tax on a finished product-and is imposing double taxation on finished products by taking aids to manufacture used in the process of manufacturing. There has been a change of concept as to what is a sales tax. Additionally the actual manufacturers of oils and lubricants used as aids in manufacture-the small corporations and companies-will now face severe cash flow problems. Before the introduction of the sales tax a typical oils and lubricants manufacturer would have a monthly sales tax return in the order of $100. The monthly return will now be thousands of dollars. Payment of sales tax has to be met by the twenty-first day of the month, however the manufacturer's accounts are not paid at least 30 to 40, or even 60, days after the month transaction. These manufacturers now have to fund overnight the payment of the sales tax increase of 20 per cent. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) indicated in yesterday's debate on the sales tax legislation that he would look into this anomaly. I welcome this, and I hope for change. However, these manufacturers are discriminated against as manufacturers of other aids to manufacture, such as cleansing and sterilizing agents, repair and maintenance apparatus, are exempt and do not have to pay the tax. The Labour Government has completely failed in the Budget to meet its election promises to small business. The only conclusion that the small businessman can come to now is that the campaign promises were a delusion never intended to be implemented- and only to get the small business vote. The Labor Party argues that small business could help unemployment, yet by not stimulating this vital key sector of the economy it has failed to provide a climate for private sector growth and employment. If small business prosper so does the nation. In this Budget there is no incentive for individual entrepreneurs to invest in new or existing enterprises. Not one of the Australian Labor Party's pre-election promises to small business has been implemented since the election. Labor promised to implement immediately an Australian small business action program. Labor promised to allow full retention of profits. Labor promised to provided full quarterly provisional tax payments. Labor promised to extend the time permitted to pay sales tax. What a release of working capital that would provide to small business if that were to happen. Labor promised to create real jobs in manufacturing. What has happened? In February the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Dawkins), the then Opposition spokesman on finance, said that Labor would make a commitment to revitalise small business 'with action, resources and legislation'. There has been no such action in the Budget. There is nothing in the Budget for small business-nothing to encourage investment of profit, or to encourage the creation of savings and capital, because it is only through the investment of capital through profits that jobs can be created. The Budget's apparent good treatment of the tourist industry is illusionary. It is a mirage and a fiction. The increased grant of $7.5m to the Australian Tourist Commisson is welcomed. It is now up to the ATC to develop satisfactory and acceptable programs for the industry. The role of the Commission and the role of the industry need to be defined. It is vital that those in the industry be consulted and involved and that the new programs benefit the industry as a whole. The Tourist Commission must work with and not patronise the industry. The $1m grant to the Queensland Government to subsidise the cost of diesel fuel to Barrier Reef Island resorts is also welcomed. After examination, however, these Budget announcements are a sleight of hand trick. There is nothing in the Budget to encourage real investment in and to promote the development of the tourist industry. The reality is that there is no real assistance to the industry. What has happened to the promises of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) of new depreciation allowance? On coming to Government he advised increased depreciation allowances. Let me quote Business Review Weekly of 9-15 April: . . . Brown believes that the depreciation allowance for the tourism industry should be raised 4 or 5 per cent over a depreciable life of 20 to 25 years. The truth is that the tourist industry has to bear the increased cost burdens imposed by the Budget. The Minister is full of empty promises. There is no incentive for investment by entrepreneurs in the industry. There is no incentive for investment in tourist building infrastucture so vital for the industry. There are no special depreciation provisions for the investment of tourist industry buildings. There is no encouragement for hotels, motels or convention centres. If the Government were serious about encouraging the growth of the industry, surely it would have increased building depreciation rates. The Budget hits the tourist and travel industry hard. Increased excise on aviation fuel will increase air fares. Tour bus operators will be hit hard with increased fuel charges. The hospitality industry is directly hit through automatic consumer price index excise increases in the price of alcohol. Hotels and restaurants will be caught by the Government's new automatic spiralling price increases. The Budget will slow down the rate of growth of the tourist and travel industry. Its net effect is to put up costs for the industry and leave less in consumer's pockets to spend on travel. There is concern in the industry that the diesel fuel subsidy has been limited to Barrier Reef operators. The Barrier Reef grant is welcome, but it discriminates against all other tourist resorts that suffer similar disadvantages of distance. What is a Barrier Reef island? Does it include the Whitsunday Islands, which are not Barrier Reef islands? It discriminates between charter boat operations. Presumably tourist operators operating from the Barrier Reef islands get the subsidy and those operating from the mainland do not. The measure discriminates against all other tourist resorts in Queensland. It hits the Northern Territory particularly hard. Northern Territory resorts suffer disadvantages equal to or greater than the Barrier Reef islands. Take Ayers Rock -it would cost more to get fuel there than to the Barrier Reef islands. Tourist boat operators in Sydney Harbour and elsewhere in Australia can legitimately make a similar claim for support. Long distance tour bus operators are particularly discriminated against as they purchase much of their fuel in remote areas. The Government has created a mess that must be clarified. New South Wales and Victorian ski resorts suffer similar disadvantages of location and are similarly discriminated against and disadvantaged. The Minister has failed the industry miserably. All he has obtained is $8.5m plus the tourist boat exemption out of a Budget of over $56 billion. He has failed to deliver the goods, mere peanuts. I must mention Tasmania. The Government has treated Tasmania shabbily in the Budget. The Government should inject massive funds into the Tasmanian tourist industry to compensate Tasmania for the loss of development and jobs involved in the dam project. Millions of dollars must be spent on developing Tasmania as a major tourist destination. The Budget does nothing to promote tourism in Tasmania. The south-west region of Tasmania is potentially one of the most interesting tourist attractions in the world. In an industrialised world, areas of accessible wilderness are rare. The Commonwealth should meet the full costs of the tourism plan for the west coast as a small part of its compensation for the loss of development and jobs involved in the dam project The Minister has broken his promises to Tasmania, promises made just before the Budget was delivered. He was widely reported as telling a meeting of the Tasmanian Council in August at Port Arthur, that the 'Federal Government will spend about $10m developing and promoting south-west Tasmania's tourist development this year'. The money will be spent on upgrading walking tracks, rebuilding bridges subject to flooding, cleaning up Queenstown and Strahan and providing more accommodation in the two west coast towns. He also said apparently: 'The Budget would indicate that the Government was serious about stimulating tourism. Because of Tasmania's unique beauty it would be especially significant in any promotion.' There was lots of talk by the Minister, but no action in the Budget. The only result he achieved following his visit was the 1. 7m dollar grant for the Queenstown sewage scheme. The Minister should explain to the House why he has broken his promises to the people of Tasmania. What happened to the missing $8.3m dollars? The former Liberal Government had promised Tasmania $50m over five years for a management plan and survey of the south-west-a commitment to provide money for interpretive centres and for rangers to patrol the park area. I would also ask the Minister to explain his reported comment in Tasmania that: The $10m would start to provide immediate employment for people who had lost jobs because of the stopping of the Gordon-Below-Franklin power scheme Now that he has failed to get the money, what is he doing about those jobs? The Minister has been strong on rhetoric and slow on action. He and the Government have miserably failed the industry in this Budget. What about deeds, not words, Mr Brown? Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(9.10) —In addressing the House on the implications of the Budget, I ask all honourable members to consider the background, the economic situation and the social structure of Australian society at the time that this Budget was introduced. I sat in this House and listened patiently to the carping criticism of members of the Opposition-members who have been in this Parliament for a long period, as was pointed out by the new honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) in his maiden speech tonight at a time when the former Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, was in office for a record period exceeded only by that of Sir Robert Gordon Menzies . In that time Mr Fraser had the support of the honourable member for Higgins ( Mr Shipton) who has just finished speaking and those gentlemen who now compose the Opposition. I ask all Australians to cast their minds back to the situation in which they found themselves early this year. To hear the honourable gentleman opposite one would think that this first Hawke Budget was dragged out of the air. In their analysis of it they do not place it in any context at all. We get a series of individual criticisms. It would be interesting to ask the honourable gentlemen opposite what would have been their philosophy and their policy in terms of economic management. The Australian people saw what they would have done and the Australian people made a judgment in terms of the record of the men opposite. One had to be skilful indeed to produce a situation in which, as a result of the policies of the men who now sit in opposition-they will be there for a long time because the people of Australia will not readily forget or easily forgive- more Australians were put out of work than at any time in our history. These men who now want to talk about broken promises had promised the people of Australia that there would be work for all who wanted it. They had promised the people of Australia that they would solve inflation. In March of this year the people of Australia had had enough. They were tired of a government that not only had produced a record level of unemployment but also cared not a damn about the social situation in which thousands of Australians found themselves. It was a government which had not solved the problems of inflation. Probably more important than the economic philosophy of the honourable gentlemen who sit opposite is what they were prepared to do to the ordinary Australian citizen. People do not easily forget that in order to survive, the men opposite were prepared to abandon any concept of industrial negotiation. Confrontation, spurred on by the men who sit opposite, was the policy they wanted to manipulate in their handling of the economy. We do not easily forget that in order to cling to office they were shamelessly prepared to turn one Australian citizen against another. Just as the rich had become richer they were perfectly happy to see that whole sections of the Australian community were forced to live below the poverty line. These gentlemen who now prate with their carping criticisms want us to forget not only that they left inflation in double digit figures and that they produced record unemployment but also that they gave us a huge deficit which emerged only after the election. That was one of the secrets they did not really want to share with the Australian people. The people of Australia made their judgment about the Fraser Government and about the members who now sit opposite. Those opposite will tell us anything except what they would do and what their policies would be in order to get Australia moving again. Mr Hand —They have not got any. Mr HOLDING —Of course they have not got any, and they do not look like having any. That is something every Australian knows. The fact is that this Budget was produced after an economic summit. It came after a period in which the resources of this Government were put to work in order to heal the social divisions which were an essential feature and also an essential strategy of the Fraser Government. The National Economic Summit Conference laid the basis for recovery in this country and gave the opportunity for one Australian to talk to another in a genuine effort to confront the economic and social problems which had been created by years of mismanagement, political manoeuvring and lying to the Australian people. That was the situation in which this Budget was brought down. It does not matter what the honourable gentlemen opposite say. The Budget had to tackle the very serious problems which confront this nation. It had to call for a measure of economic sacrifice. But in calling for that measure of economic sacrifice every Australian knew that the difference in approach was that the economic sacrifice was to be shared. The burdens that have been placed upon people in this Budget are burdens which had to be placed and which have been appropriated on the basis that those who are best able to bear the burdens bear them. That is why we have to sit in this House and listen to the gentlemen opposite who will pick a point here and a point there. They say: 'Oh, there is not enough petrol for those who want to go skiing at Mount Buffalo. There is not enough for the hotel trade or the tourist industry'. Honourable members should talk to the kids in my electorate who are unemployed and tell them about the terrible inequities of this Budget. It means that if a person is going skiing he might have to pay a little more for his petrol. If he is to stay in a luxury tourist hotel he might have to pay a little more. They are the priorities of the honourable gentlemen opposite. They are the priorities and they make it clear every time one of them opens their mouth. Let me turn to my portfolio. Is there anyone in this House or in Australian society who does not say that the Aboriginal people of Australia are the most dispossessed group of people in Australia and that their health and housing statistics are the worst? Honourable gentlemen opposite know that is true. How was that matter handled by the honourable member who preceded me? This Government, in measuring the economic burdens, significantly increased the funding for Aboriginal affairs so that a government of conscience and compassion could tackle these problems. How was that matter handled by the honourable gentleman opposite? That was a yielding to what was described-these were the terms and honourable members should mark them well-as the Aboriginal lobby. Let me say that I am proud to be a member of a government which is prepared not only to examine the social problems of this group but also not to deal with those problems in terms of glib promises. This Government is prepared, in a period of considerable economic difficulty to fund that group in order that this nation, whatever the economic difficulties, can at least come to terms with some of these problems. It has done that in generous measure. Let us look at some of these areas. For the most ill-housed section of the Australian community, there is a significant Budget increase. As a result of this Government's housing policies, there has been an increase in direct funding of up to 28 per cent. That is a significant increase in a period of economic downturn. We have to do something about the desperate plight of Aboriginal people who are living in areas in which unemployment figures are bad. When general unemployment figures are bad, one can rest assured that the unemployment figures for Aboriginal people in such communities are horrific. There has been an increase in the Budget in direct funding of $14.5m. That is only in the portfolio under which I have the honour to represent this Government. It does not take into account the large increases which are now part and parcel of the policies being implemented by my colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) as part of a total package designed to come to terms with the problems of the unemployed in our community and to tackle them in the most effective way possible. If the present Government is to be judged, I am happy that there should be a detailed analysis of the Budget allocation in the whole field of Aboriginal affairs. The allocation is still not enough. It will not provide housing for all the Aboriginal people who need housing. It will not solve the problems of education and of equality that exist in this area. It will not solve the underlying problems of ill-health in this area. But what it does-and this is recognised by Aboriginal people throughout Australia-is to provide a basis for a firm start. More important than just the flow of funds, the percentages and the increases, is the level of social commitment. I venture to mention that that is the difference in the approach of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the approach of the first Hawke Labor Government Budget. It is a Budget of social commitment. It is a Budget designed to clean up the mess. It is a Budget designed to get Australia working again, and to provide employment opportunities for the many young people who will be leaving our schools and universities and will not be able to find a job. It is a Budget which provides a measure of hope to those of middle age who find themselves unemployed. I am the first to admit that what the Budget seeks to do is still not enough. The level of the problems that were created for us and for the Australian people by the years of maladministration of the Fraser Government will take a lot more to correct than this Budget will provide. I freely admit that. That is understood. But, as I have said, what is important is that we ought to be entitled to expect from members of the Opposition not a criticism based on some view that all in Australia is well, or some view based on the premise that the history of Australia began in March 1983; what we are entitled to from honourable members opposite is a statement of their own alternative economic philosophy. Day after day in this House, at Question Time and at every level including the field of industrial relations, honourable members opposite have been invited, time and again, to tell people what their policies and philosophy are. In terms of health policy, all that they can do is to take half a dozen points to tell us what they believe is wrong with the Medicare package. But what they cannot tell us is their alternative method of tackling the problems of ill health in our community and how people can pay for continually increasing expenses. We have an Opposition that is devoid of political philosophy. In my own area of Aboriginal affairs, in which I have political responsibility for the Government, it is significant that the shadow Minister was concerned to criticise, inaccurately, the Budget allocations which I believe represent a very significant increase in a difficult economic situation. However, when asked by a journalist what was the Opposition's policy on land rights, he could only say: ' Well, we have not really got our policy in place'. When will the Opposition have its policy in place? When will members of the Opposition have their policy to deal with the problems of the unemployed and of the people of Australia who are ill housed, and the people who are living below the poverty line? When will they have their alternative policies and philosophy in place? That is the difference, and that is the basis on which the Australian people are making their judgments of the Hawke Labor Government. It is not an accident that in a period in which people were predicting a difficult and tight Budget, within a matter of a fortnight of the Budget being announced, the Government's poll ratings were as high and those of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) were as high as they had ever been. That was the judgment of the people of Australia. They are tired of the lack of philosophy and lack of policy and the mendacity of the men who sit opposite. That is a judgment that the people made in March on the basis of the Opposition's performance. Whatever the problems that are tackled by this Government, the people know that in the Prime Minister and in this Government they have men who are prepared to face up to the problems, who will analyse them honestly and talk to the people honestly. That is a significant change after the years of Fraser administration. This Budget is a credit to the Hawke Labor Government. It is a credit to the Treasurer. Whatever its inadequacies-I admit that there are inadequacies-it provides the basis for getting Australia out of the mess that was created as a result of the record period of government of the men who sit opposite. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr O'KEEFE(Paterson)(9.30) —As expected, the 1983 Budget is the usual social mess-up of big spending and big deficits. This Budget takes an enormous risk with the Australian economy. Its very foundation, the prices and incomes accord, is already falling apart. The first Australian Labor Party Budget of this Government has used the traditional Labor philosophy: If you do not know how to deal with the problems, then spend. Overall expenditure in the Budget has increased by a massive 15.8 per cent. The deficit is estimated at $8.3 billion, a cost which is not being borne by the Government now but is shelved for future taxpayers to deal with. It is very doubtful whether this Labor Government's first Budget will achieve what it sets out to do; that is, to stimulate the economy and provide jobs. This depends on a most important factor, that is, wage restraint. Unless the Government can contain its industrial wing and unless the trade unions moderate their wage demands the Budget will fall apart. The problem is immediate. Many wage settlements are being negotiated at present. Some of them involve amounts of $15 to $20 per week, particularly in the building and food processing industries. Unless the Government can contain these huge demands the Budget prediction will fall to pieces. There is little doubt that unemployment will continue to rise in the coming year. An examination of the Budget clearly indicates that this Government has no plan to change the economic strategy. In Budget Statement No. 2, the Department of the Treasury forecasts that compared with 540,000 dole recipients in 1982-83 the estimate for this financial year is of the order of 600,000. Indeed, this figure could even be exceeded. This is tragic, and the latest General Motors-Holden's Ltd lay-off will exacerbate the situation. With this state of affairs the only sensible strategy is to restrain the Budget deficit and, as stated previously, to contain wage claims. Certainly the Government has a number of proposals to help the unemployed, but these are only of a temporary nature and will ultimately expire. The wage pause funds have not been given real value. For instance, in my electorate of Paterson, as in other electorates, costly programs employing few people for short periods have been implemented. The wage pause funds have not provided the assistance which the Government thought they would. These have been band-aid measures, as indeed is the case with most of the Government's aid in this field. The only real way in which the unemployment problem will be solved is by an improvement in the economy, in industry, business and in the commercial world. There is evidence at present that an improvement is under way in this country and in the nations with which Australia is a trading partner, for instance the United States of America. We rely very much indeed on the economic situation in that country. It is improving; so the benefits should flow on to us-perhaps not immediately but as time goes on. This Budget will provide the biggest increase in spending since the Whitlam years. Of course excise and sales tax are to go up immediately and in future will be automatically indexed every six months. This is inflation by legislation . I repeat: This is inflation by legislation. There will be an assets test on pensions, which is causing great concern amongst pensioners. This has yet to be finalised. This is a very emotive issue, and immediate attention must be given to it. Another item which requires attention concerns the many interested Australians and institutions which are anxious to secure the Budget Papers printed and distributed after the Treasurer's Budget Speech in the Parliament. These papers contain much finer print and information than is given in the Budget Speech. The papers can be purchased by the public from Government Bookshops, but at what price? The Budget Speech costs $2. That is a small cost. Budget Paper No. 1 costs $17.80 and a full set of Budget Papers-the 11 papers-will set the purchaser back $58.60. I ask: $58 for a complete set? These prices seem to be excessive and outrageous. Budget Papers have to be prepared and printed for the Government's internal use, and the cost of running off a few thousand extra copies for the public would be quite modest. To charge private citizens more than the marginal cost is to subsidise the general costs of government which should be borne by the general taxpayer. I request that the Government review these charges for the important Budget Papers which are required by many universities and institutions, apart from private citizens, throughout Australia . There is a big increase in welfare spending which now takes 30 per cent of the Federal Budget. This Budget will have a very serious effect on the economy and it is very doubtful whether it will help economic recovery. It will lead to higher interest rates; inflation will still be at least twice that of our overseas competitors. As mentioned previously, unemployment levels will rise even further. The deficit is too high. Government spending is up by 16 per cent. The Government is now taking 32 per cent of the gross domestic product. The initial assessment of the Budget was that it was mild mannered. This feeling has subsided, and analysts are now taking a dimmer view of the contents. Most people throughout Australia are having second thoughts about the Budget. It is quite obvious that the Government has aimed at gaining maximum mileage in terms of popularity by not increasing income taxes but by taking the other option of increasing indirect taxes which, on the surface, does not appear to help the average taxpayer substantially. This Budget has failed to keep a number of election promises concerning the family. In particular, promises by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to allocate an extra $20m for child care in the Government's first Budget were not fulfilled. The Budget Papers stated that the Government would allocate $10m in 1983-84 for high priority new and expanded projects and initiatives under the children's services program. That is a far cry from the promise made during the election campaign which, of course, won the Government many votes. The Government is sidestepping its responsibility to Australian families. The great rural industries are the backbone of Australia, and this Labor Government has decimated assistance to primary producers. This action, coming after a period of drought, floods and the May mini-Budget, has caused considerable dismay and concern to primary producers. They are the people who give this country the export income which is so necessary for our development and for our economy. Some of the measures-there is an amazing number of them- taken by the Government, which are having a serious effect on primary industry, can be summarised as follows: Lower depreciation rates; the abolition of the income equalisation deposits scheme; an amount of $8m less for wool promotion, our great export earner; the abolition of land clearing and drainage concessions ; meat inspection costs trebled, to 300 per cent-this is causing the meat industry and the meat producers a great problem-higher petrol and diesel prices; the imposition of a sales tax on all oils, lubricants and piping of 20 per cent. As mentioned in this debate tonight the increased cost to the primary producer of a 250 litre drum of oil is something like $60. That is absolutely exorbitant. The subsidy on petroleum products freight is to end; the special depreciation allowance for petrol storage is to be scrapped; general depreciation allowances are to be reduced; the automatic in-out opting provisions of the tax averaging scheme, which is estimated to cost $15m this financial year, will be abolished; the bicentenary water resources program is to be cancelled; the home deposit scheme and the housing interest income tax rebate scheme are to be terminated; parts of the local aerodrome ownership plan are to be suspended; and the increased interest payments on Telecom Australia's borrowing, which will directly cause increases in telephone rentals and call charges, will come into effect on 1 October. The Government has broken just about every promise which it has made in relation to drought aid. In the election campaign Labor promised to maintain existing drought arrangements, provide additional measures to ensure that all types of farmers receive equitable treatment instead of drought aid after drought breaking rain. None of these promises has been honoured. The number of farm employees and jobs in country towns around the nation has fallen by about 100,000. What is the Government doing? It offers massive assistance to other industries but appears to neglect primary industry, the backbone of the nation. One of the most important projects for the development of Australia is the provision of adequate water supplies and it has been very disappointing indeed to see the miserable funds that are being made available by this Government in this area. The Budget Speech by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) tells us that total funds made available for water resources in 1983-84 provide for expenditure of $ 46m right across Australia, which means that no more major dams or water storages will be commenced in this period. Our policy was to provide $70m a year but this, of course, was cancelled by the Labor Government. The worst drought recorded in history surely brought to the attention of governments the need for more storage facilities. This is a very important matter and it is hoped that some action will be taken to provide the necessary water storage not only for our primary producers but also for industry and the inland towns which rely on water for their domestic supplies. The average Australian family is hard hit by the increase in excise and sales taxes. This is on top of the $8 a week burden imposed by the mini-Budget and the huge increases in State and local taxes and charges since the present Government 's election in March. The chaotic and insensitive approach to policy making is again seen in the assets test for pensioners. This is an emotive issue and is causing Australians right across the country great pain. Australians have a right to expect that if they have a go and save they will be better off as they get older. This Government has no idea of the real world and how it is getting harder and harder for an average family to cope in a competitive world. While the Government has protected its Budget by introducing excise duties to take account of inflation, it has not similarly protected the family budget by indexing income tax thresholds. Effectively, it has increased income tax. As a result of indexation of exise duties the Government has institutionalised inflation. Families will be hit again every February and August by the boomerang effect. With the levels of inflation predicted by the Government it can be expected that the duty will rise over the year by another 7.5 per cent on items such as petrol, spirits, cigarettes and beer. Members who hold country electorates depend very much on fuel because it is essential for traveling about and working the farm properties. All this is to be added to the cost of the average family, together with the tax increases announced in the May mini-Budget and the high interest rates which could result from a massive increase in the deficit-a total of about $15 a week. The Government has not reformed the taxation system as it promised. Instead it has adopted a piecemeal approach and increased taxes all round. It has not moved away from direct to indirect taxes or broadened the tax base. It has merely increased taxes, both indirect and direct. Since the last Budget education costs in Australia have risen by around 11 per cent. Any Budget allocation with less than this level of increase is false in real terms. Labor's pre-Budget promises on education have all been broken. That must cause concern to parents who are making every effort to give their children every opportunity of a decent education. Labor made many pre-Budget promises in this field and has broken them over a very wide area. Indeed, the Government has been elected to govern this country on deceitful promises made prior to the election and not carried out afterwards. It promised to progressively increase student assistance through the tertiary education assistance scheme until it equated the single unemployment benefit and then maintain the nexus. It promised to raise the TEAS means test until it equated with average weekly earnings. It promised to establish an emergency student loans scheme to replace the present scheme. It promised to institute a new program for primary schools at a level of $9m per annum. It promised to provide an additional $37m in the first year of government for recurrent resources in government schools. It promised to provide an additional $16m in the first year of its program for needy non-government schools. All of these pre-Budget promises have been broken by the Government. It has reduced funding to 41 non-government schools which of course is causing concern to parents of children attending those schools. I turn to technical and further education. A special triennial program to cost $30m to upgrade equipment and facilities for the latest technologies and to stimulate employment in Australian manufacturing has not been honoured. An immediate boosting of $15m in capital and recurrent funding to the States has not been honoured. These are important areas of education. Clearly, the Labor Party's action in the education portfolio has not matched its rhetoric. The number of promises not honoured is substantial and will be important to a wide section of the community. It is quite apparent that Labor's disregard in the important field of education is abysmal. The Government's deception and its bungling of its new withholding tax are causing great concern and cost to small businesses and their employees. It is doubtful whether any other piece of legislation has met with such an outcry and opposition right across Australia. The Government's objective to stamp out tax evasion in the cash economy is worthy of everyone's support but the implementation of the scheme is causing considerable increases in costs to small business by way of documentation which is required to satisfy the legislation. The relevant forms required to be filled out are not available at any of the post offices in my electorate, and this is causing great concern. Investigation has found that the distribution of the necessary forms to post offices is non- existent. This is causing frustration and problems for everyone liable to make application for an exemption certificate or liable for tax under the withholding legislation. Indeed, these forms require many personal details. The form asks such questions as: 'How much rent do you pay? How is your household financed? What rates do you pay? What are your telephone and electricity bills? What are your car expenses and personal living expenses?' They want to know everything about a person. Mr McGauran —It is called socialism. Mr O'KEEFE —It is a socialistic piece of legislation in a virulent form. It is understood that the legislation has been referred to a Senate select committee for examination and report. It is a hastily prepared Bill that will reduce the working capital of many businesses and yet miss some of the largest sections of the cash economy. This legislation is obnoxious and requires immediate investigation and change to a sensible set of rules. It has been hastily drawn up and is an administrative nightmare. The Budget provides an additional $4.2m for expanded trade promotion activities , including the upgrading of trade promotion programs in Australia's major export markets and the provision of a market research fund. Overseas trade is the backbone of Australia's economy. Coal, iron ore, uranium yellowcake, nickel, copper, lead and zinc are all great export earners. Our great rural industries of wool, wheat, coarse grains, beef, lamb, sugar and livestock are all important export earners. These markets are very competitive and Australia has to be extremely active in keeping up with world demands and finding new markets. With improving economies our near neighbours the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand and South Korea all offer opportunities for increased trade, apart from our established markets in the Asian area. Every effort must be made to improve our trade with the European Economic Community. This is a difficult task; nevertheless it should not be lost sight of. Australia's trade commissioners, serving throughout the world, must be given encouragement and assistance to advance our trade. For many years we have endeavoured to bring into operation a single meat inspection system. This has been achieved but our problem now is that we are faced with a 300 per cent rise in inspection fees. The Budget provided for an increase in the proportion of meat and livestock inspection charges. Recovery from the industry will be 50 per cent from 1 October. Cattle in excess of 90 kilograms.-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mrs CHILD(Henty)(9.50) —I point out to the previous speaker, the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O'Keefe), that forms for the withholding tax have been freely available and the Australian Taxation Office has been able to cope with them in the scheduled time. Further, the withholding tax that we introduced was almost identical with the withholding tax that the previous Treasurer intended to introduce. According to most of the critics of the Labor Budget brought down on 23 August by the Treasurer (Mr Keating), this is a traditional Labor Budget, having given its greatest emphasis to those in need. Labor was founded on a floor of welfare and throughout the many years of our Party's history the needs of the disadvantaged have had priority. The Parliamentary Library put out a basic paper No. 9 in 1982 which concentrates on the Commonwealth social security cash benefits since Federation, a chronology of major events to November 1982. It is an interesting book to go through because, as one reads page after page, one finds that almost every initiative, every major break from tradition, every new benefit given and every increase of any significance throughout the years has been brought down by a Labor Government. I draw this to the attention of the House and to the attention of people in the community. There has been criticism that the increases in this Budget do not go far enough . I say: 'Why don't we go back a bit and have a look at the history of pensions and the history of benefits'. Let us start with the widow's pension. When Labor came into office in 1972 a widow's pension was $28.50. When we went out of office in 1975 it was $50.25, an increase of $21.75 during Labor's three years. That had never happened before and it certainly has not happened since. It could happen only under a Labor Government; it certainly did not happen under the seven years of Fraser Administration. Again in 1973, for the first time a Labor Government introduced a supporting mother's benefit and gave it the same rate as a Class A widow. The supporting mothers who have enjoyed that benefit will remember that a Labor Government introduced it. When Labor came into office in 1972 there was a $4.50 additional pension for the children of widowed pensioners. In Whitlam's three years he increased it to $7.50. During his three years, sickness benefits and unemployment benefits were paid at the same rate as pensions. Labor has brought about the innovations in pensions going right back to the Chifley years. I am not asking social security beneficiaries to feel grateful for what the Labor Party has done whenever it has been in office. I am just asking people to recognise that whenever there has been any move in the welfare area it has been a Labor initiative. Whenever community centres have been built it has been Labor that built them; whenever there has been money for rape crisis centres, for halfway houses for homeless refugees and the like, it has been Labor who initiated them. Pre-1973, pensioners got an increase once a year of maybe 50c or $1, depending on whether it was an election year. If it was not an election year they finished up with a kiss on the front steps. I know because I was a pensioner at that time, not that I got the kiss. When Labor came into office under Whitlam, it introduced twice yearly increases in pensions for the first time ever. The Fraser Government continued that trend because it did not have the guts to knock it out. But it is the Labor Party that introduced the twice-yearly increases. It is the Labor Party that decided a pensioner should not be a political football at the mercy of whichever Government was in office, or whether an election was imminent. Labor brought in twice yearly increases and now we have indexed them. In 1973 it was Labor that removed the age limit of 21 years for additional pensions for full-time students and for the payment of an additional guardians or mother's allowance. It was Labor that helped to keep students at school. It was Labor that introduced as additional pension for the children of widowed pensioners. It was Labor that introduced a rate of $10 a week for children under 16, or full time dependent students where both parents were dead or where one was dead and the other was unknown. Again, it was Labor that introduced an allowance of $10, not subject to a means test, for parents or guardians caring for a severely handicapped child. The history of Labor's initiatives in the social security field are well documented in Paper No. 9. I think it may be an idea if some of the welfare bodies which are very quick to criticise Labor read the book. I wonder what would have happened to them if there has not been three years-1972 to 1975- which set a pattern that not even the Fraser Liberal Government had the guts to slash. In this Budget pensioners will receive indexation increases from November 1983. The new rates will be $85.90 for a single pensioner and $143.20 for a pensioner couple. Fringe benefits will be indexed from November 1983 and this is a great breakthrough for pensioners. This will overcome a major difficulty for pensioners particularly, those on modest indexed superannuation payments who sometimes lose their pensioner health card when they receive cost of living rises. It will ensure that their pension rights are maintained. In addition, from November a single pensioner can have income of $57 a week and a pensioner couple $94 a week and still be eligible for fringe benefits-another first for Labor. The benefit income test will be eased from March 1984. Unemployment, sickness and special beneficiaries will be able to earn $20 a week-that is an additional $10-without affecting their payments. This is real breakthrough, one that has been long overdue and one that the Fraser Government of seven years' duration might have taken a look at. It is an area that has been discriminatory and created great hardship. These payments will be made tax free from March 1984 and this will remove a major area of discrimination against unemployment, sickness and special beneficiaries who have been the only group paying tax on additional payments for children. In fact, we have actually been taxing them for having children. Health care cards will be issued to unemployment and special beneficiaries for three-monthly periods instead of the existing two-weekly periods. Again, this will be a great comfort. Those people who need health care cards or whose card is running out, who perhaps have an accident and get rushed to hospital have a terrible time trying to prove that they are entitled to a health care card. Another first for Labor is the new pension that we will introduce in December 1983 for men caring for an aged or invalid pensioner spouse where the care is required for an extended or indefinite period because of the spouse's disability . In similar circumstances, a wife caring for an invalid pensioner has received a wife's pension, but a caring husband has been eligible only for special benefit which has carried a harsher income test and no fringe benefit entitlement. This change will redress the inequity and enable several thousand men each year to cope better with caring for their spouses. Despite all the publicity before the Budget, family allowances have been maintained because we recognise the additional costs incurred on behalf of dependant children. I am particularly pleased to be able to say that the rumours which were rife before the Budget about the spouse rebate were also untrue. The spouse rebate has been maintained. I note that there was some criticism that the $2 increase in the children's allowance to bring it up to $12 did not make up for the loss in value of the allowance over the past seven years. What happened in the past seven years was the responsibility of the now Opposition, not the responsibility of this Government. It is a fairly hard task to put on a new government coming into office facing a $9.6 billion deficit, that it should make up the leeway that the last Government has carried on for the past seven years. A representative of Shelter Victoria has commented that the Budget offered the housing industry more of the same. She went on to say that there would be an increase in public house spending from $333m to $500m. I would hardly call that more of the same. I point out to Shelter Victoria that funding under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement has increased 50 per cent over last year and that all of the additional funds have been provided as grants in recognition of the difficulties being faced by housing authorities in meeting the needs of low income home buyers and renters. In total, $354m of the $500m is being provided as grants, and $146m as highly concessional loans repayable over 53 years at the very moderate interest rate of 4.5 per cent per annum. I do not consider that more of the same. I think it would be fair for Shelter Victoria to acknowledge this. I thought that we would have got some reaction to the fact that we have indexed unemployment benefits. After all, Mr Fraser flatly refused to do this because he thought people were being lazy, that there were jobs about and they would not go after them. Labor has recognised that unemployment benefits need to be indexed. Labor in office has a responsibility towards the disadvantaged and the needy. It is our responsibility to put forward out policies and do the best we can under the circumstances to assist. This is a compassionate Budget. It looks at the needs and the rights of the poor. Debate interrupted. Albany-Northam-East Timor-Excise on Grape Spirit-Western Australian Prison System-Commonwealth Employment Program: South Australia-Cost of Living Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 10 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.00) —Tonight I wish to speak on behalf of two students from the electorate of O'Connor who are present in the gallery at my invitation to look at the Parliament of Australia. I do this quite seriously because these young people do not often get the opportunity to see the Parliament of Australia or even their State Parliament function. One of the young people to whom I refer is Julie Grist of St Joseph's Secondary School in Albany. Mr Holding —You cannot refer to strangers in the gallery. Mr TUCKEY —I think it is quite improper for the honourable member to interject while I am making this speech. He should just go back and shut up. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will continue. Mr TUCKEY —That is fine. But I want honourable members to appreciate that I am about to deliver a speech written by two young Australians. I am about to deliver their maiden speeches; so I hope honourable members can do something about them. Mr Wells —You have no material at all and you are just relying on interjections. Mr TUCKEY —I have a lot of material written by these two Australians. Honourable members opposite do not seem to understand that. My purpose in speaking tonight is to deliver to this Parliament speeches written by two young Australians who have been in Canberra all this week and who I hope will return to my electorate with a better knowledge of how the Parliament works and how democracy operates within Australia. Consequently I will deliver to the Parliament, firstly, the speech written by Julie Grist, and then the speech written by Tina Arton from the Northam High School in my electorate. The speech I wish to deliver on behalf of Julie Grist is about Albany. Albany is the oldest and most southerly town in Western Australia with the combined population of its town and shire totalling 22,000 persons. Its historical significance, scenic beauty and climate mean an unlimited potential for the area's largest industry, tourism. Last year $12.9m was made through tourism, and with the industry growing at a rate of 22 per cent each year, 1986 is expected to net $28.6m. Other industries in the town include woollen mills, a fish cannery, food processing works and a pet food manufacturer. Up to 1978 Albany was the only land-based whaling station in Australia. When whaling ceased in 1978, it was decided to turn the station into a museum. A recent State grant has made this possible. Albany's Princess Royal Harbour ranks with Sydney and Rio De Janeiro as one of the best three harbours in the world. However, it is severely underutilised, having suffered from the centralisation of trade and industry away from the port to Fremantle. Albany will be remembered by Robert De Castella as the venue for his first marathon win. Albany has five secondary schools, nine primary schools, and a technical college. Julie attends St Joseph's College Secondary. St Joseph' s has classes for 720 children from kindergarten right through to Year 12. It is also one of the largest non-government employers in the area. St Joseph's offers 24 tertiary admittance examination subjects and conducts a very comprehensive work experience program. So far this year 55 students have used this program and worked in businesses in and around town or travelled to Perth when their chosen area was not available locally. St Joseph's participates regularly in all inter- school activities ranging from Saturday morning sports and carnivals, to debating. Last year St Joseph's was southern zone junior debating champion and senior runner up, and this year is senior champion. Northam, named by Governor Stirling after a town in England of the same name, is situated on the Avon River in the heart of the Avon Valley some 100 kilometres east of Perth. I refer now to the speech written by Tina Arton of Northam High School who resides in Wundowie. Northam and the Avon Valley suffered the same growing pains as most communities. However this aside, Northam has matured into a town of some 9,000 and is the principal agricultural town in Western Australia. It is the hub of the central agricultural district with the main products being wheat, wool and meat. Northam has four primary schools, two junior high schools and one senior high school. Tina who attends the Northam Senior High School is one of approximately 300 pupils, some of whom board at government hostels. Pupils attend the schools from all around the district with some travelling up to three hours to and from school each day. A team from the Northam senior high school recently won the schoolboys country Australian Rules competition held in Perth. Secondary industry in Northam and surrounding areas include timber mills, brick works, plaster board manufacture and flour milling. It is also a major railway centre, boasting large marshalling yards, repair and maintenance work shops. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(10.05) —Tonight I wish to comment on a report tabled in this place on Tuesday concerning East Timor. I rise tonight because of contact people have made with me and my office expressing concern at statements in the media concerning this report. I find the report disappointing in its content. I find it very hard to understand why the report did not detail any recommendations for this House to consider. Everybody in Australia knew before the delegation left Australia what sort of things the delegation would be allowed to see by the Indonesian Government. I guess that, in some senses, the report is predictable because most people who have been overseas would know that they will see only what the Government of a country wants them to see. I believe that, in some respects, the report sells the East Timorese people short. I was interested to see in the introductory statements that the Indonesian Government was upset by the fact that Fretilin representatives visited this country. The report claimed that accusations were made that the Australian Government supported the enemies of Indonesia. Quite frankly I consider that to be absolute rot. Indonesia has a record of genocide; it has military leaders equal to anything in Hitler's murder squads. It is demanding of us not to allow people to enter the country to inform people in Australia about those atrocities. I reject the philosophy being put forward by the Indonesian Government. The report, in its introductory comments, states that Indonesia has the support of countries in South East Asia. Blimey! I ask honourable members to look at the Philippines, Taiwan and some of the other countries in that region. They are hardly in a position to be talking about civil liberties. Their records are well known to all. I reject the theory that because in the eyes of many the most evil acts of genocide against the people of East Timor may have happened in the past we should forget or even worse, pretend that those acts did not happen. I will not be forgetting because I believe that murder and genocide, wherever it occurs, should not be pushed under the international carpet. We should ensure that the world is not allowed to forget what has happened in East Timor. Some people will have us believe that the churches and the Press have it all wrong; that Amnesty International has it all wrong; that the graves of 200,000 people butchered by the Indonesians in East Timor do not exist; and that representatives of Fretilin had misled the world when they travelled around telling people in other countries what had occurred. Some of the headlines in the newpapers were as follows: 'No mercy for Fretilin; Indon general', and 'Fretilin shows photographs of atrocities'. Those people who were shown pictures by Fretilin were horrified by the sight of beheaded Fretilin women and children, acts committed against those people by the Indonesian soldiers who proudly held up the heads of 10 and 12-year-old children for people to take photographs of. A further newspaper headline quoted: 'Amnesty protests over Timor torture orders'. The article that followed mentioned the publication of a document which told Indonesian soldiers how to commit torture and not let it be known. There has been illness within the gaols. A report in the Melbourne Age on 6 June 1983 is headed: Illness 'killed 202 jailed Timorese'. Another article in the Canberra Times is headed: Program to 'cut Timorese birth rate'. The Sydney Morning Herald of 14 May 1983 carried the headline: In hard times they eat the dog. That is the sort of thing that the Indonesians are leading the East Timorese to do. The Canberra Times of 27 March 1983 reported: Thousands of Timorese 'held on island'. The Age on 28 March headlined a story: Timor battle still rages: refugees. An article headed 'UN body hears allegations of human-rights breaches' appeared in the Canberra Times on 9 February 1983 while the Northern Territory News of 4 June 1983 featured an article headed 'Banned drug used on Timorese'. That article dealt with a drug used on the women of Timor by the Indonesian Government. An Amnesty International report of August 1983 stated that the Indonesian Government condoned the use of physical and psychological torture in certain circumstances during interrogation. That report goes on and on. I wish to comment also on-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HICKS(Riverina)(10.10) —Ever since the morning after the Budget announcement that there was to be an excise of $2.50 a litre on grape spirit the phone of my electoral office has been running hot as has the phone here in Canberra. Why should they be running hot? I just remind the House of some of the effects this excise on fortified wines will have. Firstly, there will be an increase in the retail price of some lower cost wines in excess of 40 per cent while the cost of more expensive ports, muscats and dry sherries will rise by 37 per cent. Secondly, lower sales will result in substantially decreased intakes of grapes in the Riverland, Riverina and Sunraysia areas which supply the bulk of the multi-purpose material. Thirdly, the price increases in Australian fortified wines will result in at least partial, if not total, substitution of lower priced imported fortified bulk wines for bottling in Australia. Fourthly, the financial effect of the requirement that duty be paid within seven days of usage cannot be sustained by Australian winemakers. Even if payment is deferred until just prior to the sale, the effect of the impost will be disastrous. As I explain the reasons why the phones are running hot, we tend to forget what the human problems are. We have heard a lot of facts and figures quoted about possible reductions in the intake of grapes by the wineries. I have a number of letters here; I have piles of them back in my electoral office. I will read one which I think sums up the situation: Dear Sir, We received a letter from the winery to say that they will not be able to buy the wine grapes next season as the tax will be so hard on them they explained. To finance the excise on a product such as Cream Sherry would effectively increase the cost of the tax to $3.56 per litre of added alcohol in the wines. Winemakers in general and the one we supply in particular simply cannot produce finance and sell fortified wines under those conditions. Wine grapes are half our living, what we will be able to do as a result I don't know as water charges , rates, fuel, fertiliser, have all got to be met. I'm sure we cannot appeal to Government to pay the accounts. It's strange how Mr Whitlam's Government forced lots of small businesses to close down. Now the Hawke Government looks like putting wine grape growers on the dole. Our whole lot of growers are in the same plight as us. I know you will help if you can and we will thank you very much. That gives one an idea of what a number of people, particularly in my area of the Riverina, are thinking. Another gentleman wrote to me but I think he might have been writing to the wrong person. He said: I'm writing this letter to complain about the promise that you said in Griffith at the Yogali Club, about an excise tax of wine. Do you remember that promise and why wasn't it kept? That promise that was announced at the Yogali Club it meant a real lot to all grapegrowers, because it's now about three years that the wine industry was going bad and now with the excise tax on fortified wine it means the wine industry will go bad for ever. I think you know about San Bernadino wines and Letona co-op we owned a lot of money from them. Or do you want that to happen and cause more unemployment. Why don't you try and come here and live our way of life and then you will see how it feels. Now that the excise tax on wine has come in force it means that the season of 1984, there will be a surplus of grapes about 25 thousand tons. I am a small grape farmer and you are going to make all of us farmers go broke and suffer badly. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO!!! P.S. Please read this letter carefully and think about it. And write back please. Yours faithfully I have a letter from the Dried Fruits Association- Mr Keogh —Dear Dorothy Dix. Mr HICKS —I have hundreds of letters like that at home if people here would like to see them. I will not read the names of the people who wrote these letters because they are worried enough. They are really worried about their futures. One writer is worried about going on the dole. Of course, if one owns a property it is very difficult to go on the dole because one must stay on the property and still do the pruning and pay for the fertilisers, et cetera. So, it is very difficult for those people to collect the dole, not that they would want to. I quote a letter from the Australian Dried Fruits Association: As you are aware there are serious problems within the dried fruit industry as your recent decision to call an IAC inquiry indicates, and this decision to impose an excise tax on fortifying wine can only deepen the recession within the industry. So everywhere we look we see problems with this excise. I think the only way to eliminate this difficulty is to rescind the decision and not to talk of just simply changing the method of taxation. I have a statement here by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in these terms: Mr Kerin said that the excise would remain. But the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has indicated to him that if the industry as a whole wished to put a point of view on the method of collection of the excise as distinct from the imposition of that excise that view would be considered. If that excise stays on there will be some wineries, particularly in the Riverina and Murrumbidgee areas which will not take any wine grapes for spirit this year. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(10.15) —Mr Speaker, the House is well aware of the overuse today of imprisonment in Australia in comparison with its use in countries overseas. My own State of Western Australia, I regret to say, has in the past had an embarrassing record of overusing incarceration as a sentencing option. I see that the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) is one South Australian member who is present in the chamber. He will be interested in the following statistics which illustrate my point. In April 1983, the daily average number of prisoners in Western Australia was of the order of 1,500 compared with 750 in South Australia. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Perth knows that it is forbidden for an honourable member to walk between the member who is addressing the Chair and the Chair. He has no special exemption from that rule. The honourable member for Moore will proceed. Mr BLANCHARD —I am not quite sure that this difference is related to behaviour, as the honourable member for Grey seeks to suggest. I think it reflects the pattern of sentencing in South Australia. If we look at the rate per 100,000, we find that the rate in Western Australia is 117.7 per 100,000 as compared with a rate in South Australia of 58.8. Fortunately, there are signs that the new Labor Government in Western Australia is changing this position as the high rate of imprisonment in Western Australia is slowly declining as a result of the use of non-custodial sentences. The use of non-custodial sentencing is increasing in Western Australia. At this stage, I must pay tribute to the staffs of the Prisons Department and the Probation and Parole Service in Western Australia. These are dedicated men and women working sometimes under very difficult circumstances and with very little public recognition of their efforts. Therefore, I am pleased to pay this tribute to them. I have previously expressed my concern to the House of the over-representation of persons of Aboriginal descent in criminal statistics in this country. Figures from the Australian Institute of Criminology indicate that, although Aboriginals represent 2 per cent of the Australian population, in terms of the prison population they represent approximately 30 per cent. In this connection, I pay tribute to the Aboriginal Legal Service which vigorously works to protect the Aboriginal caught in the criminal justice net. Imprisonment today is seen as an expensive luxury and the community is more prepared to accept alternatives to imprisonment. Recently I attended a conference of the Australian Crime Prevention Council in Brisbane. The conference theme was 'The alienated generation'. At that conference Mr David Biles, a well-known criminologist and the Assistant Director (Research) of the Australian Institute of Criminology, stated that there were many in prison who could have been dealt with by alternative penalties. He urged that only those who are considered to be a dangerous risk to the community should be locked away at the expense of the public. He also shrewdly added that there is a danger in placing under community supervision as an alternative to imprisonment people who could be dealt with in other ways. The effect of imprisonment is felt more by the prisoner's family. I pointed this out to the House previously. Firstly, the family is affected by the loss of income by the breadwinner and, secondly, through social stigma suffered by the family. Finally, I refer to a first in Australia-the recent opening of a bail hostel in Western Australia. The concept of a bail hostel is fairly recent. I might add, with some modesty, that I played a not inconsiderable part in introducing that concept to Australia. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PORTER(Barker)(10.20) —I raise two matters very briefly. Firstly, on behalf of the Opposition, I welcome Julie Grist and Tina Arton to the Parliament. I think the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) has a very good scheme whereby high school students are selected by their schools and brought from the west to this Parliament for a week to see the operation of the Parliament. I am very glad that they at least have had an opportunity, through the honourable member for O'Connor, to hear a maiden speech. I am only disappointed at the action of Government members in interjecting in the way that they did. I thought it was a reprehensible action. At least these girls will be able to see the operation of the Government in this House and report back to their school. The second matter I want to raise relates to a speech I made earlier tonight concerning the Commonwealth employment program. During the debate on the amendments to the Public Service Act I raised a matter of concern about the conditions imposed by the State Government in South Australia on people wishing to take part in the South Australian job creation scheme. Before unemployed people can obtain a job under the job creation scheme they must join a union. The Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) questioned the information that I was providing. In fact, he made the allegation that I had misled the House. So I would like to incorporate in Hansard a copy of the telex I have received which indicates the conditions as they have been given to me. The conditions are on a page headed 'The South Australian Job Creation Scheme'. The sub-heading is ' Conditions of Grant', and the item is No. 4. That is the document from which I quoted in my speech. It clearly sets out that the South Australian Government has imposed a closed shop arrangement on the job creation scheme in South Australia. I am grateful for the comments by the Minister for Finance that that is not in accordance with the conditions imposed by the Commonwealth Government. My hope is that the Commonwealth will take up that matter with the State Labor Party Premier Bannon to ensure that unemployed people in South Australia are not excluded from the Commonwealth employment scheme by the conditions imposed by the South Australian Government. Mr SPEAKER —I remind the honourable member that he cannot have written material incorporated in Hansard. That has been ruled both by my predecessor and me. The incorporation procedure applies to material in tabulated form. I suggest that if he wants to read further from it he continue in the time he has available. He will find that the ruling is not inconsistent. Mr PORTER —I will read from the document: Compliance with the Government's policy in respect of preference in employment to unionists. The following provisions relating to preference in employment to unionists must be observed by employers under the South Australian job creation scheme. Employing officers must obtain an undertaking in writing that: (A) a non-unionist will join an appropriate union within a reasonable time after commencing employment (B) an apprentice after completing his/her indenture and before being employed as a tradesman will join an appropriate union within a reasonable time after commencing employment. A non-unionist shall not be engaged for any work to the exclusion of a well- conducted unionist if that unionist is adequately experienced in and competent to perform the work. This provision shall apply to all persons (other than juniors, graduates etcetera, applying for employment on completing studies and persons who have never previously been employees seeking employment). However, before non-unionists are employed, or apprentices after completing their indentures are employed as tradesmen, the employing officer shall obtain in writing from them an undertaking that they will join an appropriate union within a reasonable time after commencing employment and remain a member of an appropriate union whilst employed on projects funded under the scheme. It is not intended that this- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PORTER —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the document. Leave granted. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat)(10.25) —Ballarat's winter, as you might know, Mr Speaker, is invigorating and particularly bracing. It poses a problem for those people who are trying to get sufficient warmth to see them through the rigours of that time. I refer to people such as pensioners, the unemployed and those on low incomes who live in that city. The winter we have just experienced was somewhat damper and harsher than usual. So the demand for energy use is greater than usual at this time of the year. As an example of the problems these people are suffering, I refer to the case of a supporting parent with two children receiving $240.70 a fortnight and paying $50 rent per week. I give as an example of a fuel bill for such a family an excellent article in the Ballarat Courier. The article stated: An SEC quarterly bill of about $70 means $11.67 must be set aside per fortnight. The gas bill of $130 is another $32.50 a fortnight. These two items with the rent form $144.17 of the fortnightly benefit, leaving only $96.53 for all the other living costs for the family (about $48 a week). Honourable members will see that these people have little left to enable them to cover the cost of food, clothing, transport and the other necessary family expenses. I am receiving an increasing number of pleas from families which are unable to meet these bills and which are receiving demands for payment. It is an indictment on this potentially very wealthy country that money can be spent by the millions on a yacht race off the United States of America and that others can afford to pay millions of dollars to indulge themselves selfishly in penthouses and luxurious mansions, while many millions of our fellow Australians suffer the deprivation of poverty. I congratulate those voluntary organisations and welfare agencies which have extended their resources so generously to help the needy people in my electorate. While the need has grown alarmingly, the capacity of these organisations to serve those needs has not kept pace. The community of Ballarat is a fairly close knit one, and there is a great deal of co-operation between the energy authorities and the agencies. I know of people who, while they have been given time to pay their bills, have had fuel bills well in excess of $250 a quarter. The cumulative effect of this pressure of debt repayment ultimately becomes too much for these people to bear. Although they have the best of intentions, many have been forced to default. Some just leave their accommodation overnight. On one occasion a deserted mother and her two young children were living in an old car. She was penniless and received no support from her husband. Fortunately, the Uniting Church Outreach Centre was able to help her. Welfare funds, as I have said, cannot be stretched to meet all the needs. While the Government has made relief funds available, more is needed. Unemployment is running-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Mr Dawkins —Mr Speaker, I require the debate to be extended. Mr SPEAKER —The debate may continue until 10.40 p.m. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance)(10.30) —I take the opportunity simply to respond to the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter). Earlier today , as he indicated, he raised an issue concerning job creation schemes in South Australia. Following his contribution I indicated that I thought it was his obligation to provide the House with the justification of the assertions that he was making at the time. He has now provided a document which I understand has been tabled and which, he claims, provides the basis for the assertions that he was making. The important point, of course, is that during the debate earlier today we were addressing ourselves to the community employment program, which is a program funded by the Commonwealth in response to the policies of this Government. The guidelines for the CEP are the responsibility of this Government. I indicated at the time that it was not now and would not be a requirement of the CEP that preference would necessarily be given to unionists. However, I indicated that certain industrial conditions operate in the States and certain industrial awards have to be conformed with in any employment situation. The point is that the matter referred to in the remarks of the honourable member for Barker today is not the responsibility of this Government. It is conceivable, although it is not clear from the document that the honourable member for Barker has tabled, that the scheme which the document refers to is the wage pause program. On the assumption that it is, the point ought to be made that the guidelines for the wage pause program were worked out between the former Commonwealth Government and the various States and finalised in February this year. If there is any criticism of those guidelines or if, in the view of the honourable member for Barker, there are shortcomings in those guidelines, that is clearly a responsibility of the former Government and not a responsibility of our Government. I think the honourable member for Barker was somewhat wide of the mark in the comments he was making this morning. He was trying to imply in his remarks that it was going to be a requirement of the CEP-that was the matter under debate-that compulsory unionism would apply. Quite clearly, that is not true, and I am glad that the honourable member for Barker has now produced the document, although in a sense it does not do much to support the claims he was making because it talks about a scheme which is not a responsibility of this particular Government. Mr SPEAKER —The debate having concluded, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday next. House adjourned at 10.34 p.m. The following paper was deemed to have been presented on 8 September 1983: Remuneration Tribunals Act-Remuneration Tribunal-Determination-1983/4- Remuneration and Allowances for Holders of Public Offices The following papers were presented: Canberra Development Board-Third Annual Report for year 1981-82 Department of Science and Technology-Report for year 1982-83 Industries Assistance Commission-Report-Certain pigment dyestuffs and colour lakes (developing country preferences), dated 24 June 1983 (No. 324) Maritime College Act-Council of the Australian Maritime College-4th Annual Report and financial statements, together with the Auditor-General's Report, for 1982 National Water Resources (Financial Assistance) Act-Documents-Letters relating to financial assistance in connection with the Burdekin Dam, Queensland, dated 23 and 24 June 1983 United Nations-General Assembly-37th Session, New York, 21 September to 21 December 1982-Report of Australian Delegation Urban Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Act-Agreement in relation to the provision of financial assistance to New South Wales and Victoria for urban expansion and redevelopment (Albury-Wodonga), dated 28 June 1983 The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 19 Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) Have leaks in the Cameron Offices building in the Australian Capital Territory been remedied. (2) How many leaks were recorded. (3) What action was taken to remedy the leaks and by whom. (4) What was the cost of remedial action and who bore it. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) No record has been maintained of actual numbers of separate leaks in the building. (3) A detailed report on water ingress at the Cameron Offices has recently been presented by the Department of Housing and Construction, in response to my Department's request. Action to rectify present problems is being considered. (4) The full cost of necessary remedial action has not been identified or apportioned. Question No. 127 Mr Jacobi asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 12 May 1983: (1) Is it a fact that registered trustees, appointed pursuant to the Bankruptcy Act, are obliged to carry out certain actions under that Act. (2) Is it also a fact that, if they fail to comply, the Inspector-General in Bankruptcy must take proper action. (3) If so, how many (a) estates have been dealt with by registered trustees, (b ) reports have been filed in the courts following investigations made by registered trustees and (c) public examinations have been held by the registered trustees. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Section 19 of the Bankruptcy Act prescribes the statutory duties of trustees in bankruptcy. The duties which are mandatory include notifying the fact of bankruptcy and ascertaining the assets and liabilities of the bankrupt. The duties which are discretionary include investigating the conduct of the bankrupt, the cause of the bankruptcy and the books of account of the bankrupt ( if this duty is performed it is mandatory that a report on the result of the investigation be filed); summoning the first meeting of creditors if the trustee considers that one should be held; advertising the date, time and place for the public examination under section 69 of the Act if the trustee decides to apply for one to be held; and taking such part as he thinks fit in the examination if one is held. In addition, a trustee also has a duty and responsibility under the Act and at general law to properly administer the bankrupt estate for the benefit of the creditors, and to realise the property and distribute the proceeds in accordance with the standards of care and diligence expected of him by the Courts. (2) Section 12 of the Bankruptcy Act sets out the powers of the Inspector- General in Bankruptcy. These powers fall into three basic categories; to make such inquiries and investigations as the Minister directs; to make such other inquiries and investigations as he thinks fit with respect to the conduct of a trustee in relation to a bankruptcy or an administration under Part X or Part XI ; and to obtain reports from Registrars, Official Receivers and other officers as to the operation of the Act. However, control over the actions and decisions of a trustee can only be exercised by the Court under sections 178 and 179 of the Act or by resolutions of a meeting of creditors or a committee of inspection . (3) (a) In the period from 2 November 1981 to 31 May 1983 registered trustees undertook the administration of a total of 1328 bankruptcies under Part IV of the Act as follows:- NSW & ACT 622 Vic 192 SA & NT 164 Southern Qld 208 Central Qld 9 Northern Qld 4 221 WA 114 Tas 15 1328 (b) Registered trustees filed 52 reports on the results of their investigations made under s. 19 of the Act as follows:- NSW & ACT 13 Vic 6 SA & NT 5 Southern Qld 10 Central Qld Nil Northern Qld 1 11 WA 16 Tas 1 52 (c) 66 Public examinations under s. 69 of the Act were held in bankruptcies administered by private trustees as follows:- NSW & ACT 41 Vic 1 SA & NT 6 Southern Qld 5 Central Qld Nil Northern Qld Nil 5 WA 13 Tas Nil 66 Question No. 177 Mr Blanchard asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 May 1983: What is the cost (a) per person of institutionalised care for persons who are classified as being intellectually handicapped and (b) of the Government subsidy being received by families who are caring for their intellectually handicapped relatives in their own homes. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) Institutionalised care for persons who are classified as being intellectually handicapped is usually provided by State Governments. The cost of this care per person is not available to my department. The Department of Health administers Commonwealth hospital benefits. $16 per day for medical patients and $28 per day for surgical patients is paid on behalf of patients in private hospitals. No Commonwealth daily bed subsidy is paid on behalf of patients in public hospitals. The Commonwealth bears no direct financial responsibility for State mental health institutions. Proprietors of nursing homes approved under the National Health Act administered by the Department of Health are paid Commonwealth benefits in respect of qualified patients therein. The current maximum ordinary day care benefits are as follows: Benefit State per day $ New South Wales 28.05 Victoria 41.90 Queensland 24.00 South Australia 32.20 Western Australia 21.65 Tasmania 25.35 Northern Territory 32.20 Australian Capital Territory 28.05 An extensive care benefit of $6.00 per day, in addition to ordinary day care benefits, is payable in all States and Territories on behalf of patients requiring and receiving extensive nursing care. Benefits at these levels are also paid to State Governments in respect of patients accommodated in State-run nursing homes. Nursing homes conducted by religious, charitable and other non-profit organisations, and local Government bodies, are assisted on a deficit financing basis under the Nursing Homes Assistance Act administered by the Department of Health. Although this scheme operates on a costs rather than a per patient basis , the average subsidy, per person per day in 1981-82 was $31.54. (b) Handicapped child's allowance which is administered by my department may be paid to parents or guardians caring for a seriously handicapped child in their own home. In 1981-82 the total amount paid for handicapped child's allowance was $22.3m. Statistics are not available as to how much of this was expended for intellectually handicapped children. The Department of Health administers the Domiciliary Nursing Care Benefit Scheme which assists persons to provide full time care in their own homes for chronically ill or infirm relatives over 16 years of age, regardless of diagnosis, who would otherwise require admission to a nursing home. The current level of benefit is $42 per fortnight. Question No. 183 Mr Burr asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 19 May 1983: Is it a fact, as reported in the National Times on 6 May 1983, that officers of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation passed information on to people associated with the National Civic Council. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The allegations made in the National Times purport to be based on the contents of a highly classified document. It would not be in accordance with normal practice to confirm or deny allegations as to the existence or contents of any such document. Question No. 184 Mr Burr asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 19 May 1983: (1) What (a) obligations are placed on officers of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) to keep confidential any information that comes into their possession, (b) security measures are taken to ensure confidentiality of information within ASIO and (c) disciplinary action is taken if officers of ASIO breach confidentiality. (2) When was the last occasion when disciplinary action was taken against an officer of ASIO for a breach of confidentiality. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) Section 18 (2) of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act 1979 makes it an offence for a current or former member of the Organisation to communicate information which was acquired or prepared by the Organisation in connection with its functions, unless authorised to do so. Maintaining such confidentiality is also a condition of officers' employment. (b) Internal measures directed to ensuring confidentiality are established and are reviewed on a regular basis. It would not be appropriate to give details of them. (c) The Director-General of Security would take appropriate action in the event of any breach of internal requirements directed to maintaining confidentiality. In appropriate circumstances, prosecution action would be taken. (2) In recent years, only one ASIO officer has been involved in a substantial breach of confidentiality. That occurred in 1977 and the officer concerned was prosecuted. Question No. 185 Mr Burr asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 19 May 1983: What security investigations are made to determine whether officers of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation have an active affiliation with political groups either inside or outside Australia. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Subject to the requirements of security, members of ASIO are entitled to the same rights of free association enjoyed by all Australian citizens. The ASIO Act 1979, in Section 20, does impose certain obligations however. The Director-General is charged, for example, to ensure that ASIO is kept free from influences and considerations which are not relevant to its functions. He is also obliged in effect to ensure that nothing is done which would lend colour to any suggestion that ASIO discharged its functions subject to either political or sectional bias. No investigations as such are carried out into the political affiliations of ASIO officers. However, the Organisation's handbook on the professional conduct of officers lays down very clear guidelines to which officers are required to adhere. Inter alia, that handbook provides that: 'While the Director-General cannot forbid an officer becoming a member of a recognized political party, it is most important that ASIO should maintain a genuine independence and not be identified in any way with such parties. For example, it would be wrong for an ASIO officer to campaign during any political election by addressing meetings, distributing pamphlets or manning polling booths. In dealings with politicians, an ASIO officer should not do or say anything which could give rise to suspicions of political bias on the officer's part. Letters should not be written to the press on topics having a party political flavour'. I am assured by the Director-General that appropriate steps are taken to ensure that these rules are complied with. Question No. 203 Mr Jacobi asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 24 May 1983: (1) What is the current status of any proceedings under the Crimes Act 1914 in relation to Mr Brian Maher. (2) Has counsel been briefed in the prosecution proceedings against Mr Maher through the Crown Solicitor's Office; if so, (a) what are the details and (b) has Mr Gyles, QC, in his capacity as Special Prosecutor, been appointed to act in these proceedings. (3) Has any other action been initiated against Mr Maher other than under the Crimes Act 1914. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) On 28 October 1982 a complaint was sworn before a Justice of the Peace in Perth alleging that Mr Maher had, contrary to section 86 (1) (e) of the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914, conspired to defraud the Commonwealth and a warrant issued for his arrest. Committal proceedings were set down to commence on 21 June 1983. On 27 April 1983 a Stipendiary Magistrate in Queensland made an order for the extradition of Mr Maher to Perth. Mr Maher has appealed against this order and the appeal is expected to be heard on 1 September 1983. Pending a decision on the appeal no other action is being taken. (2) The Special Prosecutor, Mr R. Gyles, QC, has the carriage of the prosecution and the Acting Deputy Crown Solicitor, Perth, is instructed in the matter by the Special Prosecutor. The Acting Deputy Crown Solicitor has briefed Mr M. Lee of counsel to appear in the prosecution proceedings. (3) I am not aware of any other action initiated by the Commonwealth against Mr Maher. Question No. 225 Mr Reeves asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 24 May 1983: What are the total amounts of all expenditures and/or capital works programs undertaken by the Minister's Department in or related to the Northern Territory for each year from 1978-79 to 1982-83 which were not covered by general or specific grants to the Northern Territory. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Expenditure by the Department of Finance related to the Northern Territory and not covered by general or specific grants was: 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 $m $m $m $m $m 2.053 2.523 3.092 4.019 4.937 Question No. 322 Mr Reeves asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy , upon notice, on 23 August 1983: Is a proposed resource rental tax to be applied from 1 July 1984; if so, will the Minister give details of the proposed tax. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The Government has stated its firm intention to replace the existing crude oil levy with a resource rent tax in 1984-85. Details will be discussed with industry and the States. The Government has also stated a preference to have other high and existing taxes and charges replaced by a rent based tax. This is primarily a matter for the State governments. It was briefly discussed at the Australian Minerals and Energy Council meeting in June. Question No. 324 Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: (1) Is he able to say whether a previous Minister for Foreign Affairs stated that the then Government was studying the prospects of negotiating bilateral agreements on dual nationality (Hansard, 17 October 1979, page 2104). (2) Have any negotiations taken place; if so, (a) with which countries and (b) what was their outcome. (3) Is he able to say whether the USA has a number of treaties with migrant source countries preventing liability for military service and other acts of allegiance for US citizens with dual nationality during temporary stays in the territory of the other. (O.N. Bar-yaacov 'Dual Nationality' London 1961) (4) Will the Government consider acceding to the 1963 Council of Europe Convention on 'Reduction of Cases of Multiple Nationality and Military Obligations in Cases of Multiple Nationality'. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. Discussions were initiated with Yugoslavia but were discontinued following a unilateral decision by Yugoslavia to exempt genuinely short-term, dual-national, visitors from their military obligations for the terms of their visits. A similar unilateral decision by Greece removed the urgency of a bilateral agreement with Greece. Five other countries have indicated their general interest in discussing the problems of dual nationality with a view to concluding bilateral agreements. The Government is following up these expressions of interest in the hope that sufficient common ground can be identified to warrant the commencement of negotiations with the countries concerned. (3) Yes. (4) Yes. However, this convention is not open to accession by a non-European country unless the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe unanimously decided to invite that country to accede to it (Article 11 of the Convention refers). We understand that no such invitation has been issued, but further consideration will be given to the matter by the Government. Question No. 366 Mr O'Keefe asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: (1) Is it a fact that it is the intention of the Government to grant 2 permits for the mining of uranium to Aboriginal interests in the Northern Territory, if so, who will be mining them for Aboriginal lessees. (2) Where will the uranium be going. (3) Can the Minister indicate the overall position in regard to these important matters. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) No. (2) See answer to (1) above. (3) The whole question of the detailed application of the Labor Party's platform on uranium is currently under examination by the Government. When these examinations are completed I expect that appropriate announcements will be made.