Tuesday, 13 September 1983 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 p.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,Dr Blewett,Mr Braithwaite,Mr Ian Cameron,Mr Cohen,Mr Cross,Mr Dobie,Mr Fry,Mr Hand,Mr Hawker,Mr Hollis,Mr Humphreys,Mr Jacobi,Mr McGauran,Mr MacKellar,Mr Peter Morris,Mr O'Neil,Mr Porter,Mr Shipton,Mr Staples and Mr Young. 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 Coleman,Mr Cross and Mr Fry. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Whereas the Government of Australia has signed the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states that 'The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the State'. And whereas the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women would violate the above Article 23 (1). We humbly pray the Government to refrain from ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; Believing that its implementation would result in: (1) Undue cost to the nation at this time. (2) 'The elimination of any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women at all levels' as described in Part 3 Article 10 (c), being a disruption of traditional parental roles, is likely to result in emotional disturbances of childhood. (3) The strong encouragements to mothers to join the workforce, with the provision of networks of creches and child care centres as outlined in Article 11 of the convention is likely to result in maternal deprivation and psychological disturbances among children with an increase in childhood psychiatric illnesses. (4) The sexual role changing as recommended in Part 3 Article 10 (c) is likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our nation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cross,Mr Hunt and Mr Young. 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 Young. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the 1983 Budget imposition of the excise on grape spirit used in fortifying wine places at risk the future of the fortified wine industry in Australia. That the requirement to pay the excise within 7 days of the fortification occurring is inequitable. That the excise will be reflected in increased costs to the consumers of fortified wines of up to 100% and consumer choice will be restricted. That this will cause reduced fortified wine sales which will result in reduced intake of grapes from grapegrowers. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will reconsider their previous decision and either withdraw this tax or modify its method of application and collection. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. 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 psychological 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 Dawkins. To 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 petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the effect of sliding scale income and fee assessment applied in subsidised child care centres causes financial hardship and emotional stress for many families in the moderate to middle income bracket. Your servants humbly request that consideration be given to reviewing the present guidelines for determining fees, in particular examining the range of allowable deductions, and the upper limit for fee relief. 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 principle 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 of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia Assembled. The petition of citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that they are totally opposed to disbanding the fixed wing element of the Naval Fleet Air Arm and respectfully request that existing Naval Aviation be retained pending an inquiry into the legitimacy of the defence figures produced by the Department of Defence and further, respectfully submit that it is not logical to take savings in Australia's Navy Defence while continuing military aid to Indonesia. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that your humble house will agree to reconsider the decision of disbanding the fixed wing element of the Naval Fleet Air Arm pending an inquiry into the legitimacy of the Defence Department figures . And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hollis. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. Omega by sending low frequency signals, penetrating sea water enables hunter -killer submarines to establish their position and to launch a 'first strike'' attack. Omega is also used by AWACs, the flying radar stations, and for other military purposes. 2. Omega is an important 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 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 assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: (1) That the Macedonian language be used by Government Departments in multi- lingual publications. (2) That the petitioners urge the introduction of the Macedonian language as a Higher School Certificate (H.S.C.) subject in secondary schools. (3) That the petitioners urge the introduction of the Macedonian language in tertiary institutions and that a course be introduced at Monash University in the Department of Slavic Languages. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly request that Parliament take immediate action to implement the above measures. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in 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 advancements in communication of our time, namely, telephone communication. For 20 years the telephone rental percentage 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 human 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 McGauran. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms the principle of the inadmissibility of discrimination and proclaims that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind including distinction based on sex. However extensive discrimination against women continues to exist. It is an obstacle to the participation of women on equal terms with men, in the political , social, economic and cultural life of this country. It hampers the growth of the prosperity of society and the family and makes more difficult the full development of the potentialities of women in the service of this country and of humanity. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will act to ratify the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Macphee. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: Their objection to the decision made by Bradmill Industries to close Rutherford Textiles, New England Highway, Rutherford, and the carded mill, Bradmill Spinners, Kotara. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will reject outright any proposal to: close these textile mills and take whatever action is necessary to reverse this decision. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Keefe. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the railway crossing situated approximately 5 milometres east of Port Augusta on highway one (the main highway between Adelaide and all northern and western centres of South Australia and continuing through to Western Australia) has once again been the sight of an horrendous accident. This accident has caused two, possibly three fatalities. Previous requests have been made by the council of Port Augusta for the construction of an overpass, so that this section of the highway no longer presents a danger to the motoring public and those involved in driving trains over this crossing. Permission for construction of this overpass has previously been refused and the situation has now become critical. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the federal government will reconsider their previous decision and approve construction of an overpass at this fatally dangerous railway crossing to avoid further loss of life. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. To The Honourable The Speaker, and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, We, your petitioners, humbly showeth that: Our national emblem, the kangaroo, is being slaughtered in large numbers while no valid population figures exist. The kangaroo is subjected to massive cruelty due to inadequate control of shooters. We, your petitioners, therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will call an immediate halt to the commercial exploitation of the kangaroo. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: This petition of certain citizens of Australia shows: That payments to contract and sub-contract owner-drivers of trucks are likely to be reduced by ten per cent on implementation of the new system of tax deduction at source from payments for work and services; That profit or personal remuneration constitutes a very small part of payments received by owner-drivers, compared with capital and running costs and government charges; and That a deduction of ten per cent of gross payments would not only be much greater than required to protect the revenue, but would also cause hardship to owner-drivers and their families. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will not require tax to be deducted from payments to owner-drivers. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tuckey. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. The concerns which people around the world have for the increasing stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction; 2. The global concern that any nuclear exchange will inflict on humanity unimaginable death and suffering; 3. The vulnerability that Australians will face in any nuclear conflict between the major powers; 4. The public concern that Government should explore all avenues to ensure that the nuclear threat is eliminated. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Parliament establish a Select Committee on Nuclear Disarmament and Peace to investigate the creation of a Ministry of Peace and Nuclear Disarmament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr West. The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned citizens of the Australian Capital Territory, humbly pray that no further approvals be given for the staging of rodeos in the ACT. We have a strong objection to rodeo events which bear no relevance to stock handling and control as practised in Australia either historically or currently and we view with special abhorrence the events comprising calf roping and goat tying which are barbaric and blatant forms of animal cruelty. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fry. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Australian Capital Territory respectfully showeth: That the current shortage of housing in the Australian Capital Territory is causing extreme hardship for low income earners to an extent never before experienced in the Territory, and that Havelock House provides ideal accommodation for these people. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the decision by the Minister for Administrative Services to allocate Havelock House to the Australian Federal Police for use as office space be rescinded and that Havelock House be made available to the community for use as low-cost accommodation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fry. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the citizens of the City of Woodville and supported by the citizens of South Australia, being deeply concerned over the threat of closure of the Woodville Plant of General Motors-Holdens, respectfully show: 1. That the management of General Motors-Holdens has failed over a period of more than two (2) years to give any assurances that the Woodville Plant would continue in operation. 2. That a recent statement attributed to the GMH Managing Director, quote: 'The overall objective of our South Australian rationalisation plan has been to eliminate all productive activities on the Woodville site' end of quote. This statement has not been refuted. 3. That the elimination of the Woodville Plant will cause enormous social dislocation, hardship and misery to the citizens of Woodville and South Australia. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Parliament of Australia will condemn this callous disregard for the citizens of Woodville and South Australia, and do all in its power to force General Motors-Holdens to retain its operations at the Woodville Plant. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Scott. 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 humble petition of certain Arthur Edward Houston, citizen of Australia, elector of the Division of Scullin (Keon Park), respectfully showeth: That the actions of a senior officer of the Taxation Department, Victorian Branch, in combining the three years salary of a seventy dollar a week employee, into one year, for the express purpose of attracting taxation, did, considering the circumstances, of which the officer and the Department were fully aware, contravene the meaning and intent of the said Act. That the same senior officer did interrogate this petitioner, who was representing the taxpayer involved, 'His Wife, and His Employee' in such a manner as to cause the said petitioner to be psychologically intimidated, and disadvantaged, a state I do not believe to be in the best interest of justice or democracy. Your petitioner humbly prays, you will investigate the said complaints and actions hereinbefore described, for the express purpose of protecting the rights of all Australian citizens in their dealing with those in Authority. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Theophanous. Petitions received. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes- (a) that the 12th Antarctic Treaty meeting opened in Canberra today and (b) that the Treaty has been successful in maintaining Antarctica as a region free from great power rivalry and conflict, has facilitated co-operative scientific work by member countries for the benefit of the world community, and has provided strong measures for the protection of the Antarctic environment; (2) urges the parties to the Treaty to do all in their power to obtain its ratification by other States, which may wish to participate in scientific activities in the Antarctic region, and (3) is of the opinion that as Australia asserts sovereignty in Antarctica the Government should continue to support the Treaty as the best means for preserving the peace and environment of Antarctica and the protection of Australia's interests. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with concern- (a) The report published in the winter 1983 issue of the Institute of Public Affairs Review, monitoring 3 Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio public affairs programs over some months, and (b) The report's conclusion that the undue attention given in programs to the radical left leaves the ABC open to the charge that it is promoting a particular political line, and (2) calls on the Minister for Communications to discuss the report with the ABC Board with a view to restoring balance to the programs in question. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that- (a) local government's increased grant of 8.2 per cent over the previous year's grant under the Local Government Personal Income Tax Sharing 1976 is substantially less than the CPI increase for 1982-83 of 11.2 per cent, and (b) the Constitution and Standing Orders of this House do not allow a private member to initiate an amending Bill to preserve the real value of the grant from one year to the next, and (2) calls on the Government to honour its election commitment by amending the Act to provide for a real terms minimum guarantee to Local Government general revenue sharing arrangement in 1983-84 and future years. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) is of the opinion that- (a) The encouragement and growth of a healthy small business sector is a key to a revitalised Australian economy; (b) There is a need for the Government to understand the problems facing small business in Australia today, and (c) There is a need for the Government to focus attention on and understand the role of the entrepreneur, the self-employed and the small business sector generally in economic sector recovery, and (2) Calls on the Government to develop a program of action and to designate 1984 as the year of small business in Australia. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (a) acknowledges the positive contribution that will be made to housing by the recent reductions in interest rates; (2) urges that where possible these reductions be extended to existing as well as new loans, and (3) urges the financial community to pay attention to reducing rates to the corporate and small business sectors. Mr GROOM(Braddon) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That, in view of the Government's pre-election promises and in light of the official admission contained in the 1983-84 Budget Papers that average unemployment will now be higher in 1983-84 than in 1982-83, in the opinion of this House, and as a matter of urgency, a joint committee should be established to inquire into and report on the continuing high level of unemployment in Australia with special reference to- (a) the nature and extent of unemployment in Australia; (b) the social consequences for individuals and the nation of prolonged large - scale unemployment; (c) the effectiveness of employment creating schemes now underway or proposed by the Government; (d) the extent to which unemployment might be reduced by new policy initiatives , and (e) if sufficient conventional jobs cannot be produced, the means by which the young unemployed can be provided with alternative opportunities to lead productive and satisfying lives. Mr WELLS(Petrie) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House-- (1) notes that- (a) this Parliament has made available to the Government of Queensland 2 grants , one of $63m and one of $35m, both earmarked for public hospitals and community health; (b) the rate of unemployment among nurses in Queensland is unacceptably high and that many graduating nurses are unable to find jobs upon graduation, and (c) queues in Queensland public hospitals are unacceptably long, and (2) condemns the Government of Johannes Bjelke-Petersen and calls on that Government immediately to apply the Commonwealth funds available to it to the creation of more jobs for Queensland's nurses. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the admission on Thursday, 8 September 1983, by the Soviet Ambassador to Australia, Mr Samoteikin, that 269 people on the Korean unarmed civilian airliner 'fell victim to a fresh crime' and (2) calls upon the Australian Government to again demand that full and just compensation be paid to the families of the victims of this massacre in the sky. Mr SPENDER —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Many of us read with interest an article in today's Age which casts some light on the Prime Minister' s impecunious circumstances while Opposition spokesman on industrial relations and how he sought to keep his head above the financial waters. I ask the Prime Minister: Is the article accurate? If it is, did he use his fee of $1,500 to meet costs? If so, what were they and why were they not covered by the generous allowances given to front benchers? Does he intend to include his fee of $1,500 for his lunchtime work as part of his assessable income for 1982-83? How does he justify the receipt of this sort of backdoor income in view of his pleas for wage restraint and his public professions of high standards of conduct on behalf of parliamentarians? Does he not agree, on reflection, that he never should have accepted a fee of $1,500 for doing what was no more than part of his work? Mr HAWKE —I can very genuinely say that I welcome this question. The only surprise I have about it is as to its source. First of all, the report is not accurate, as is so much of the evidence given by the gentleman in question. The amount mentioned-- Mr Howard —Was it only $150? Mr HAWKE —No, it was more than that. The report is inaccurate. In fact, I received $1,100. Mr Speaker, I can assure you and the House that I intend to pursue this matter vigorously. I abhor the implication contained in the question -that I would not lodge a statement in my income tax return in respect of such income. In respect of the financial year 1981-82 there was a similar but a much lesser fee. That amount has been stated in my income tax statement for the year 1981-82, which has been lodged. I trust that the honourable member for North Sydney is not serious in the innuendo that I would do otherwise. The same course will be followed in respect of my tax returns for 1982-83 as was followed in 1981-82. I am more than happy to give all the facts. In addition to the incorrect figure that was mentioned in today's Press, there were three other occasions in 1982 one of which, as I said, was in the financial year 1981-82; the other two payments would be in respect of 1982-83. They were amounts of $500 , $600 and $600. Those are the clear statements of fact in regard to income. I am quite happy-although the outgoings on the part of my wife and myself have not been mentioned-to have our outgoings in terms of the sharing of income with others less privileged than ourselves compared with those of any other honourable member of this House. When I was in Opposition, and in the many years before I was in Opposition, I normally did not ask for, or accept, speaking fees . In the four cases that I referred to in 1982, these were the arrangements made by Mr Combe and the engagements were undertaken at his request. I am more than happy, as I have done in the past, openly to put that information before this House. I make the point-which is perhaps there by implication as to some possible conflict of interest-that I would have thought that the events of this year since 20 April have made it abundantly clear that there can be no suggestion in regard to me and my Government that any past relations would, in any way, deter me or my Government from undertaking the action that is necessary in terms of the duty required of this Government. Let me make it quite clear that there is no general restriction on ordinary members of parliament obtaining income from other than their duties as a member or senator including, of course, paid speaking engagements. I imagine that the honourable member who asked the question is aware of that fact and operates accordingly, apart from the constitutional restriction on members and senators that they may not hold offices of profit under the Crown and provided it does not put a member in conflict with his duties and responsibilities as a member of this House. As we all know, the situation with Ministers is quite different. As the Opposition, through the honourable member for North Sydney, has opened up this issue I would like to pursue it in general terms and in particular terms . In general terms I would wish to pursue it in this way: As far as I am concerned, I have put the facts clearly before the House and am more than happy to do so. I wonder whether honourable members on the other side of the House are as happy and as straightforwardly prepared as I am to put all the relevant information before the House in respect of the income that they receive. As is known, I am requiring a statement of the financial situation of my Ministers so that this fact will be known. Any suggestion of possible conflict of interests will be made quite clear. Those statements will be tabled in this House. I wonder whether those honourable members on the other side of the House, particularly those who are leading on the other side of the House, will be prepared, equally, to respond to the action that we will be taking. If they are not voluntarily prepared to be as open as all Ministers will be on this side of the House, it may be that it will be appropriate to look at the question as to whether legislatively it will be sensible to make such a requirement. I said I wanted to pursue this matter in general terms and I have done so. I indicate the openness of myself and my Ministers, and that will be a matter of tabling in this House. In regard to the particular, it is interesting to reflect as a question has been asked about the past in respect of me, whether we may not with equal value speculate on the past in respect of the Leader of the Opposition. It is known that in his case, when he was going through his hiatus period, if we can so describe it, he made arrangements in respect of people on his staff. I do no more than refer briefly to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 11 August 1981, which stated: Mr Andrew Peacock's former top aide, Mr Barry Simon-- Mr McVeigh —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Standing order 145 states that all answers shall be relevant to the question. The question being answered was not asked. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member knows the rulings given on that point in the past. The Chair has some problems with it. The Prime Minister is within the Standing Orders and past practice. Mr HAWKE —As I was saying, an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 11 August 1981 stated: Mr Andrew Peacock's former top aide, Mr Barry Simon, will return to his staff to co-ordinate Mr Peacock's drive for the Liberal Party leadership. 'This is part of a unique arrangement under which Mr Simon and several other staffers will work full time for Mr Peacock and have their salary paid by business and financial interests backing Mr Peacock for the leadership'. Members of the Opposition have sought to raise something about my past. I have put it squarely on the table. In respect of the Leader of the Opposition, I ask that he be equally straightforward with regard to that relevant question. Mr SPEAKER —Before I call for further questions, I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon Mr David Lange, M.P., Leader of the Opposition in New Zealand, and Mr Roger Douglas, M.P., Opposition spokesman on finance in New Zealand. On behalf of the House I extend to the visitors a warm welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mrs KELLY —I ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to statements such as this: 'A lower Budget deficit is needed in order to reduce the enormous pressure on interest rates that will inevitably develop because of the extraordinary and damaging level of the public sector borrowing requirement this financial year'. In view of the recently announced cuts in housing interest rates, are such statements unfounded? Mr HAWKE —Of course, the Government and, I hope, members of the Opposition-they are not beyond redemption-certainly welcome the recent announcement of reduced interest rates. The major banks, starting with the Westpac Banking Corporation, have announced a reduction of half a percentage point in home loan interest rates. A number of building societies, as we know from today's Press, have already followed suit. As all honourable members who follow the markets will appreciate, this announcement by the banks and building societies follows a downward trend in short term and long term rates. We believe that this reduction , coming so soon after the Budget, is a strong vote of confidence in the Government's economic strategy and in its economic management. We do not attempt , of course, to claim all credit for what has happened in this respect. The Government's competent economic management has in part been responsible, but of course-- Mr Burr —What did the Australian say? Mr HAWKE —I will show in a minute that if there had been rises in interest rates the Opposition would have claimed they were the responsibility of the Government . It cannot have it both ways. Of course, there have been other factors, including the falls in United States interest rates and a very adequate capital inflow. The relevance of the Budget in this should not be overlooked. As the Treasurer and other spokesmen for the Government have made clear, the Budget was very deliberately framed to ensure that we did not have an adverse impact upon the movement in interest rates. It was framed in a situation in which we knew that there were not excessive claims on the market from the private sector, which is still depressed as a result of the now Opposition's economic policies. We framed it at a level of less than $8.5 billion so as not to impose excessive pressure on interest rates. Under the guidance of the Treasurer, the Government has engaged in responsible deficit funding. As you would know, Mr Speaker, in this financial year, 1983-84, there have been two bond tenders which have raised $2 1/2 billion, so instilling confidence in the market and easing interest rate pressures. Of course, we on this side of the House hope that moderation in inflation will lead to further falls in interest rates, but that depends very substantially on other factors as well in the market. It is very significant that these reductions in interest rates expose the total lack of credibility of the Opposition in these matters. Let me remind the House of the facts in this regard. On 31 August the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said: A lower Budget deficit is needed in order to reduce the enormous pressure on interest rates that will inevitably develop because of the extraordinary and damaging level of the public sector borrowing requirement this financial year. He said that on 31 August, and two weeks later interest rates fell. This pathetic Opposition has been predicting interest rate rises ad nauseam. Let me remind the House of some of its statements. On 19 May the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said: Interest rates will rise. On 20 June he said: Australia will face higher interest rates unless the Prime Minister and the Treasurer take a strong stand against excessive State borrowings at next week's Premiers Conference. The lack of credibility of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is exceeded only by that of the Leader of the Opposition. This is what he said on the day after the Budget was presented, 24 August: Interest rates are going to go up. On 27 August he made this remarkable statement: The Government admits that even if the prices and incomes accord does work, the budget will still mean . . . higher interest rates for home buyers . . . That is what the Leader of the Opposition said on 27 August. On the next day, 28 August, this is what the Leader of the Opposition had to say: The Government pursues policies of high interest rates which can only further hit the competitiveness of small and large businesses. This country is being exposed to this pathetic situation in which the ignorance of the Leader of the Opposition in regard to matters economic is matched only by the way in which he seeks to see inflicted upon the people of this country further burdens out of which he hopes to get some cheap political advantage. It is a pity that the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition's economic spokesmen did not have the wit or the intelligence to understand that the thrust of this Budget is not to increase interest rates but to reduce them. Mr McVEIGH —My question is directed to the Acting Special Minister of State. Will the Minister examine whether-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no Acting Special Minister of State. There is a Special Minister of State. Mr McVEIGH —I was a bit confused. Mr SPEAKER —I can understand that. I invite the honourable member to continue with his question. Mr McVEIGH —Honourable members will understand the confusion because the former Special Minister of State still occupies his office. I ask the Minister: Will he examine whether the arranging of attractive prices for particular speaking engagements by lobbyists has been used to influence those who are now Ministers on matters for which they are now responsible? With that in mind, will the Acting Special Minister of State-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Darling Downs persists after having been corrected. I suggest that he alter his question so that it will be in order otherwise I will sit him down. Mr McVEIGH —Will the Special Minister of State examine whether the previous Minister indulged in similar practices to those of his Prime Minister and, if so , what were his charging rates compared to those of the Prime Minister? Mr BEAZLEY —I sincerely hope the honourable gentleman's question was prepared for him. I suspect that it was not. I would have thought that on the Opposition side the question of earnings over and above parliamentary earnings would not on the whole-particularly from the National Party, many of whose members own substantial properties-be a source of joy for them in political questions. I assume, however, that there is never much embarrassment circulating in the National Party about anything so we must expect that type of question from National Party members. As a matter of fact, today I shall be tabling in this House a paper on suggested courses of action dealing with appropriate means of registering or otherwise lobbyists of both members of government and of the Public Service. The problem of lobbyists in this country, as all honourable gentlemen would be aware, is not new. The difference between this Government and our predecessors is that we are in the business of establishing an appropriate form of regulation of lobbyists that will ensure that their relationship with government, with the Public Service and with parliament is based on the highest possible standards of the officers concerned and the functions that they perform . It is high time that some attention is devoted to that. Of course, lobbyists have been a problem with us for some time. Our predecessors in government managed to do nothing about it. We will, in fact, act effectively and in a timely fashion to deal with it. I direct the honourable member's attention to the paper I will shortly be tabling and encourage him to put in a constructive response to it. If he reads it and looks at what we are trying to do he may be able to restrain himself in the future from asking such smart-Alick questions in this House. Mr GRIFFITHS —Is the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism aware of a number of newspaper articles intimating that certain people are to be appointed to an Australian Sports Commission? Can the Minister inform the House of the stage reached in the development of the Sports Commission? When will the Minister announce the names of the members of the Commission? Will the Minister also inform the House of the proposed functions and objectives of the Australian Sports Commission? Mr JOHN BROWN —Those of us who know of the high standards of the Australian Press will not be surprised to find that its predictions have been pretty accurate. Mr Moore —Have you got Jones on the Commission? Mr JOHN BROWN —No. We have an intelligent group of people up here who have been making predictions which have, in fact, been true. I am quite happy to tell the honourable member at this stage that the Government has decided to set up an interim committee of the Australian Sports Commission to advise the Government on the formation of the permanent committee. I am also delighted to tell the House of the members who will constitute that interim committee. The committee will be chaired in a part time capacity by Mr Ted Harris, the Managing Director- - Mr Hawke —A good tennis player. Mr JOHN BROWN —He is a good tennis player. He is also the Chief Executive Officer of Ampol, a former sports commentator and a man with a great and innate love of sport. The part time deputy chairman will be Mr Herb Elliot, former top Australian athlete, Olympic gold medallist and now the Managing Director of Puma Australia Pty Ltd. The other part time commissioner will be Mr Mike Fitzpatrick who, of course, is a household name in Victorian football circles. He is the captain of the Carlton Football Club and is a man with innate personal qualities . He is a Rhodes scholar, an economist with the Victorian Government and somebody who will make a real contribution to this Commission. Mr Peacock —A failed captain last Saturday. Mr JOHN BROWN —So he failed last Saturday, but nobody is perfect. Mr Hawke —Last Saturday week. Mr JOHN BROWN —It was last Saturday week. The honourable member for Kooyong made a mistake on Thursday too but none of us are perfect, are we? I hope it is a happy mistake for the honourable member. The full time people on this interim committee will be Mr Greg Hartung, former political correspondent with the Daily Telegraph, former sports columnist with the Australian, both in Brisbane and in London-a man who is very versed in the administration of sport and who I am sure will make a very strong contribution-and Miss Libby Darlison, who is a lecturer in sports science and sociology at the Cumberland College of Health Sciences in Sydney and who has a particular interest in the sociology of sport and leisure and women's involvement in both those activities. I am sure that the setting up of this interim committee is a further example of this Government's commitment to sport and a further example of our implementation of election promises. The Sports Commission will replace the Sports Advisory Council, which is only a part time body. It will have a number of very important responsibilities. I think our commitment to sport was exemplified in financial terms in the Budget. We happen to believe that sport is the opiate of the masses in Australia and that we have developed to a stage where not enough of us participate-- Opposition members-Ah! Mr JOHN BROWN —What is wrong with that? I read the back page of the paper first. Do not all honourable members? We happen to believe that we have a responsibility to the people of Australia to get them active in sport and get them healthy again. This is an example of how we are going to do it. The priorities of the Commission will include looking at additional sources of funds for sport besides government, liaising with private enterprise to see that funds can be made available to sport, ensuring that there is a more equitable distribution of the Government's contribution to sport and advising the Government on the allocation of awards and funds. I am sure that the Australian Sports Commission, now that it has been set up, will put a very professional edge on the administration of sport in Australia. To this stage it has been rather inexpertly done by well-meaning amateurs. This body will liaise between government and sport in general to see that sport once again achieves the high levels in Australia that it has achieved in the past. Mr HOWARD —Can the Prime Minister assure the House that no member or former member of his Government has received a fee or like remuneration for a speaking engagement since the formation of the Government in March of this year? Mr HAWKE —All I can say is that to the best of my knowledge that would not be the case since we formed the Government. I say to the House that, as I have already indicated, Ministers will be making statements to me about their financial positions and interests. Mr Howard —They are interests, not income. Mr HAWKE —I take aboard the honourable member's question. Mr Howard —Will you check it out? Mr HAWKE —I will check it out, yes. A Minister should not receive income other than from his position as a Minister. I accept that and I would be surprised if that had happened. I certainly have no knowledge of it having happened. Mr STAPLES —I address my question to the Prime Minister. Does the Federal Government anticipate early success in its efforts to reduce tax avoidance and evasion? Mr HAWKE —As is well known, the Government has already taken several steps to reduce tax avoidance and evasion and to improve the efficiency of the taxation system. I refer, of course, to the tax recoupment legislation. I refer to the prescribed payments system in industry where tax evasions of payment for work and services is known to be significant. I refer also to our proposed amendments to section 26A of the Income Tax Assessment Act to correct certain defects. The Federal Government's attack on tax avoidance and evasion is, unfortunately, seriously threatened by the attitude of the Opposition. Its ostensible reason for opposing the Government's tax recoupment legislation is its retrospective ele- ment. In doing so, the Opposition is being totally inconsistent and hypocritical, since retrospectivity was the principal distinguishing feature of the recoupment legislation which it introduced when in government. So that this matter can be quite clear I want to remind the House and put on the record what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said on 23 September of last year. He said: Because of the illegal behaviour of some people involved in bottom-of-the- harbour schemes, because the benefits derived by people in those schemes have been very considerable and because of the public concern about the prevalence of those schemes, the Government has decided that special circumstances do exist whereby, on this occasion, in putting those principles into balance, the principle of paying service to the overall fairness and equity of the taxation system and the perception of people in the community regarding the fairness and equity of the taxation system ought to take precedence over the Government's general concern about and disdain for, on proper grounds, retrospective legislation. This shows that the retrospectivity argument now being used by the Opposition is totally specious. There is a total credibility gap between what the Opposition was saying when it was in government and what it is saying at present for cheap political purposes. The real reason for the Opposition opposing the legislation is that it wants to protect the tax avoiders and the rip-off merchants in this country. We know, because it is a matter of record, that when the now Opposition was in government its response to tax avoidance and evasion was feeble and belated. It emerged only by accident when its own Royal Commissioner Costigan, who was in charge of a royal commissison which was set up to pursue the unions, brought out in his report the evidence about the extent of the industry. Not only did that spark some reluctant interest but also we know that it sunk the Government because it sunk its ideas about having an early election in September . But now, under the new leadership of the new Leader of the Opposition, the position of honourable members opposite is far worse that it was before because they have caved in entirely. That Opposition, led by the new Leader of the Opposition, has caved in entirely to the tax avoidance industry. Honourable members opposite tried to protect people in that industry while they were in government. They did protect them for many years, and now they are trying to protect them while they are in opposition. The decision of the Opposition to oppose the tax recoupment legislation, if it is successful, will cost the Budget revenue in this financial year $60m, and it would cost $270m in a full year. The simple and unavoidable facts are that the honest taxpayers of Australia, who constitute the overwhelming majority of the people of Australia, will have to foot this bill if the Opposition is successful. Any substitute revenue measure the Government will have to introduce to make up for that loss will be known as the Peacock tax slug. The behaviour of the Opposition on the prescribed payments system is another case of its continuing moral decay. As is known, when it was in government it introduced that system in its last Budget. In conclusion on this subject, the Opposition is now reverting to its old colours, the colours it displayed between 1975 and the latter years of its government. Opposition members are blatant apologists for the tax avoidance industry and are being increasingly recognised as such by all those Australians who meet their tax bill and who will have it increased if the action of the Opposition, in protecting tax avoiders, is unfortunately successful. Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I ask the Prime Minister to table the document from which he was reading. Mr Hawke —I was referring to notes. Mr SPEAKER —The Prime Minister was referring to notes. Mr MACPHEE —Does the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations agree that the effect of the Government's submission in the national wage case is to seek full wage indexation from the beginning of the March quarter, thereby reducing the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission's wage pause to eight days? Why has the Government thereby repudiated the assurance given to this House by the Prime Minister on 10 May that full indexation would commence in 1984? Is it because the Government is satisfied with its efforts in creating 100 new jobs, in seasonally adjusted terms, in its six months in office? To what extent would unemployment worsen if the Commission were to adopt the Government' s submission? Mr WILLIS —The Government's submission in the national wage case was, of course, to have the Commission give effect to the union application for an increase in wages to take into account the increase in prices in the March and June quarters , which amounted collectively to 4.3 per cent. We did that on the basis that this was how wage indexation could be brought in, in a way which would give effect to the prices and incomes accord and enable us to have a system of wage adjustment in this country compatible with the sustained economic expansion that is essential if we are to have a reduction in the level of unemployment, which every honourable member in this House would certainly want to see. Let me be quite clear about the Government's wages policy. We are not in any way apologetic for what we have done in the national wage case. We regard it as fundamentally important that now is the time to institute a new wages system. We completely and totally reject the Opposition's view that the best wages system would be one in which the wages freeze was maintained for as long as possible. We believe that not only would such an approach mean a further continuing reduction in the real wages and living standards of all wage and salary earners; it would also certainly mean that we would see increasingly sectional claims being pursued and eventually a wages explosion. We would be back to where we were a couple of years ago with the wages explosion of 1981-82, when we had a big increase in wages which had adverse effects on the economy. No one would want to go back to that kind of situation, but that is what will inevitably occur if the Opposition's wages policy of trying to keep the lid on wages for as long as possible were to be pursued. We have taken the view that it is totally appropriate for the Government to use this situation now to institute a new form of wage adjustment before we reach a situation in which there is some expansion of the economy. It is appropriate to do that in the present circumstances. I strongly hope that the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission will give effect to that system. If it does, I expect that we will see a system in which there is compliance by the trade union movement, most of which will occur on a voluntary basis. However, I certainly hope that the Commission will also give effect to the provisos we put forward to it with regard to the no extra claims provision which would ensure that unions which were thinking of pursuing sectional wage claims would be dissuaded from doing so. What we put in that regard, I believe, is fundamental to ensuring complete adherence to the centralised wages system. If that system continues we will be looking forward to a situation whereby this year we will have an increase in award wages of about 4 1/2 per cent. So far this year there has been an increase of, from recollection, about 0.2 per cent. So with the 4.3 per cent, we are looking at an increase in award wages of about 4 1/2 per cent. That means that on the basis of a 5 1/2 per cent increase in the consumer price index for the period comprising the September and December quarters of this year and the March and June quarters of next year, which would flow through into wages, in 1984 we would have an increase in award wages of around 5 1/2 per cent. With award wages increasing by 4 1/2 per cent this year and by 5 1/2 per cent next year, that situation is very compatible with a substantial reduction in our inflation rate, a substantial restoration of our competitive position and a substantial continuance of economic recovery. We believe that wages policy is soundly based. It is one which is thoroughly equitable. It is certainly compatible with the sustained expansion of the Australian economy and it gives this country more chance of economic growth and a reduction in unemployment levels than any other wages policy possibly could do . Mr BRUMBY —Is the Minister for Health aware of reports that the Australian Medical Association is sponsoring a campaign to stop doctors availing themselves of direct billing under the Medicare scheme? What steps will the Minister take to counter assertions made by the AMA that direct billing should not be introduced? Dr BLEWETT —I am aware that certain ele- ments of the AMA have been planning a campaign against direct billing. I believe that that campaign will bring very little credit upon the medical profession. Of course the AMA has a perfect right to wage such a campaign, but I also point out that I have some considerable doubt as to whether the Association has a right to wage it on tax deductions. Let me put the facts of this situation to the House. This Government would prefer doctors to direct bill or bulk bill, but it has not the power to compel them to do so and nor does it desire to compel them to do so. If one looks at the Medicare scheme one will see that doctors have three choices in relation to billing. First of all, they can simply charge the patient and the patient can recover the money by taking the bill to the Medicare fund. Secondly, the doctor may give the patient an account which he or she can then take to Medicare and have it paid by way of a cheque made out to the doctor. Or the doctor has the third choice of direct billing the Medicare organisation at 85 per cent of the schedule fee. The Government's preference for direct billing stems from its determination to reduce and contain health costs in this community. First of all, it obviously saves the patient when direct billing takes place. Secondly, there are also real savings to doctors in that it eliminates the problem of bad debts and reduces administrative costs. Perhaps most importantly of all, there are very real savings to government. If direct billing comes through in great numbers there will be very big administrative savings. Let me say in conclusion that I am disappointed that at this late stage this rather selfish campaign should be mounted against the Medicare program. Apart from the quite negative and unconstructive attitude of the Opposition, nearly every other group, political party and State government has worked co- operatively with the Federal Government in the development of the Medicare program, and that includes the AMA itself. It would be unfair to include all doctors in this category, but I would hope that before the AMA embarks further on this campaign it would look at and consider the very critical remarks made by other doctors in the Doctors Reform Society about this campaign. I also hope it notes the views of the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations. Mr PEACOCK —Does the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce agree with the Foreign Minister that Australian protection policies are 'embalming geriatric industries in the formaldehyde of protection'? What action is the Government taking to reduce those levels of protection advocated by the Foreign Minister? Opposition members interjecting- Mr JOHN BROWN —Do you want it tabled? I will table it for you. Mr Speaker, the views on protection and the need for industry to restructure that were put by the Foreign Minister last week are-- Mr Peacock —It was not last week; it was yesterday. Mr JOHN BROWN —I am sorry, it was yesterday. It seems a long time ago. A day is a long time in this place. Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Now that a temporal relationship is determined I suggest that we get on to the answer to the question. Mr JOHN BROWN —The comments are not at odds with the Government's general thrust on industry policy. Reductions in protection, of course, have a role to play in industry restructuring and are in fact a long term objective of this Government. Our approach will be sensitive, with gradual anticipated reductions in order to minimise the costs and to maximise the benefits. This has always been our view: In order to maintain any long term planning in industry any attempt to restructure industry without any sort of sensitive approach would be disastrous. In exactly the same way as the Opposition approached this subject, we would consider it very inappropriate to reduce protection at a time of recession and high unemployment. I should not think the Opposition would argue much with that point. I find it rather-- Mr Peacock —That is the same piece of paper they used to put in my book and I would not read it. Mr JOHN BROWN —I suggest that if the piece of paper was put in the Leader of the Opposition's book when he was in this position it did not do him much good, and the public certainly did not accept that it did him much good. Our record at this stage is outstanding. As an example I refer honourable members to the steel industry. What possible opportunity would there have been for this Opposition in government to put in place the plan that Senator Button, as the Minister for Industry and Commerce, has been able to formulate to restructure the steel industry? Not in any circumstance could the Opposition have come to an agreement between unions, industry and the Government to bring about what is an absolutely perfect solution to the steel industry's problems. Opposition members interjecting- Mr JOHN BROWN —If the Opposition does not think so it is at odds with the economic Press, the captains of industry and the public. I am quite happy to stand here representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, and suggest to the Opposition that what he has managed to do in five months is something that the Opposition could not do in its seven years of disastrous government. We are extremely proud of the efforts we have made in industry. In regard to what the Minister for Foreign Affairs had to say, I can find no exception because our long range plan is to reduce protection. But we will do it sensitively because we believe that people are entitled to have tenure of employment, that people are entitled to be respected, and so are industries. That is something that the Opposition never managed to do. The Opposition should not suggest to us that any criticism that the Foreign Minister might have made about protection will in any way embarrass us because what he suggested is totally in line with our long term views of industry. Mr GAYLER —What assurances can the Prime Minister give the sugar producers of North Queensland that the Federal Government will not accept the recommendations of the draft Industries Assistance Commission report on the sugar industry? Mr HAWKE —I can assure the honourable member for Leichhardt that the Government has no intention whatsoever of implementing the re- commendations of the draft report. Mr McVeigh —It is only a draft report. Mr Anthony —Is this the final report? Mr HAWKE —I can understand the consternation on the other side. My colleague the Minister for Primary Industry has already stated quite clearly that these recommendations would be utterly disastrous for the sugar industry. Their acceptance could destroy all that has been built up in the last 70 years. No responsible government could possibly allow that to happen. To the credit of the honourable member for Leichhardt and, indeed, the honourable member for Herbert, they impressed on the Government very forcefully the full implications of the recommendations in this draft report. The simple fact is-this is relevant to the previous question and answer-no industry can be totally deregulated overnight. The pace of change must reflect the economic and social environment in which those industries operate. I point out that the sugar industry has already suffered grievously in the last few years. In 1981 production in the Innisfail, Herbert River and Babinda regions was cut by floods. In 1982 production in all areas was cut by drought. On top of all that, between November 1980 and October 1982 world sugar prices collapsed by a factor of five. It is only in recent months that the prices in this industry have begun to pick up. It is remarkable in this situation that the Queensland Minister for Primary Industries, Mr Ahearn, described the Industries Assistance Commission as 'a propaganda servant of the incumbent Federal Government'. Provoked by that absolutely inane comment, I remind this House that the previous Government commissioned the IAC report. The reference was sent on 12 November 1982 by the much remembered and fondly remembered former Minister for Administrative Services, the honourable member for Bass, Mr Newman. Prominent in the Cabinet when that reference was sent to the IAC were the former Treasurer and the former Minister for Industry and Commerce. So the present Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition were well and truly in the plot to send this recommendation. I hope that the honourable member for Leichhardt and the honourable member for Herbert remember and will remind others that the reference which these people sent to the IAC begins 'whether assistance should be provided to the Australian sugar industry'. In other words, the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition-people who purport to have some care for the interests of Queensland, particularly north Queensland-were the ones who gave the IAC its riding instructions, and the IAC dutifully carried them out. But when the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition sent that reference to the IAC on 12 November questioning whether assistance should be provided to the industry, they did not realise that the report would be received by the present Labor Government-a government which is totally committed to the great Australian sugar industry. I remind the House that one of our very first actions was to provide a $11m carry- on loan to help keep in the industry producers who might otherwise have been forced out. I conclude by saying that the IAC report is totally unacceptable to this Government. This Government will continue in the future, as it has in the six months it has been in office, to prove itself to be a very good friend to the sugar industry of Queensland. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong) —I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —Is the honourable member seeking leave to make a personal explanation! Mr PEACOCK —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been personally misrepresented? Mr PEACOCK —Yes, indeed. I refer to remarks made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke ) wherein he admitted that, on frequent occasions, he had supplemented his income by taking additional monies for the performance of his public and parliamentary duties and, by alleged analogy, referred to the fairly well canvassed situation of Mr Barry Simon who was once on my staff. I never denied it. It has been well canvassed that Mr Simon was financially assisted. I was not paid; nor have I been; nor will I ever charge for the performance of my parliamentary duties. The matters are just not analogous. Secondly, I have to conclude, in reference to the answer that the Prime Minister gave, by noting his reference to the alleged inaccuracy of the evidence before the royal commission, thereby creating the precedent for us to refer to evidence given to the royal commission- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is entitled to explain where he is personally misrepresented but not to enter into debate. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member wish to make a personal explanation? Mr HOWARD —Yes. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HOWARD —During a very long answer the Prime Minsiter (Mr Hawke) claimed that in some way the stance that the Opposition and I in particular, by name, were taking on the alleged bottom of the harbour legislation now before the Parliament was hypocritical and inconsistent. Government members-Hear, hear! Mr HOWARD —Ah ha! Could I point out to the honourable gentlemen that the legislation which is now before the Parliament and which the Opposition is opposing was moved as an amendment to our legislation last year and was opposed on that occasion. Therefore, any charge of hypocrisy and inconsistency rests with the other side. Mr SPEAKER Order! I remind honourable members that when they seek leave to make a personal explanation they should deal with a matter on which they personally have been misrepresented. If honourable members persist in using personal explanations for debating purposes, the practice will have to be stopped. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs) —by leave-I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr McVEIGH —Yes, Mr Speaker. In the course of a long-winded, irrelevant, unrelated answer-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Darling Downs is inviting me to instruct him to be seated. I will allow the honourable member to continue. Mr McVEIGH —The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) used the words 'inexpertly administered by well meaning amateurs'. When I was Minister for Home Affairs and Environment I personally appointed many of these people. It is an affront to great Australians for these people, who were appointed by me, to be lambasted by him. Mr SPEAKER —Order! That is not a personal explanation. Mr BURR(Wilmot) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented and seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —If the honourable member continues to misrepresent me as the Deputy Speaker I will not give him the opportunity to speak. Mr BURR —My apology. Mr Speaker, being a humble back bencher it is not my custom to be in the House when you are in the chair. In this morning's edition of the Sydney Morning Herald a letter was published under the signature of J. S. Dawkins, Minister for Finance, Parliament House, Canberra. Two particular facts were published in that letter that grievously misrepresented my particular position. The Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) referred in his letter to the Sydney Morning Herald to a speech I made in this House of Thursday, 25 August in relation to the hospitality charges for the National Economic Summit Conference. In his letter to the Sydney Morning Herald the Minister, Mr Dawkins, states: The claims made by Mr Burr were entirely wrong. The figures which he cited were his own invention. Later in the letter he states: Mr Burr seeks to diminish the very tangible and enduring achievements of the Summit-- Which we can argue about- by falsely claiming that expenditure was excessive. Mr Speaker, I would like to answer both those charges made by the Minister, if I have your indulgence. In order to justify the claim made by the Minister that the figures I cited were my own invention, I refer to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Refreshment Rooms invoice to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet for its Summit Conference account for April 1983, showing a total of $46,215.07. That figure is made up of invoice No. 6823 dated 14 April for $73; invoice No. 11936 dated 14 April for $118.05; invoice No. 5425 dated 14 April for $327.10; invoice No. 11931 dated 14 April for $4,366.38; invoice No. 4388 dated 14 April for $4,737.53; invoice No. 12893 dated 14 April for $36,411.85; invoice No. 5912 dated 20 April, which is six days after the Summit Conference, for liquor delivered to the Cabinet Room for $119.28; and invoice No. 5913 dated 20 April, again for liquor delivered to the Cabinet Room, for $61.88. Mr Speaker , I seek leave to have those documents incorporated in Hansard so that the Minister can be in no doubt as to their authenticity. Mr SPEAKER —I suggest that the documents are rather long. Mr BURR —Very well. I seek leave to have the documents tabled. Leave granted. Mr BURR —I claim that those figures justify entirely the figures I gave to the House on 25 August and prove the falsity of the claim made by the Minister in the Sydney Morning Herald. The second matter to which I wish to refer is the claim made by the Minister that I falsely claimed that the expenditure was excessive. I have already pointed out to the House that the total expenditure was $46,215.07. A document from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to Senate Estimates Committee A, which was tabled to that Committee on 10 May 1983, shows that the budget for hospitality at the Summit Conference was $25,000 . The actual expenditure was $46,215.07-an overrun of the budget for hospitality of 84.85 per cent. I claim that that overrun of 84.85 per cent justifies my claim that expenditure for hospitality at the Summit was excessive. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —Mr Speaker-to use your correct title -I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —I call the Minister for Finance. Mr DAWKINS —The honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr) in his personal explanation accused me of misrepresenting what he said. I will not resile one inch from the contents of my letter. The letter replied to what was a massive distortion of the total cost of the National Economic Summit Conference. I shall quote one sentence from the speech of the honourable member. He stated: Liquor worth $113.78 was drunk by each person during the wind up party. In fact, if he had closely scrutinised the letter, which was published in the Sydney Morning Herald in order to clarify and correct his distortions, he would have seen that the total cost per person for all meals and other associated costs was $143. So if they were able to consume nearly all of that amount in liquor on the last evening, not very much was left for the two meals, morning and afternoon tea for the four days of the Conference. In fact, the whole cost came to about $35 a day per head which is very much less than the honourable member gets as a daily allowance for being in Canberra while Parliament is sitting. Mr NEWMAN(Bass) —Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —If the honourable member claims to have been misrepresented, he may proceed. Mr NEWMAN —During Question Time the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), in talking about an Industries Assistance Commission report on the Queensland sugar industry, made the comment that I as Minister for Administrative Services on behalf of the then Government had given-I think I am quoting him fairly accurately-riding instructions to the IAC as to the manner in which it was to report. It is a great pity that the Prime Minister should use Question Time to score cheap political points. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member must proceed to the point where he was misrepresented. Mr NEWMAN —The position, I am sure, is well known to the Prime Minister and to everybody else in this House. Whilst as Minister for Administrative Services on behalf of the then Government I submitted terms of reference to the IAC, it was, of course, up to the IAC to report objectively, on the evidence it received at its hearings, to the Government and to this Parliament. I can give an absolute assurance to the Prime Minister that no other instructions were given to the IAC . Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —Pursuant to section 24 (1) of the Australian Bureau of Statistics Act 1975, I present the annual report of the Australian Bureau of Statistics for 1982-83. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) — Pursuant to section 24 (2) of the Australian Bureau of Statistics Act 1975, I present the annual report of the Australian Statistics Advisory Council for 1982-83. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Department of Finance for 1982-83. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —Pursuant to section 21 of the Papua New Guinea (Staffing Assistance) Act 1973, I present the report by the Commissioner for Superannuation of the general administration and operation of the Papua New Guinea Superannuation Scheme and the Contract Officers' Retirement Benefits Scheme for the year ended 30 June 1982. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation and Special Minister of State) —For the information of honourable members, I present a discussion paper on lobbyists and the Australian Government and Parliament. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report, long awaited, of the Australian Marine Sciences and Technologies Advisory Committee for the period May 1981 to December 1982. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —Pursuant to section 61 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, I present the annual report of the Aboriginal Land Commissioner for 1982-83. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The insecurity and confusion caused to Australian families by the lack of a coherent and co-ordinated policy on retirement incomes. 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 PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.24) —Since its election on 5 March the Australian Labor Government should have launched an assault on unemployment; it should have launched an assault on factors depressing investment; and it should have launched an assault on economic stagnation. Those targets have been quietly ignored by a government more intent on picking off the defenceless targets. The only assault the Labor Government has launched has been on both the retired and those soon to retire, on members of that sector of the community least able to adjust their lives to sudden and unexpected changes, on members of that sector of the community least able to change their earning capacities in the face of a substantial decline in their incomes. The opposition recognises that Australia has an ageing population and that as a result there is a need for a re-examination of retirement policies as a whole in a sensitive and compassionate way. But the solution lies in encouraging individuals to provide for their own retirement and to ensure that those unable to do so are given adequate assistance. I have made these points repeatedly in recent years. In this context and in the context of welfare as a whole I have always maintained, as I said recently in the Alfred Deakin lecture: . . . government have a responsibility to the community to ensure that those in genuine need are adequately cared for. That is why the Opposition will repeal the proposed assets test of this Government upon our return to government. We will do so because we are committed not to ad hockery but to a considered, carefully weighed and compassionate re- evaluation of all retirement policies. That is why we have referred the consideration of all retirement policies to a Senate standing committee. Only in that way will we be able to ensure that the elderly have a secure, predictable and stable basis on which to plan their futures and that the Australian community is able to meet the burden of an aging population. Since its election just six months ago the Government has made three major changes to retirement income policies. Those changes have not been made as part of a coherent review of retirement policies. They have been ad hoc, ill considered and totally bereft of compassion. The Government has increased dramatically tax on lump sum superannuation; it has introduced an incomes test for pensioners over 70 years of age, and it has announced the introduction of an assets test on retirement benefits as well as other benefits. None of these changes were foreshadowed during the election campaign. The Labor Party did not warn those on retirement incomes or about to retire that the price of Labor was a reduction in their living standards. It did quite the reverse. Let me read to honourable members what it promised. It promised increases in pensions. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said that a Labor Government would '. . . not take money out of the pensioners' cheque'. Mr Hunt —That was Bob Hawke. Mr PEACOCK —That is right. Those commitments came from the man who is forever telling us how honest he is-Australia's most notable double dipper. Now we know that he is also the man who breaks his promises across the spectrum, but particularly those which affect those in retirement areas. Australians, particularly the elderly, will not be taken in by the Prime Minister's double talk again. Those hollow promises, which Australians believed, have of course been superceded by higher taxation and a loss of benefits. That has caused great uncertainty and insecurity amongst the elderly. So too has the manner in which the changes have been introduced. To use the words of the present Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) of little more than a year ago, there is: . . . considerable anxiety and uncertainty among people who arrange their affairs under the old rules as to just what is happening. Those old rules were first changed when, out of the blue, last May the Government announced an enormous increase in tax on lump sum superannuation. No sooner had this extraordinary and unexpected measure been announced than the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced that it needed to be thought through a bit more . In the meantime the 1.8 million Australians suffering from the total incoherence and incompetence of the current occupant of the position of Treasurer had to sit back and wait to see whether their superannuation scheme was to be affected. They were not consulted, of course. Naturally, the Australian Council for Trade Unions was consulted. Months later, in early August, the new scheme was announced. For some it meant that they would pay less tax on their lump sum payments than originally planned, but still much more than they would have paid previously. The major beneficiaries of these changes were those receiving over $225,000. That was not the only anomaly. Servicemen, who have to retire before they turn 55 years of age, with no surety about their futures, found they would lose 30 per cent of their total lump sum payments while those who retired and received their payments after they turned 55 years of age would have to pay 15 per cent on the first $50,000. That anomaly is still unresolved. Further talks may or may not take place. If one asks the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) about this at private sessions, he will say that the Government is talking about it. If one asks him publicly he will say that there are no such talks. What is the situation? The anomaly is unresolved. Is the Government seeking to resolve the situation of the defence forces? Obviously it is not. Committees may or may not be set up to look into it but the fact is that the whole superannuation saga was one of surprise and anxiety for the community and total confusion on the part of the Government. It was reasonable to assume that, having taken a tilt at 1.8 million Australians in that unhappy episode and having broken its election promise by income testing pensions for those over 70, the Government would leave alone the elderly and those planning for their retirement. It had grabbed at their savings and undermined the incentive for thrift but that was not the end of the matter. There was more to come. Just over a fortnight after the most recent amendment to the superannuation tax was announced, the elderly were struck again. In the Budget the Treasurer announced the introduction of an assets test. On the basis of the superannuation muddle we did not seriously expect the details of this extremely complicated and inefficient measure to be announced. We did not expect the elderly to be presented with a fully comprehensive set of policies which would provide them with greater security and, of course, they were not. All they received was a stark announcement that the rules would be changed and that they would take, in the words of the Prime Minister, 'around a year to finalise'. All the elderly knew from this announcement was that they would be hurt. They did not quite know how and they still do not know when. As one pensioner spokesman said, the Federal Government wants 'to squeeze every possible ounce out of the pensioners'. As one Australian Council of Social Service representative put it: The most objectionable feature of the assets test is that it's focused on only one group of the population, and here we have a form of capital tax on pensioners. The assets test was abolished by the previous Government in 1976. That decision was taken for sound reasons. It was taken because the assets test was extremely complicated and costly to administer and because the then Government wanted to eliminate the inequities inherent in an assets test. Now this Government, which calls itself progressive and reformist, has decided to take a step back into history. The results are inevitable. According to the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, up to 2,500 people will be needed initially to administer the assets test. Mr Burr —How many? Mr PEACOCK —Initially 2,500 people will be required to administer the assets test, obviously at enormous cost to the taxpayers. What is more serious, the assets test, like the superannuation proposals, is inequitable in its effect. That was the view of the former Leader of the Opposition. Mr Howard —Billy Hayden? Mr PEACOCK —Mr Bill Hayden, who is now Minister for Foreign Affairs. He said last year that an assets test was: . . . another kick in the teeth for aged and retiring citizens as well as half a million widows, invalids and supporting parents. He went on to say: The argument about millionaires receiving pensions is a cruel and emotive device to cover up the Government's real intentions . . . of ripping the pension off ordinary people with modest savings they have worked for all their lives. The man now Foreign Minister recognised the inherent inequities in the assets test, and I am sure he still does. I am sure the Foreign Minister realises that discrimination between different sorts of assets opens up a Pandora's box of anomalies. But can the Treasurer explain why antiques, about which he knows a great deal, are exempt from the assets test while the family farm, about which he knows little, is not? Can the Prime Minister, Australia's best known double dipper, as I mentioned earlier, explain why the assets test has had to be introduced to stamp out double dipping when the higher tax on lump sum superannuation was supposed to do that? The fact is that these retirement policies have been introduced without planning, without co-ordination and, certainly, without compassion. They have been introduced for one reason and one reason only-to provide funds for the Labor Government to lavish on its ideological spending programs. Why has the Government singled out the elderly? Why does the Government hit the elderly and the elderly alone with the only gift and wealth taxes so far introduced? Why does the Government make more pensioners pay tax by not raising the income tax threshold? Why does the Government propose to take approximately $3 a week away from the elderly, and the elderly alone, at the time of the introduction of Medicare? That policy will reduce the increase in the consumer price index by 2.6 per cent. Yet pensioners will not benefit at all from that. Instead, they will get an even smaller increase in their indexed pension with no commensurate reduction in their costs. The Government's ad hoc, ill-considered and incompassionate changes to retirement policies will, by its own admission, hurt up to 340,000 pensioners. That figure alone is proof that the Government just does not care. The Opposition has taken a quite different and caring approach. As an interim measure we have got the Senate to agree to a Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare inquiry into existing retirement systems which will examine comprehensively what should be done so that those who are least able to rearrange their affairs are given fair warning of any programs that political parties may wish to put before them, with particular reference to any changes which may well be necessary to ensure equitable and comprehensive income security for Australians of retirement age. Our approach is the responsible approach. It is the coherent approach and it is certainly the compassionate approach. By contrast, this Government has abandoned the unemployed, it has abandoned the elderly and it has turned its back on Australians who gave it their trust. I go so far as to say that after having only six months of this Government, never again will those Australians of retirement age or who are about to retire be able to trust the Labor Government. In the short span of six months its callousness, contempt, incoherence and total lack of compassion will ensure that those people will review those who control government policy at the moment. Government members will be viewed as those who have treated them with deceit and callous contempt. Never again will they be trusted. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.35) —One would like to be a fly on the wall of the coalition Party room when the Opposition is deciding the orders of the day or the business for the week just to hear the tone of the conversation. Not that there would be any discussion about equity, fairness, what is right, fiscal responsibility or restraining the deficit; there would be none of that. The stock in trade of the coalition parties for donkey's years has been naked opportunism. It is the same old thing in opposition. Honourable members opposite do not understand that although the job of an opposition is to oppose, it should do so on a basis of principle or fairness and that, indeed, there is a logical point of argument upon which to put a counter view. That is the basis of opposition-the constructive development of an alternative viewpoint. What we see from this Opposition is a Bonnie and Clyde operation. Honourable members opposite come into this House and shoot at anything that stands still. They enter into debate in a most opportunistic sense. They try to undermine any proposal by Government, regardless of whether it is sensible and equitable or otherwise. The fact is that the Opposition displays extraordinary gall in raising this matter of public importance. In seven years in government the Liberal Party did absolutely nothing about the rising cost of retirement subsidies and benefits. Yet we hear the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr Howard) talk about how they would reduce the Commonwealth Budget deficit this year and in the years thereafter for the purposes of fiscal policy. How do they think these deficits will be reduced when, in fact, when one looks at their performance in government and at their last Budget, one sees that they were damming every creek and river they could identify? They were handing out give-aways to try to smarm their way back into the electorate's good favour in marginal seats throughout the Commonwealth. Mr Chynoweth —A fistful of dollars. Mr KEATING —As one of my colleagues says, we saw the return to the fistful of dollars syndrome which we saw in the 1977 election campaign. Indeed, whenever one looks at the performance of this Opposition one sees nothing but opportunism in every respect. I cannot see how honourable members opposite can argue that there should be smaller deficits. When this Government attempts to do something about the way the taxation system operates today, the haemorrhaging of the social welfare area and the retirement welfare area generally, the circumvention of the incomes test for pensions and the generosity of the taxation treatment for superannuation as the preferred form of saving, in every respect we find from the Liberal Party certainly not a coherent and co-ordinated policy on retirement income but a coherent and co-ordinated policy of opportunism, which is about all they are good for. The difference between this Government and the Opposition is the fact that whenever a tough decision has to be made for the good of Australia, whenever a decent decision has to be made for a fairer society, it is taken by the Australian Labor Party and never by the Liberal and National parties in coalition. The fundamental objective of the Government in its policy on retirement incomes is to see that adequate resources can be devoted to those people in society who are in genuine need. That objective gives the Government's policies their coherence and co-ordination. We reject absolutely the charge by the Leader of the Opposition that ad hockery is the key note of the Government's policies in respect of the retirement incomes area. Indeed, coherence and co-ordination, which have been part of the systematic review by the Government of the retirement incomes area since taking office this year, have, in fact, caused the Government to make substantial changes in this area. What is the Liberal Party's policy? The Leader of the Opposition talked about the Deakin memorial lecture as if, in some way, it was his reply to Malcolm Fraser's attempt of a few years ago. Malcolm Fraser did have views. I did not agree with his views but he did have very firm views. But the Leader of the Opposition is like some sort of a dough-boy who comes into this House. He has no views. He is completely pliable. His views are shaped by yesterday's headlines and yesterday's leader writer. So he should not wheel up to us what he said at the Deakin memorial lecture because that speech would have been whistled up by some speechwriter who was probably on the payroll of some company, as most of his speechwriters have been in the past. We all know who was paying whom, do we not, when we talk about the staff of the leader of the Opposition. In fact, one can look at all honourable members opposite. How dare they charge anybody else. One can look at the former Prime Minister. He had Keith Compton Gale as his adviser. Mr Gale ended up in gaol. One can look at the Leader of the National Party (Mr Anthony) who visited his friend who was in Long Bay for most of 1982. The Leader of the Opposition had Mr Simon on his staff. He was being looked after, as the Leader of the Opposition indicated earlier, by- Mr Peacock —By whom? Mr KEATING —I happen to know but I will not say. But the honourable member knows , as I know. The substantial point is that the honourable member admitted that he was paid by somebody else and that is it. So the simple point is that the honourable member should not point any fingers at anybody else. We will not hear any more about the Alfred Deakin memorial lectures. I knew the Leader of the Opposition, in his days in opposition, when he was, as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) calls it, the interregnum, the pause, the period when he decided to do a Malcolm Fraser on Malcolm Fraser by resigning in a huff. When we were in opposition we would wander past his door and while other more studious people were trying to cram a few facts he was flicking over cards and playing a game of cards with himself or with Barry Simon, who would whistle up a cup of coffee at the drop of a hat and discuss the day's events. That is the sort of deep thought that this gentleman has put into policy, so he should not tell us about the Deakin memorial lecture. We are not impressed at all. The point is simply this: This Government is committed to do something about equity in the retirements area. Honourable members know that the superannuation area was indeed a cost to revenue of about $2.4 billion each year and in the whole superannuation and welfare area of about $20 billion. I find it unbelievable that the Leader of the Opposition comes in here with this sleazy proposition suggesting that the Government should not worry about the haemorrhaging of the social security vote, that it should not worry about spending money where money should be spent but that all we should do is just keep paying it out while we suffer the Opposition's attack about the size of the Budget deficit or about what it claims is our lack of fiscal responsibility. I make this point about superannuation: The superannuation changes were long overdue. There was a terrible inequity between, first of all, those in superannuation and those outside superannuation and a terrible inequity between those people who were taking a superannuation pension and those who were taking a superannuation lump sum. If two people joined the same employer on the same day, joined the same superannuation fund, paid the same contributions and 30 or 40 years later had the choice of taking a superannuation pension or a lump sum, the person who took the superannuation pension would be taxed at the full rate, whereas the person who took the lump sum would be taxed on 5 per cent of it. Depending on his marginal rate of tax, if it were 30c in the dollar he would be taxed at a rate of 1 1/2 per cent and if it were a maximum marginal rate of 60 per cent he would be taxed at a rate of 3 per cent. So there was this terrible inequity of 1 1/2 per cent to 3 per cent compared with 30 per cent which applied in respect of a person who took a superannuation pension. That is an inequity which needed to be addressed. It was also an inequity which meant that because of the existence of certain devices people were using lump sums, from which there is a cost to revenue, to provide for superannuation. People were, in fact, taking superannuation and double dipping on the system by moving around the income test, using the devices which we more than indicated on a number of occasions. This is a very big change to the income tax law. The Government recognises that so we announced changes, in principle, in May. We said that from that day thereafter we would sit down with the superannuation industry, we would sit down with interested parties and we would do all within our power, within a short space of time, to see that all of the difficulties and peculiarities of various types of superannuation were taken into account in the changes. That I believe was the most sensible and reasonable thing to do. It could not have happened that from day one, in some way, Commonwealth officials could have snuck around talking to superannuation funds, or the Australian Council of Trade Unions or the Confederation of Australian Industry, or the airline pilots, or anybody else and at the same time not scare the wits out of the population, particularly those people who are moving towards retirement age, on the basis that there would be some retrospectivity to the tax treatment of superannuation. There is no way that these matters can be discussed before notice is given of them. So we gave notice of them. We said that we would sit down with the various interested groups, which we have done, on the basis that no retrospectivity would be involved. The Leader of the Opposition, with crocodile tears, talked about the tax treatment of superannuation. In fact the gain to revenue this year from the so- called draconian changes is $10m. The cost to revenue this year is $2,400m. Overall, these changes will probably rise to half a billion dollars within a few years from now. Those figures demonstrate the generosity of the changes which have been made and, of course, they have been changes which have no element of retrospectivity about them. We have not said that there will be any change to anyone's entitlement until 30 June this year. Any person who accrued a superannuation entitlement to 30 June this year would maintain that entitlement. It would be taxed on the old basis of 5 per cent of its value at whatever the marginal rate of the taxpayer happens to be. We have said that from that day onwards, as an accrual build up this sum will be taxed at a different rate, on a prospective basis, and the Government finally determined to exempt in every respect employee contributions where an employee is deemed to have received a rebate, while the first $50,000 is to be taxed at the 15 per cent rate and the balance is to be taxed at the standard rate. In my view nothing can be fairer than that. No retrospectivity is involved. It is a prospective change. It builds up over time. The revenue yield is low and it is fair to everybody. As well as that we have exempted payments in respect of death. We have made changes which recognise problems with disability, the payment of sickness benefits with early retirements and also early retirement schemes. We have special schemes whereby people are virtually given a compensatory payment to change the age profile of a particular industry. There is nothing that any reasonable member of parliament or party could object to in respect of the changes which have been made in the superannuation area. I cannot understand how the Leader of the Opposition wants to be taken seriously, either by the nation in general or by the Parliament, when he bad mouths these changes as if in some way they are an ill-conceived, ill-thought through, grab for money which in some way is unprincipled. I mention another point in respect of the pension assets test. Again the Government has made it clear-we have given notice of the change-what has happened in this area. There has been enormous, as I said earlier, haemorrhaging of the social welfare funds which, in many cases, are not going to those in need . There is an enormous circumvention of the income test. The Government is doing everything within its power to see that the pension test is such that we are not worrying those who are elderly and that we are explaining the changes. Indeed there will be about a year from its date of introduction into Parliament before it is taken up. In the course of that year we will be talking to interested groups about the test. We took the opportunity to mention in the Parliament, in the Budget Speech, what the exemptions are again to demonstrate that in respect of that test there are very generous exemptions. We are exempting the pensioner's home, regardless of value, the car which is for personal use by both pensioners-in the case of married pensioners if that happens to be the case-personal effects, including furniture, caravan, boat, jewellery, art, antiques or any other item which somebody holds dear to him. Again in respect of non-exempt assets, the proposed scheme is a generous test. We reject absolutely the opportunist, populist nonsense of the Leader of the Opposition, who wants to be taken seriously but who will never be taken seriously while he trafficks in propositions of this kind. We on the Government side reject absolutely that our proposals are not equitable, well thought through and indeed imposed in the best interests of the nation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(3.50) —The Treasurer (Mr Keating), when he rose to defend his Government in this debate, mentioned that he would like to be a fly on the wall when the strategies of the Opposition are being discussed as far as the issues of the week are concerned. May I suggest that I would have liked to be a fly on the wall when the Australian Labor Party was determining its election strategy prior to 5 March. I am sure that in the framing of those promises and in the determination of its economic plans one would have seen some rather interesting discussions going on. Not only would I have liked to be there to listen to Labor's election strategy, but I am pretty sure that the then Leader of the Opposition would have liked to be party to some of the discussions that were held prior to early February at the time he was deposed. Let us look at some of the promises that were made quite deliberately in the Labor Party's determination and thrust to take government. Nothing in those promises would have suggested that superannuation would be assessed. In fact, a very definite undertaking was given that it would not be. There was no suggestion that pensioners would be affected, in spite of the warnings that were given. Honourable members might recall the warning that pensioners should look out for the money under their beds. That is precisely what is happening at the moment. There were promises of a $300m direct taxation reduction, an underwriting of the sugar industry by $50m and the expansion of the tuberculosis and brucellosis campaign. Then there was that famous promise of a reduction of 3c a litre in the price of petrol. What has happened since the Budget? There has been an increase of 2c a litre. Labor promised to put 500,000 people back to work over a period of three years, a third of that figure each year. What has the first six months produced? It has resulted in 1,000 people returning to the work force and fewer job opportunities. All of those promises were made by a Labor Party which, in the course of two Budgets in the space of six months, is hell-bent on breaking every one of them. There can be no doubt in anyone's mind that in a very short period of six months in office this Labor Government has not only repudiated most of its pre- election vote catching promises but also, by its repudiation of those promises, spread confusion and given a real feeling of insecurity to millions of Australian pensioners and retirees, and to those who are approaching that period of their lives. Part of this is due to the very ad hoc manner in which the Government has applied itself to the most urgent and the most sensitive of our nation's problems, that is, the area of pensions. In the Government's mini- Budget and later in the August Budget it showed no concern whatsoever for the sensitivities or the extent of the problem. In a very ill-conceived, very shortly researched, very on-again off-again type of program, the Government has begun taxing superannuation and has cut pensions for those people who are 70 years and over. Now we have this proposal, which will take place within 12 months, to change from an income test to a means test. Let us look at the policies announced by Labor prior to and since the election, particularly in regard to pensions and superannuation. I quote a policy announcement made as late as 15 April: The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, has told the ACTU executive that the Federal Government does not intend to increase the tax on lump sum superannuation payments. On 15 February, Senator Grimes is reported as saying: Labor would introduce an expansionary economic policy that would put people back at work and provide more money for social security spending. What do we have now? As I said, we have a determination to deny and deprive pensioners of their rights. As I said, warnings were given by the then Government in regard to the policies that Labor would bring in. The result of these changes is that they have spread confusion and placed pressure not on the rich, not on the privileged, not on the double dipper, not on those people who can reorder and reorganise their affairs, but on the aged who have tried to give themselves some security either through superannuation or through having investments which would be readily available to them in their old age. Further confusion and more insecurity have been spread by virtue of the fact that these changes have been made on the run by this Government. In fact one has to apply the 28-day rule to the Government's programs. The 28-day rule is that if the Government does not change the rules in that time then one can comfortably go out and perhaps espouse that cause. Let us look not only at the Government's programs but also at the effect of the Budget on some retirees. A further promise was given in the ALP-Australian Council of Trade Unions Accord that there would be an extension and development of the automatic indexation provisions of pensions. Taking into account the last Budget, what do we see? There is an indication that the 7.5 per cent inflation rate has been depressed artificially because the Government is changing from private health insurance to the medicare program. So pensioners at the time of indexation will be affected by the reduction that will come about through the Medicare program. This reduction is estimated in the Budget at, I think, 1.5 per cent for this year and 1.5 per cent for next year. Consequently pensioners will automatically be denied that amount. There was also Labor's promise of providing fuel for the poor, the travelling pensioner. They were expecting to pay 3c less per litre but now pay 2c more per litre and that figure is to be indexed every six months along with tobacco, cigarettes and alcohol. All of these things are going in exactly the opposite direction to what was promised. Let us look at the fact that the Medicare program affects some people more than others. In Queensland, where such health care provisions have always been available, all that the new Medicare program, for which pensioners will pay, means is that there will be longer queues for the people who wish to get medical assistance. More people will be unemployed in that State, in fact right throughout Australia , due to a loss of jobs in the private health insurance companies. Let us look at parliamentary and public servants' superannuation, again another area of confusion. Last week in this House the honourable member for Brisbane ( Mr Cross) asked a question about the superannuation entitlements of the former member for Fadden. But no question was asked, and one might be entitled to ask it, as to how the present member for Brisbane accounts for the fact that he might be double dipping because having retired from this Parliament he would have taken either superannuation or a pension for his time in parliament. Has he been called to account for that? We heard about double dipping here at Question Time, about people having fingers in the till and having outside activities. I refer to one person who is the biggest double dipper of them all. He knows all about lump sums. He is a former member of the Victorian Parliament and is now the Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding). One should ask how those members stand in relation to the question that was asked and answered last week. As I have said, the Government's approach to these matters has been to discriminate against those who can least afford it. It has not made an attack on the affluent; it has made it on those pensioners who look towards the pension and to having a little security in their old age. For instance, what effect will the latest arrangements have on a person who can own a residence of unlimited value, a person who can own a Rolls Royce, a yacht, a piece of art, or a painting or jewellery worth an unspecified amount? A simple pensioner looking forward to retirement who owns a beach home or something like that will have his pension assessed on the value of that beach home. Worse still, a person on a rural property who wishes to retire on the family farm will find, I fear, that the value of his house will be put with the value of his property and assessed accordingly. The matter of double dipping has not been addressed at all. In fact the pensioner now can be faced with having to pay a penal rate of tax on his or her retirement benefit and then being means tested on the balance. They would have been subject not only to a capital gains tax-which I believe the tax on superannuation is-before the Budget, but they are now denied this benefit because the balance will be means tested for pension purposes. Confusion exists because the programs have not been co-ordinated and as a result they are incoherent and illogical. An overall solution cannot be found in the space of a few months, particularly when this is a hip-pocket reaction on the part of the Government to get more tax from the people by reaping funds from those who cannot afford the mental stress of having their pensions altered and reduced. No consideration has been given to the special types of retirees such as policemen, servicemen, teachers and other persons who have, of necessity, to change address quite frequently in life in order to follow their calling. It will be difficult for those whom I have mentioned to provide an adequate retirement home and retirement assets if the Government is going to take a major part of those funds in taxes. No consideration is given for all these people. To cater properly for eventual retirement, encouragement and incentives have to be provided by Government programs, not the climate created by the Government which discourages thrift. The expansionary economic climate talked about will certainly be affected by the treatment of retirement pensions. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Hunter)(4.00) —I doubt whether in the recent past a matter of public importance has been raised by the Opposition which is as cheap, as tawdry and as cynical as the matter it has raised today. The matter of public importance refers to the insecurity caused to Australian families by the Government's lack of an appropriate policy on retirement incomes. The question whether insecurity is a reality for retired people is a question of the extent to which their material security is adequately provided for. I should like to remind members of the Opposition that during the period they were in government, pensions in Australia, as a percentage of average weekly earnings, fell from 24. 4 per cent in December 1975, when they first came to government, to 22.2 per cent in March of this year when, finally, they were ejected from government. In December 1975 that represented a figure which had been achieved by the previous Labor Government as a result of a deliberate and continuing policy to achieve a pension rate of 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. As we can see from that figure, the aim was very nearly achieved; it was 24.4 per cent when we lost government at the end of 1975. It is cynical for the Opposition-the former Government now in opposition-to claim that in some way, after a relatively short period in government, the policies of the present labor Government are bringing about any degree of insecurity for pensioners. It is not just the financial resources that are available to people over the age of 65 which determine the extent to which they feel secure or insecure. There have been occasions in the past, during the period of the former Government's term of office, when there were reasons for pensioners to feel a considerable degree of insecurity. In particular I refer to the occasion when the former Government-the Fraser Government-made a determination to reduce the indexation of pensions from twice yearly to once a year. That decision to take money out of the pockets of the pensioners in Australia was designed to save the former Government $50m a year. Yet we have records which show that, on average, each year during the term of the previous Government the tax avoiders and the tax evaders-those people for whom the previous Government showed so much concern and so much reluctance to pursue with any degree of determination-cost about $7,000m every year. The former Government intended to take out of pensioners' pockets a miserable $ 50m a year. It willingly and with enthusiasm left in the pockets of its affluent Liberal Party members, Liberal Party benefactors and Liberal Party supporters, all of those tax evaders and tax avoiders who have been identified, not the $50m that it wanted to swipe out of the pockets of the pensioner but $7,000m every year. What would have happened? What could the Opposition have done in government if it had been really serious and attacked the industry of tax avoidance and tax evasion, if it had recouped that $7,000m every year? Instead of coming before the parliament at this stage with nonsense of this kind it would have been able to cement itself in government for as long as it could see into the future. With that $7,000m it could have given an annual handout to every individual pensioner-the two million of them in Australia-of $3,500 a year . But no, the former Government did not give a handout of $3,500 a year to the pensioners; it tried to take $50m out of their pockets and left $7,000m for its affluent and powerful friends because of its reluctence to attack with any degree of determination the whole area of tax evasion and tax avoidance. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) said that if at any time in the future Opposition members were returned to this side of the House-a most unlikely circumstance-they would repeal the assets test. I was interested to note that the Leader of the Opposition made no reference to any possible repeal of the proposed taxation arrangements on superannuation benefits taken in a lump sum. I was surprised that no undertaking was given by the Leader of the Opposition in connection with the reintroduction of an income test for those people over 70. There was no reference at all to those matters. Of course, he did make a reference to repealing the assets test. What does that mean? Let us put the matter into perspective, because all those people on the Opposition side have been rostering themselves to hawk around this country addressing pensioners , with the deliberate intention of adding to the confusion, the misrepresentations, the misunderstandings, so that they, by their very actions, could bring about an increased feeling of insecurity. Mr Simmons —Hypocritical. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Exactly. Of course it is hypocritical when Opposition members come before this House today and talk of the insecurity and confusion caused to retired Australians. It is nothing short of cynicism and absolute hypocrisy. Why do Opposition members not apply their efforts and any talents that may be available to them to going around the country and helping to allay the fear of the pensioners, to explain the reality of the proposed tax on lump sum superannuation, or to explain the realities of the proposed assets test? No, they will remove the assets test. What does that mean? Let me put it into perspective. It will affect a pensioner without his own home, who is paying rent and has a part time job in order to supplement the pension he is getting. He does not have a weekender or a car or a yacht or a caravan. Here is a single pensioner attempting to supplement his income. As soon as his income rises above $30 per week he will lose 50c in every dollar. As soon as his income-this money he is earning in order to supplement his pension-moves up above the tax free threshold, for every additional $2 he earns he will lose $1 from the pension and another 30c in tax. Out of the $2 he will lose $1.30, which represents for that pensioner a marginal tax of 65c in the dollar. Even the highest income earners in Australia do not pay 65c in the dollar; they pay 60c. When the Leader of the Opposition tells us that when his Party gets back in government it will abandon that assets test, the Opposition parties will make sure that pensioners in the circumstances I have described will pay the highest marginal rate of taxation in Australia. Who are the people who will benefit as a result of the elimination of the assets test? Let me tell honourable members. In contrast to the poor pensioner who was taking a part time job in order to supplement his income, aged persons will benefit from the Leader of the Opposition's undertaking to abandon the assets test. For example, a pensioner with a home valued at $150,000 or more will benefit. He may have a Mercedes car, and his wife may have a Mercedes as well-one for each of them. They have their caravan, their yacht, their holiday home and their property trust investments, which appreciate in terms of their capital value. Those are the people who, as a result of the elimination of the assets test, will get the full pension. If members of the Opposition continue to hawk themselves around this country confusing and worrying pensioners, they had better go before them with some explanation for the position which they themselves have declared. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect) —On behalf of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, I present the First Report from the Committee, together with copies of the transcript of evidence. Ordered that the report be printed. Dr KLUGMAN —by leave-The report which has just been presented consists of 320- plus pages and contains over 130 recommendations. It is based in part on over 200 submissions. But it would be fair to say that the nine members and senators appointed to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform were quite well versed in most of the arguments dealing with electoral reform. Without wishing to criticise the academics who appeared before the Committee, I sometimes felt that universities would benefit if some ex-parliamentarians were employed by political science departments in our tertiary institutions. Maybe current and future students would have benefited if Hansard had been present for the Committee's in camera discussions. On behalf of the members of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform I thank all those who assisted by presenting oral and/or written submissions. I particularly express the Committee's appreciation to Mr Keith Pearson, Mr Andrejs Cirulis, Mr Michael Maley and Mrs Woodward, all from the Australian Electoral Office, who provided the Committee with valuable information and suggestions, the Attorney-General's Department for providing prompt legal advice and the Committee Secretariat, led by Mr Ian Harris, for its great effort and co -operation. Mr Ian Harris often sits at the table with the Clerk of the House, Mr Blake, and others. This was a new committee given a large and important task to be completed in a very short time with a speedily assembled staff. A large number of the subjects examined by the Committee were comprehensive in nature requiring-and I assure honourable members receiving-detailed attention and deliberation. Given the time constraint upon the preparation of the Committee's report, it has not been possible on all occasions to provide comprehensive explanations as to the reasoning which led to the Committee's recommendations, all of which were made after close examination and deliberation. As Chairman of the Committee I particularly thank the Committee members for their excellent co-operation. The Committee repeatedly sat all day and sometimes sat into the late evening. Yet there was almost continuously 100 per cent attendance. Considering the many other duties of members of parliament, I regard this as an outstanding effort. In view of the highly political questions involved, where every party would be expected to look to its own advantages, the Committee's deliberations were examples of rational discussion. I especially thank the Opposition members for co-operating in helping to design reasonable methods for introducing public funding of elections and in reaching a voting system designed to reduce the large number of unintended informal votes for Senate elections-two questions which might have been expected to produce extreme polarisation of viewpoints. In presenting its first report the Committee has noted that the Australian Electoral Office performs its functions efficiently and capably, particularly in the light of the number of items processed by the office. Currently the office has a full time staff of approximately 740, which is fewer than six people for each electoral division. During 1982 the Electoral Office added over one and a quarter million electors to the Commonwealth electoral rolls and just over one million names were removed. The total number of transactions carried out in the year-that is, names added, names removed and alterations to the rolls-was 2.8 million. At the end of the year the total Commonwealth electoral enrolment was 9 .371 million. The report contains over 130 principal recommendations which are covered in its 13 chapters. Among the more significant recommendations are: The establishment of an independent electoral commission; public funding of Federal election campaigns; public disclosure of income and expenditure by political parties and candidates; an increase in the size of parliament; the retention of the permissible departure of plus or minus 10 per cent from the quota in an electoral division but that the Act should clearly state that the major consideration should be the aim, where practicable, that all electoral divisions approximate equal enrolment at the median or mid-point time between redistributions; a modification of the voting system to reduce unintentional informality, particularly in the Senate; compulsory enrolment for all Australians, removing all distinctions in the treatment of Aborigines; and that election dates should be announced by the Governor-General at least seven days before the day of issue of the writs and, therefore, the close of the rolls, to avoid the sort of thing that happened in February this year. The Committee also recommended that it be given the power to consider certain matters in greater depth. For example: The broadcasting and television provisions concerning elections; indirect public funding by means of the provision of free radio and television time; standards governing political advertising; provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act concerning defamation of candidates; the industrial elections functions of the Australian Electoral Office; and tax deductibility of political donations. I trust that the report will be extensively debated in the two Houses and that it will provide a good basis for the extensive amending legislation which will be introduced later this year. Motion (by Mr Uren)-by leave-agreed to: That the House take note of the paper. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(4.16) —I join the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman), the Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, in thanking the members of the Secretariat who so ably supported the Committee's work, the members of the public for their many submissions which facilitated the study that the Committee undertook, and the officers of the Australian Electoral Office for their sustained effort in providing information and backup material to members of the Committee. I, as one of the members of the Committee who came under the discipline of the Chairman, thank him fo the very good-natured but efficient way in which he conducted his duties. I thought he kept the Committee on the rails when at times perhaps it may have wandered off into a very wide subject indeed. However, I and other members of the Committee were under no illusions as to our Chairman's very firm views on electoral matters and his sustained support of his Party's viewpoint in that Committee. But it was a pleasure to serve under his chairmanship. There was certainly a very heavy flow of representations from the public which required a great amount of study. Of course there will be a great amount of material with which one could and will find dispute, as has been shown by the dissenting reports, some of which I contributed to. But no criticism of the recommendations should in any way reflect on the conduct of the Committee of which, as I have said, I found it a pleasure to be a member. I am sure that the ensuing debate will be vigorous and will inevitably reflect party viewpoints, but on the other hand I believe it will be that much better steered and directed because of the quality of the report before the House. I seek leave to continue my remarks later, Mr Deputy Speaker. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Mr HUNT(Gwydir) —by leave-I join the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) in complimenting the Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform for the way in which he steered the Committee through the whole of the winter recess. I do not think many members of this Parliament-outside the Ministry at any rate-were kept as busy as those who were involved in this Committee. It was a very extensive inquiry. We received hundreds of submissions not only from party organisations but also from local government bodies and a great number of organisations and individuals. The members on that Committee had a very busy recess indeed. Although the National Party was opposed to public funding and disclosure of funding-the reasons are spelt out in the minority report-there was a measure of co-operation among members of the Committee once it was made clear that it was the Government's policy to implement public funding and once the methodology to be used in disclosure of funding was made clear. The Committee reached agreement on a great number of machinery processes. I think the report recommends the simplest and most practical form possible in declaring and disclosing public funding for the purposes of election campaigns. I was pleased that the Committee saw fit to agree to maintain the 10 per cent tolerance for the purposes of electoral redistributions. the reasons are spelt out in the report. I was also pleased that the Committee agreed to recommend that that area should go back as one of the criteria for the purposes of consideration by commissioners when drawing electoral boundaries. The principal reason I address myself to the report is the recommendation for an enlarged parliament. The National Party in New South Wales expressed the view that it was in the community's best interests that there should be a modest increase in the numbers of members and senators of the Commonwealth Parliament. The National Party in New South Wales was reluctant to propose that more politicians should be provided for but, having weighed up all the evidence, it decided to support a modest increase. Arguments have been put for more staff for parliamentary members, but they, too, cost money. If we do not watch out we will have parliamentary members surrounded by more and more of their own bureaucracies attending to the functions of the electorates and of this place. In the years that I have been a member of this Parliament, I have not been able to help being somewhat amazed at the proliferation of committees. I do not, for one moment, suggest that they are not necessary in a complex society such as ours today, but there is a limit to the number of people who can perform, contribute and specialise on such committees. I believe that the time has come to extend the size of the Parliament. There has not been an increase in the number of senators from the States since 1949, yet in the 35 years since the number of voters has almost doubled. The number of eligible voters in some electorates has grown even faster. For instance, in 1958 41,516 electors were enrolled for the electorate of Richmond in New South Wales, but there are now 85,383, an increase of 105 per cent. In New South Wales the number of Federal members has actually fallen from 47 to 43 since 1949 despite an increase of 70 per cent in the number of voters. People in rural areas are worse off because of successive redistributions that have reduced the number of rural electorates making electorates larger and larger and making it ever more difficult for constituents to get in touch with their local members. I will summarise the reasons why I believe the Committee acted responsibly in recommending an enlarged parliament. There has been no increase in the size of the Federal Parliament since 1949 while State assemblies have substantially increased over the same period. The average number of enrolments for the House of Representatives has risen from 39,948 electors in 1949 to 74,989 electors in 1983. The present Ministry, for instance, is 70 per cent larger than the Chifley Ministry. The ratio between the Executive and the back bench is unsatisfactory. A larger parliament would provide a greater pool of talent from which to select or elect Ministers. If parties are sincere about one vote, one value, an enlarged parliament would bring a more even result in the average size of enrolments for electorates between the States. I refer principally to the anomaly that presently exists. The average South Australian electorate has over 80,000 voters, some 40 per cent more than the average Tasmanian electorate which has 56,493 voters. The proposed arrangement for enlarging the Parliament, as suggested in the report, would reduce this disparity to 20 per cent. Thus, those who advocate the one vote, one value concept should find this proposal attractive. That in itself puts some consistency into the view that the number of electors enrolled in electorates should be as even as possible not only within States but also between the States. Finally, the growing involvement of the Federal Parliament in social, environmental, ethnic and other issues since 1949 has increased substantially. These are some of the issues: Aboriginal affairs, more extensive social welfare policies, uniform legislation such as company law, education, conservation and the national heritage, family law, the status of women, ethnic affairs, child care, tourism and small business, sport and cultural affairs, Federal affairs and local government, technology, law reform and legal aid, consumer affairs, minerals and energy, electronic communications, television and the proposed satellite, the expanded industrial role, more complex economic issues and a greater involvement in overseas aid. In view of the fact that we are moving towards the new and permanent Parliament House on Capital Hill the time has come when the Parliament should give due consideration to enlarging this Parliament to enable it to cope with the affairs of this nation in a more efficient manner. I do not think the answer lies in purely and simply giving the existing members more and more staff. I believe parliamentary members have a very great responsibility, both in this House and in the other place, to the electors of this country. The time has come, in view of the fact that the electorate has nearly doubled, to provide additional members to enable them to carry out that function. Debate resumed from 8 September, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr McVeigh had moved by way of amendment: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst not opposing the Bill, the House is of that 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% 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'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Before the debate is resumed on the Live- stock (Export Inspection Charge) Amendment Bill 1983, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill, 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. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(4.29) —I will continue my speech from last Thursday. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in his statement on 24 August 1983 stated: . . . measures that have been taken with the express purpose of improving the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the Export Inspection Service and at the same time to improve Australia's international competitiveness and reputation as a reliable and responsible exporter of primary produce. The main benefits of export inspection are shared by the export industry, including beef producers and the consumers of Australian meat overseas. In 1979 the Liberal-National Party Government announced its decision to recover 50 per cent of the cost of export inspection charges for grain. A recovery charge of 50 per cent of the cost of export inspection charges was introduced by the Fraser Government in respect of edible oils and eggs as from 1 July 1982. It is pertinent to observe that export inspection charges have not been increased in respect of these products since the date of their introduction. Inflation has eroded the inspection cost recovery rate. The previous Liberal-National Party Government acquired a squalid reputation by its failure to act on industry requests over a number of years to put in place an enlightened, workable and secure inspection system and to act on numerous reports of malpractice in this area. The Fraser Government abused the patient endurance of the meat industry when the industry was embarrassed by the meat substitution scandal. This industry humiliation was a direct result of the failure of the Fraser Government to establish necessary inspection machinery to ensure product integrity. It is essential that every avenue of cost savings be explored and, where appropriate, adopted. In the meantime the policy of recovery of 50 per cent of export inspection charges takes into account the views of the Woodward Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry and has regard to the established principle that 50 per cent is the usual level at which government and industry share costs. The Hawke Government is striving for maximum profitability of the great Australian primary industry. This Government acknowledges the sincere commitment by primary industry to the reconstruction of the Australian economy. The proposal of increased producer responsibility for the carrying out of detailed inspection and security procedures will be sympathetically considered by the Government. The Hawke Government, an authentic Australian government, has developed rural policies designed to ensure that primary producers play an important role in our national economy. For the first time in many years primary producers now have a federal government which recognises the historic role of primary production in the welfare of the Australian economy; a government which will always be faithful to the preservation, protection and defence of Australian primary industry. Australia's important rural industries are heavily dependent on export markets. This trend is increasing, with exports now accounting for around two-thirds of the gross value of agricultural production. That production is extimated to be about $7 billion this financial year, of which $5 billion is subject to export inspection. It is important that Australia be regarded as a reliable supplier of products and produce of the highest standard and at an internationally competitive price. The meat industry is entitled to an efficient and reliable inspection service if it is paying part of the cost of such a service. The Hawke Governemnt is determined to see that the Export Inspection Service is as effective and economical as possible. This Government is aware that the cost of the inspection services must be minimised and that the Government's advisers must be sensible to the ever increasing financial burdens on meat producers and processors alike. This Government will continue to investigate vigorously every avenue of reducing costs for the Export Inspection Service consistent with its responsibility to ensure that the great Australian meat export industry maintains its high reputation for integrity and high quality products. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(4.33) —The previous speaker, the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay), spent 15 minutes of his time giving us the history of the Export Inspection Service. I thought it could have been reduced by referring to Mr Justice Woodward when he said that the Service: . . . has proved to be inefficient, costly, poorly managed, overstaffed and . . . in some respects corrupt. This Government will increase charges for this service by up to 300 per cent and these have to be paid by a beleaguered primary industry. This is probably best evidenced by a statement recently released by the Cattle Council of Australia in which it said: The beef industry, on its knees following several years of drought and depression and in the process of a major restructuring, has reacted angrily to the Federal Budget decision to treble meat inspection charges. It is not difficult to ask who pays these fees. They are paid by the processing industry, the abattoirs. But, as we all know, finally the cost is paid by the producer because he is the last person in the chain. He, of course, will be the person who eventually sees his prices reduced. This is most clearly evidenced by Mr Maurice Binstead in that same Press release to which I have referred. In it he said: . . . the decision would add $18 million a year to the industry's costs. This is all done without any consultation or contribution or the right to oversee the charges by the people who must pay them. This is probably one of the more important factors relating to the Livestock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Amendment Bill. Much has been said about a single charge for inspection. Everybody assumes that a single charge would be cheaper. Within my electorate a local works abattoir provides meat for a very large chain of butcher shops in the Perth metropolitan area. It requires the services of 10 meat inspectors and therefore it could not be considered to be a small works, even by export standards. But because of the present laws in Western Australia, the service required by that local works is provided by the local authority, the Shire of Northam. Further, there is no subsidy to that shire. There is no financial assistance. It must extract from the abattoir 100 per cent of the inspection costs. Of course, the fees are set by government-in this case the State Government. Whereas this Government now needs $5.40 to achieve half of the cost of inspecting a beast, one head of cattle, in excess of 90 kilograms, the charge levied by the local authority at Tip Top Abattoirs Pty Ltd in my electorate is $2.80. That is not a comparison of $5.40 and $2.80. It is a comparison of $10.80 and $2.80. It does not matter whether one refers to sheep. The price that it costs the Commonwealth to inspect one sheep is now established at $1.08 and the cost that is paid to the Shire of Northam is 35c. It is easy to say that export inspection requires additional work. It does. It requires the work of a veterinarian or veterinarians. There are also a few more inspection procedures. The total cost of inspections at the Tip Top Abattoirs in the Shire of Northam is $300,000 per annum. If we bump up that figure to $450, 000 per annum so that the abattoir could use veterinarians-surely it could do this for a total cost of $50,000 a year-plus $100,000 for additional inspection services, an added 50 per cent to the cost would only take the cost up to about $4.20, which is a far cry from $10.80. It is quite clear that the Government has brought to us first the wrong end of the argument. It has increased the charge but it has not improved the service. It is interesting to know why such difficulties occur. Perhaps one of the reasons is the fact that when the Commonwealth at one stage had an involvement at Tip Top Abattoirs it found it necessary to employ 16 inspectors to do the work done currently by 10 inspectors for the local authority. I add that I know of no occasion where meat substitution or serious health problems have occurred at that abattoir. So we must look at why there is such a huge cost. A few other factors come to mind. The Northam Shire has an interest in costs because it does not have a monopoly of the business. It is obliged to keep its fees within a reasonable maximum set by government. It is able to get its work force to the site from the Perth metropolitan area each day at a cost of $7,000 per annum. But when there was Commonwealth involvement this figure jumped to $45 ,000 per annum. These are the sorts of costs that this Government has accepted as fair and reasonable for the farming community to pay. It says: 'Pay first, cry later'. But it does not look at the problems first and resolve them. The responsibility, of course, does not stop with the producer. The poor old Australian taxpayer must pay the rest. This Government has made noises in that regard. It is time that it is prepared to accept some of the responsibility for this ridiculously high cost. The Public Service is by no means, in my opinion, the type of structure to employ meat inspectors. Everybody knows that the slaughter industry is both seasonal and cyclical. How Public Service-type awards and employment conditions can be fitted into such an industry, I will never know. It has been clearly noted by the Royal Commission and the Australian Meat Industry and others that even the working hours and public holidays do not match. These are the issues that should be addressed before the Government increases the burden on a beleaguered industry. In looking at some of the costs involved it is interesting to note that in the 30 August submission of the Cattle Council of Australia to this Government it was pointed out that, since this new Export Inspection Service has been around, the staff of the Service in Canberra has jumped from 91 to 138. On the same page , in bringing our attention to action to date, the Council said: However, little if any obvious progress has been made in physically implementing changes listed hereunder. The Council draws our attention to five or six different changes. We have decided on the centralised option and by no means is it the cheapest. I choose to refer to it as the 'dearest cheap option'. That is clearly shown in the figures I have already given. This is also the case in the wheat industry. I contacted the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation and some of the quotes I got included 'well, there was no consultation'; 'where does it stop?'; and 'it is a totally non-competitive environment'. Those I spoke to said that this was just another addition to the huge burden of transport charges being imposed by State governments at this time. The charges in the wheat industry have jumped from 9. 6c a tonne to 16.3c a tonne, which is supposed to recoup 50 per cent of the cost . Then we find, further, that the Government has shown a bit of foresight-it does not want this argument again-by lifting the total charge to 33c a tonne so that it can alter the figure when it is ready. Of course, that figure slightly exceeds 100 per cent of the charge. Are we to infer from that that the Government is prepared in the future to levy wheat growers 100 per cent of the charge? On present costs, it certainly has that ability within its grasp. The cost of export inspection services has risen to $70.1m in 1983-84 from $31. 1m five years ago. That is an increase of over 100 per cent. I have looked at the problems of meat inspection services for quite a long period now because of my close involvement with the industry. In fact right back on 9 February 1981 I put a submission to the Lynch Review of Commonwealth Functions suggesting that it was time for the Federal Government not to have further involvement in this area but for it to get out of the area because in general terms it was not practical. I did not suggest just abandonment. I went before the Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry at a later date and suggested the bulk of the cost was in the basic inspection service and that this would be best handled by the abattoirs themselves. Recommendation 9.5 of the Woodward Royal Commission clearly supported my point of view. It stated: . . . managements should be encouraged to take over responsibilities for work on the chain now performed by meat inspectors. The numbers of meat inspectors should be correspondingly reduced but, on average, their work should become more responsible and call for greater experience and higher personal qualities. It is further interesting to note that when that report was handed to Price Waterhouse it came down with a major suggestion of the same nature. Quite clearly, that recommendation of mine carried great weight with people who can view the industry dispassionately, which I doubt this Government will ever be able to do considering the influence that the Meat Inspectors Association will have on its decisions. It, of course, being a union. All in all, this is an issue of cost for the people who can least afford to pay. As I have proved quite conclusively, it is a highly inflated charge for a service which has yet to be improved to any great extent. I know that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has announced publicly that he is now going to talk to the industry and let it have a say in how things go. I have a nasty feeling that that is a sop to the industry. Its representatives will be called into the room and asked to have a meeting. The only way in which there will be any improvement in costs in this industry is to ensure that the people directly concerned with it, namely, the abattoir operators, who are in competition with each other, have direct responsibility for the cost of employing the basic staff. Commonwealth supervision can be maintained in these circumstances. The Commonwealth should be prepared to supply free of charge a well paid man of high integrity who would act in a supervisory role only. The man's salary should match his abilities and his qualifications. That person, in my opinion, could ensure that the countries to which we export are well looked after and at the same time could reduce these heavy and ridiculous costs being imposed by this centralised operation which has no competition and no yardstick, although there is a yardstick that nobody wants to take any notice of. I thank the House and I conclude my remarks on that note. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(4.46) —One would not know from the speech of the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) that this legislation will go some of the way to countering the sorry history of the primary industry policies of Liberal-National Party governments over the past six or seven years. In 18 months during that coalition's administration 30 abattoirs either closed or forfeited their export licences, 10,000 meat workers lost their jobs and the economic bases of towns were entirely disrupted. The Opposition now quotes the Woodward Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry when that Commission said that the then Government's own Minister did not deal effectively with the allegations that had been made against it, when the result from that Royal Commission was nothing, and when that coalition defended the indefensible, ignored even the vaguest concepts of ministerial responsibility and even went as far as bucketing the Royal Commissioner himself. Yet the Opposition parties tell us that they are the parties representing the meat producers of this country. This legislation is part of the Government's reversal of this sorry history. The cognate Bills we are considering, the Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Amendment Bill and three other inspection charge Bills relating to eggs, grain and edible oils, are an attempt by the Government to avoid the sorts of crises which existed in the meat industry until we came to government. The slaughter charge imposed, 50 per cent of the cost, is the same as the charge imposed by the previous Government in 1979, although one would not know that from listening to the honourable members on the other side of the House. It is true that the previous Government, perhaps justifiably, did not increase that cost during the drought, but there is no doubt in my mind that that charge would have risen simply because costs have gone up for a number of reasons. For instance, three years ago 11 million cattle equivalents were slaughtered. I understand that one cattle equivalent is ten times its number in sheep. This year 7.3 million cattle equivalents were slaughtered, a drop of 3.7 million cattle equivalents. This means that inevitably the costs of inspection will go up, and the Government has shown that it is ready to improve standards and procedures in the industry, particularly with respect to inspection. The previous inspection system failed, partly because there was a lack of consultation with all the people involved-the producers, the meat workers, the inspectors and the consumers. I am sure that both producers and industry will agree with the measures outlined in these Bills as long as the Government is prepared to work with them to change the image of the industry in Australia. The coalition parties were very slow to tackle all these crises. In fact, they had all the decisiveness of Humphrey B. Bear. They failed to act on the report of the Woodward Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry. They failed to act on the report of the Kelly Committee of Inquiry to examine Commonwealth and State Meat Inspection Systems in January 1980. They did nothing about the bribery and blackmail information which was conveyed by the Hon. Bert Kelly, formerly from their own side, in February 1980. During their administration malpractices were rife. Local meat was labelled as export meat. Pet meat was sold as meat for human consumption, meat which did not meet health requirements for humans. Meat was wrongly described, both in age and quality. Export certificates were forged, or perhaps bribery was used, in some cases, to obtain them. Slaughter dates were changed and transfer certificates were forged. Export documents were not obtained in some cases. Naturally, charges have to be made if these practices are to be overcome. The previous Government could have acted seven years ago when malpractices were first publicly reported to it. No wonder farmers are saying now: 'Give us efficiency, give us sound administration, give us a corruption-free export industry, give us good controls on what goes out of the country, and we will be with you'. They are willing to met 50 per cent of the costs if that gives confidence and security to the meat export industry. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is doing just that. The Department has already set up compliance programs. It has set up an investigation unit to eliminate malpractice in the industry. It is vigorously pursuing the recommendations of an adviser from the United States Department of Agriculture. The Government is also showing its good faith to the industries involved. In fact, in two of the Bills shell eggs and bagged grain are mentioned, and there has been a reduction of charges for them. The Government is not out to make money for Consolidated Revenue. It is out to improve standards. It is reverting to the policy of the previous Government, that is, to share and gradually increase producer involvement in the industry. The Hawke Labor Government has reduced producer charges and it will reduce producer charges where inspection costs are less. We intend to take decisive action in the meat industry, and the Minister has introduced a single meat inspection proposal. In New South Wales this proposal is being adopted and should be in operation next year. It could well be in operation in Queensland if , and I guess only if, there is a change in government to a government which will co-operate with the Federal Government-- Mr Ian Cameron —There won't be; no hope. The National Party will govern. Mr SNOW —If the Queensland producers want to pay $2.20 more for their meat inspection perhaps they will vote for a National Party or Liberal Party government, or whatever it may turn out to be, but if they want a single meat inspection service at less cost they will return a Labor Government in Queensland. For three years the present Opposition did nothing. For three years all it did was talk about it, and the legacy it has given primary industry policy is nothing but soothing words and few actions. In fact, only when an election seemed imminent, and three years after a drought had appeared in the Snowy Mountains and a whole lot of other areas in Australia, did the previous Government decide belatedly and within a few days on a fodder subsidy. That is the legacy of that Government-soothing words and panic moves. Mr McVeigh —I rise on a point of order. I have listened with a great deal of interest to the honourable member's speech. I know that you will be tolerant, Mr Deputy Speaker, and we would want you to be tolerant of him. But I have some difficulty in understanding how a fodder subsidy has anything whatsoever to do with an inspection fee for livestock, eggs, grains or edible oilseeds. Whilst I realise that the honourable member knows he is being broadcast and would like to push the parish pump issues, I mention that the business of this House is very serious, and new members should be educated right from the start to talk about the Bill, not about something that they believe is of importance to their electorate. I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to ask the honourable member to return to the subject of the Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —The honourable member will confine his remarks to the Bills before the House. Mr SNOW —I am trying to point out to the House that the Government is taking these measures simply to strengthen the position of primary industry, particularly of meat exporters. For that reason this legislation is associated with the initiatives being taken by the Government in quality control programs and in increasing productivity. I point out to the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) that inspection costs are involved in increasing productivity . I believe that, through these Bills and other measures being introduced by the Minister, productivity will improve in the next year by perhaps 10 per cent. The Bills are also designed to avoid duplication. Already we have seen how in the production of edible tallow two inspectors have been replaced by one. Formerly there was a dairy inspector for margarine and a meat inspector for tallow, but we are now working with one inspector. It is certainly relevant that this Government is prepared to take action to reduce the costs of inspection and to increase efficiency, in conjunction and consultation with the people involved . The National Economic Summit Conference earlier this year involved that sort of consultation. Employees, whether they are meat workers or inspectors, must be consulted if we are to progress. The fault of the previous Government was that this level of consultation did not take place. We have to remember that the people who produce meat, the people who market meat, the people who process meat , the people who inspect meat, the people who buy and consume meat in Australia and the people who buy and consume meat overseas all have to be considered in the process. Just because this Government is taking a few months to take the actions it took the previous Government years to think about does not mean that we are being tardy. This Government needs to work with all of the people involved to develop a cost effective, acceptable line of supply without hurting any of the people in the industry. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(4.59) —Mr Deputy Speaker, before commencing my speech I should like to congratulate you on being elected as one of the Deputy Speakers for the House. I have not had the privilege yet of making a speech in your presence. I should like first of all to say to the honourable member for Eden- Monaro (Mr Snow) that the fodder subsidy and interest rate schemes were actually withdrawn by his Government. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) was responsible for withdrawing those subsidies only three months after the Labor Government came to office. Mr McVeigh —I think you should stick to the Bill. Mr IAN CAMERON —The honourable member for Darling Downs said that I should stick to the Bill. Perhaps I should do that, but I just point out to the House that it is the Labor Government which has been responsible for taxing and withdrawing the subsidies et cetera that, primary industries have had through these difficult drought years. I now turn to inspection. The edible oils industry knows nothing of the Export Inspection Service. It has not been consulted by the Minister. I telephoned various people involved in the edible oils industry and none of them knew anything about the Inspection Service. The Minister has not consulted the producers in the industry at all. The charges were imposed by regulation on 1 January 1983. The Australian Labor Party has seen fit to increase those charges by 300 per cent. Mr McGauran —How many? Mr IAN CAMERON —Charges have gone up by 300 per cent within a six-month period. They are expected to come into operation at the maximum rate of $6.60. We are constantly told in this House by the fearless Leader of the Labor Party that inflation is under control, yet we have all these inspection charges. At least another 100 per cent is allowed in the maximum rate to be charged, so obviously the Minister and his Department must concede that these charges will rise continually. It is a very weak argument that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) use. Even at Question Time today they argued that interest rates and inflation were falling, which is absolute nonsense. In their own words, they are legislating here today to take up the rise in interest rates . I move on to the other industries involved. The egg industry also did not know too much about what was going on. It had not been consulted. I rang a Mr John Mann who stated that the Government was putting the cart before the horse because no inspection service had been started. Mr McVeigh —They are charging for something they have not got. Mr IAN CAMERON —The Government is charging for something that has not yet even been put in place. Mr McVeigh —The Minister is Ned Kelly the second. Mr IAN CAMERON —I do not think Ned Kelly had anything much on the Minister. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —I am sure the honourable member for Maranoa needs no prompting by the honourable member for Darling Downs. Mr IAN CAMERON —I think you are correct, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am quite capable of making an excellent speech in this House. The industry is to be charged 1.6c a kilogram for the net value of eggs exported. That represents 5 per cent of the cost of the egg. As I said, it is a little like putting the cart before the horse. Both the edible oils industry and the egg industry know nothing of what is happening as far as inspection is concerned. I turn to the grain industry. As a grain grower, I know that part of the cost of producing grain involves the Inspection Service. This Service has been going on for many years. It is in place. Charges have been increased. The maximum rate is 33c a tonne bulk, 40c a tonne for bags and 1.46c a tonne for containers, so the bulk charges have gone up quite considerably. The first charge was introduced on 1 July 1979. It applied to wheat, oats, barley and sorghum. There is now a 50 per cent recovery from the industry. The Australian Wheat Board is in favour of inspection but it says that it would like the shippers to take up some of the inspection charges. It feels that the industry should not have to bear the 50 per cent that it is being asked to bear. Eighty per cent of the grain shipped has to be issued with a certificate by the Department of Primary Industry and a close check is kept on all grain that is exported. The grain industry as a whole feels that inspection helps to keep standards up but it objects to having to pay an ever increasing cost for the bureaucratic Inspection Service. A charge has been imposed to recoup 50 per cent of the export inspection costs for sheep meat. Again, the industry says that it should not be expected to pay for the whole service. The current charge is $1.80 a tonne. An amount of $13m has been recovered. There is a charge of $5.40 a head for adult live cattle exported, as distinct from slaughtered cattle, or beef. Only half the inspection cost of $10.80 is recovered. It is estimated that $1.5m will be collected in the livestock area. That represents an increase of 71 per cent on the total collected in 1981-82. I argue that the Labor Government is using these charges to raise revenue rather than to pay for the services. Inflation has not gone up to that extent. The industry has asked that there be no alteration to the operative rates until the Department of Primary Industry has accurate costing. It has asked also that the administration service be instructed to prevent unnecessary expansion of costs. The meat inspection service continues to expand and to become more expensive. Queensland is a quite large exporter of live cattle with 45,000 head exported in 1981-82 at a total of $109,000. Western Australia is the biggest exporter of sheep. It exported nearly three million live sheep in 1981-82 at a total of nearly $6m. It is interesting to note that no rabbits are exported, although rabbits are listed on the sheet of inspection charges in the event that they are exported. It would probably be a good idea for us to start doing that. I and many beef producers in the electorate of Maranoa and throughout Australia feel that the meat inspection service is a grossly inefficient service. It is overpaid. The sum of $8m is spent in travelling and paying for meals alone. Overall, the Department's estimate in the current Budget is $70m. This is more than half the total estimates for the Department of Primary Industry. An enormous bureaucratic service has been established. Unfortunately, we have to have inspection because purchasing countries want the product inspected and guaranteed for quality. We continue to do this. Queensland is the biggest exporter of beef. Queenslanders are not that keen on the Commonwealth's service. I do not know how the honourable member for Eden- Monaro arrived at the figure to indicate that the meat inspection service will cost less under the Commonwealth. I would argue with him that the present State inspection service is the most efficient in Australia. It was not involved in any way whatsoever in the meat scandal. It is a far cheaper service than the Commonwealth service in other States. The National Party will continue to govern in Queensland for many years. The Queensland Department of Primary Industries will continue to operate the Inspection Service in that State. I put it to the Minister that I see no reason why all States could not operate their own service as agents for the Commonwealth. I think this would be a far better way to operate the service. It would not become bureaucratic and monolithic. Each State would be in a much better position to control costs, whereas if we have a totally Commonwealth service we will have total socialisation of the system, full of public servants doing the work. The Commonwealth does not have the facilities to keep track of what is going on within the Inspection Service. All charges for cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and horses have increased three times. The industry is shocked at these disproportionate rises. Many representations have been made to us on this side of the House and no doubt the Minister has also received representations from the industry about the savage increases in these charges. We have been hearing the normal Hawke rhetoric. The Prime Minister said in speeches that he was looking forward to a primary industry exports-led recovery. Every time we turn around we see that the Government and the Treasury are putting up taxes on primary producers, yet they wonder why we cannot get into the so-called recovery they are talking about. Even Mr Justice Woodward, in his report, said that the Meat Inspection Service: . . . has proved to be inefficient, costly, poorly managed, overstaffed and in some respects corrupt. How true that proved to be when his inquiry was set up to oversee the meat industry. Some of those people who were found to be corrupt have been convicted. A certain gentleman in Victoria has been convicted. I point out to the House that nobody in Queensland was involved in that scandal. No inspector in Queensland was mentioned in that report. Over many years the industry has requested that rationalisation of meat inspection arrangements take place. The current meat inspection service is still inefficient. These charges will add $25m in increased costs to the beef industry which has not recovered from the effects of the drought. The industry is still suffering from the effects of depressed prices. In five years the costs have jumped 80 per cent. Total levy charges have gone from $1.56 to $10.98, a rise of 600 per cent. Nearly $11 a head is now the overall charge because the Commonwealth contributes half of what it costs to inspect cattle. I inform the House that in the depths of the beef depression an awful lot of cattle did not even bring that much money per head, so the producers were hardly in a position to pay the inspection charges. An awful lot of boner and cracker cows brought only $10 and $12 a head. Total costs are up 19.5 per cent to $11.4m. In other words, costs have gone from $58.7m to $70m. I have much pleasure in supporting the amendment proposed by the Opposition's Shadow Minister for Primary Industry, the honourable member for Darling Downs. Mr Braithwaite —A good Minister too. Mr IAN CAMERON —He is a good shadow minister. The rural industries have not recovered. The Treasurer stated in the Budget Papers that earnings from primary industries were down 53 per cent. I hope the honourable member for Grey (Mr O' Neil) is listening intently because he has many very good farmers in the good State of South Australia. The net earnings from primary industries were down 53 per cent-the worst ever. Yet the honourable member's Government continues to increase inspection charges. I say, shame on him! But the honourable member looks after me well when I go to South Australia, so I will have some respect for him. Some of the areas in north-west Queensland are still drought declared. I do not think the Minister for Primary Industry realises that huge areas of Australia in which the real people live are still very dry. Those people have to suffer tremendous hardships in battling drought. The industry should not have to contribute 50 per cent of the cost until the new service is in place. The Minister has not got this new service in place. The other day he announced that he has set up a committee. The proposal is at the committee stage. God knows how long it will stay there. Knowing how some of the committees around this place operate, it will be there for quite a long while. Although producers indirectly will have to pay 50 per cent of the cost of the inspection service they have no way of being represented on the inspection service panels et cetera. I point out to the Minister that this is a big problem. We in the industry feel that if we are to contribute 50 per cent of the cost we ought to have some sort of representation and some say in the sorts of charges that the inspection service will make. The industry has not been consulted in any way whatsoever about these new proposals. Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(5.13) —I would like to answer the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) who talked about the number of farmers in my electorate. He is quite correct. I have very deep concern for those farmers and primary producers. I have spoken to many primary producers about the proposed legislation and all of them agree that it is positive and constructive. I also go further by saying that the primary producers to whom I speak firmly support the present Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and believe that he is something primary industry certainly has not had for a long time. They think he is a wonderful Minister. I also thought that the honourable member for Maranoa would have said something about the drought subsidies which people in his electorate have been very duly paid by the present Government. The Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Amendment Bill, the Grain ( Export Inspection Charge) Amendment Bill, the Eggs (Export Inspection Charge) Amendment Bill and the Edible Oils (Export Inspection Charge) Amendment Bill seek to amend the export inspection charges on livestock slaughter, grain, edible oils and eggs. The general principles involved in recoupment of these charges from the industries concerned are similar in the case of all products. These principles were not originated by the present Government. The Industries Assistance Commission in 1975 recommended that the Federal Government, which had previously borne all export inspection costs except in the meat industry, should transfer these to the relevant industries. It recommended that meat export inspection costs should be wholly borne by the Government because, it said, this was a case where 'export inspection imposed a significant cost burden, the removal of which could be justified on efficiency grounds as assistance to a low cost industry'. However, the IAC modified that stand in its more recent report on the abattoir and meat processing industry when it said: The Commission can see no reason why export inspection per se should be funded by the community as a whole. In this case it noted that any move towards full recovery of meat export inspection costs would amount to a significant decrease in the current low level of assistance to the meat industry. The previous Government did not act on the 1975 recommendation that it should bear the full inspection costs and in May 1979 the former Treasurer the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), in his statement preceding the mini-Budget said: Steps will also be taken to recover a greater proportion of the costs incurred by the Commonwealth in providing cattle disease eradication and export services. 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. That was estimated to be worth $30m in extra revenue. That was not a sudden decision. As the digest of that Bill noted, a review of the whole question of charging for export inspection of meat and other products had been foreshadowed in the 1978 Budget Speech. So for the Liberal-National Country Party coalition having considered the principles for nearly a year and having come down in favour of it, the acceptance by each industry of a fair proportion of a charge that is, after all, made for a service that is in the interests of its own lasting profitability, becomes more or less a bipartisan one. The Budget statement indicates that the cost of meat and livestock inspection services, estimated by the Department of Primary Industry, during 1983-84 will be $70.1m, an increase of $11.4m over the previous year. The rate of recovery decided on is 50 per cent which will increase meat export inspection charges for cattle from $ 1.80 to $5.40 a carcass. I think the whole question of export inspections and the apportioning of their benefits and costs was dealt with quite definitively in the IAC interim report of December 1975 on financing promotion of rural products. It made the point that in the absence of government-administered export inspection, local industries competing for export would, if their products were to remain competitive in world markets by meeting requirements of importing countries, have to arrange and finance in full their own export inspections. This would be much more expensive than using a centrally organised service with advantages of scale and standardisation and with access also to part time employment of State Department employees. The case for government-financed export inspection has always been that the Australian community benefits from raised standards of quality, that better standards enhance national prestige and that this extra prestige tends to help promote other exports to the overall good of this nation. In that regard I will quote a section from the IAC report, which applies equally well to rural exports other than meat. It states: To the extent that the various State Governments Acts designed to maintain the quality of products and hygiene have been influenced by export standards and to the extent that goods produced for export have been influenced by export standards, and to the extent that goods for export are consumed locally, export inspections have raised quality. However, it cannot be assumed that the improved meat quality has been a net gain to consumers which can be classed as an external community benefit, nor can it be assumed that any benefit to consumers would have entailed a loss to producers for which some compensation payment by the Government would be warranted. The Commission believes that export inspection of meat is profitable, in the sense that returns from export sales are higher than would be the case in the absence of export inspection and of meeting the standards set by the export regulations. All the evidence points to a close relationship between the export parity price and the domestic price of meat. This means that, in the absence of an export inspection subsidy, the prices paid by Australian consumers are raised by the extent to which net export prices are raised. It is a normal commerical relationship that a higher quality product entails a higher cost to producers and a higher price to consumers, and no case for subsidy seems to be involved. No evidence was submitted which suggested that export standards were so high that they imposed quality standards on the domestic market which were clearly in excess of those wanted by local consumers. The report went on to say that although the remarks applied to meat they applied equally well to other products subject to export inspection. This Government is not intending to abolish its subsidy of export inspections. But I think it reasonable to expect the industries that clearly benefit from this form of quality control to share rising costs, at least to a degree that recognises quality control as a legitimate production cost in any industry. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(5.21) —I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) and I support the primary producers in the electorate of Wakefield in their concern about the implications of the Live- stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Amendment Bill. The Opposition is not opposed to this Bill; it is opposed to the principle that underlies it. It is opposed to the attitude that is pervading from the Government benches-the attitude that if the Government does something it must be right. The Opposition is opposed to the assumption that only the Government can exercise the responsibility necessary for effective export inspection control, and it is opposed simply because historically this has not been so. What is the task of export inspection? It is the task of maintaining acceptable standards and of fulfilling customer expectations. In its support for this amendment neither the Liberal Party nor the National Party make any suggestions that the inspection of export produce is unnecessary. Far from it. All speakers have said that not only is inspection necessary but also it is entirely proper for the Government to oversight it. All that we on this side of the House, on behalf of the industries we represent, have sought is recognition of the industries' role in the production and preparation of goods for export, recognition of the industries' capacity to be self-disciplining, and recognition of the need for there to be an industry input in export inspection services. As a result of the Bills before the House, the livestock industry, the grain industry, the oil seed industry and the egg industry are going to be asked to sign a blank cheque. They are not going to be offered any input into or control over the long term expenditure in which they will be involved. The honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow), in his contribution to the debate, accused the coalition of doing nothing and then had the audacity to present to the House much of what was the coalition's framework for the Bill. Even the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) was gracious enough to concede that the Bill before the House is that of the present Government-perhaps he ought to talk to the honourable member for Eden-Monaro. The industries represented in this Bill, and the Opposition for whom I speak, are seeking, through this amendment, to assist the Government in implementing a more efficient and more effective livestock inspection service. The irony is that without the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Darling Downs the Government will have a less effective inspection service and will, perhaps unwittingly, be placing on the industries an unfair burden that cannot easily be controlled. The fundamental point that we on this side of the House make is that the industries named in this legislation recognise the importance of adequate export inspection; they recognise the essential role of the Government in oversighting that inspection. They simply want to say to the Government that no one else is as committed to effective export inspection as they are. This committed group of industries-the group that is going to be affected by the legislation-does not know what service it is paying for; it cannot dictate what level of service it will be asked to pay for; and it cannot even offer, unless the amendment is passed, to minimise the impact the export inspection charge will have on its industry. The other point that has been stressed by every speaker from this side of the House is that the timing of these Bills could not be worse. It is true that primary industry is going through an optimistic phase. This is understandable after the rain that has fallen but that optimism has not, as yet, generated any cash flow. In spite of a continual cash flow shortage in rural Australia these Bills are being introduced without an opportunity for rural Australians to put any check on the money their industries will be committed to meet. Today the Government has been very eloquent about tax loads on innocent taxpayers. All we are asking is that the taxpayers we represent be given an opportunity to say what their input and tax load will be as a result of these Bills. Many comments have been made in this debate about the effect of these Bills on the livestock and grain industries. I want to comment about the effect of these Bills on the egg industry. I do not claim to be a representative of the egg industry but I think a voice or two ought to be raised in order to keep some balance in the debate. The egg industry has no objection to the principle of the legislation before the House. It is prepared to carry a realistic share of the burden but it is as offended as every other industry by the fact that it will have no say in the way in which export egg inspection is carried out. If honourable members will pardon the pun, the egg industry may be referred to as being in an 'eggstraordinary' situation. The egg industry, as apart from the other industries listed in this legislation, has an export component only as a buffer against Australian surpluses. The House will realise, and I hope appreciate, that the egg industry does not have, because of quarantine, any imports. It maintains an export industry in order to have a buffer against surplus Australian production. That is point No. 1. Secondly, all eggs for export, whether whole shell or powder, come from State statutory authorities. Thirdly, inspection fees, levied as a result of these Bills, will be a higher proportion of the total value of eggs than is the case in respect of any of the other products considered. Fourthly, few export markets are available to the Australian egg industry so it, more than any other industry, is likely to be most careful of the way in which it deals with these export markets. I again make the point that the egg industry, which is in a rather different situation from the others outlined, is not opposed to inspection. It wants to protect the markets it has. All it seeks, as do the other industries and the amendment of the honourable member for Darling Downs, is an opportunity to have an input into the way in which the export inspection service is set up and, hopefully, an opportunity to assist the Government with that service. My grain growers, the primary producers in Wakefield, are reluctant simply to sign a blank cheque. That does not mean that they are opposed to export inspection; it means that they want, with rightful prudence, to have something to say about where that money is spent. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) has rightly said that there is too little restraint-and in some cases no restraint-being shown. I take up the point made earlier by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). He pointed out what happens in Western Australia. As has already been said in this House, the livestock industry makes up 83 per cent of the total cost of export industry inspection in Australia. Considering that, one should look at the alarming fact that when the New South Wales Wran Labor Government collects its share of State charges from the Commonwealth Government, it collects 16 per cent of the total inspection service cost, even though its export of livestock is almost insignificant-very few cattle and no sheep. Compare that with the 1981-82 figures for Western Australia during the time of the Court Government. A quarter of the number of cattle and half the number of sheep in Australia were exported from that State and its reimbursement was less than that paid to New South Wales. All this does is underscore the need to sort out the inequities in our livestock inspection service before we burden the producers with more than their share of the cost. All that the producers ask the Government for is an opportunity to have some say in the way in which this export inspection is carried out, because it is their money which is being used to foot the bill. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(5.31) —I will keep my remarks on the Live-stock Slaughter ( Export Inspection Charge) Amendment Bill reasonably brief as I am aware of the fairly tight legislative program of the Government. In debating the amendment of the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh), I think it is instructive to recall some of the statements on this matter that were made by the Opposition when it was in government. I refer in particular to the statement by the then Treasurer in the 1978-79 Budget Speech in which he said: Consideration has been given to levying producers to recover a greater share of the costs of providing export inspection services. Later, 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 measures are estimated to yield additional revenue of over $30m in 1979-80 . That was the attitude and the policy of the present Opposition when it was in government. I note that despite having that policy in regard to this matter since 1979, the Opposition now suggests, for somewhat spurious reasons, that the implementation of 50 per cent cost recovery be delayed. I think that Opposition speakers on this Bill ought to be aware when they put up their arguments that times are indeed difficult for all Australians. Times are difficult not just for primary producers or for meat processors; they are very difficult for more than three-quarters of a million Australians who are without any jobs at all and for more than two million Australians living below the poverty line. Times are also very difficult for all involved in secondary industry. When looking at the proposed changes the Opposition ought to view them and their implementation in terms of the Budget context. When this Government came to office it faced the enormous task of restoring some balance and growth to the economy. For the first time in more than 30 years the economy was not growing; inflation was running at almost 12 per cent; unemployment was running at 10 per cent; the exchange rate was considerably overvalued and the deficit was mounting . This financial year the Government expects the economy to grow by some 3 to 4 per cent. Up to half of that growth will come from the farm sector. I emphasise that the Government recognises that the recovery of the economy and the recovery of the rural sector are quite interdependent. We recognise that if the rural sector is to achieve its full potential for growth, that potential must not be stifled by general economic policies. It is for that reason that the Government took the view that a deficit booming out to the area of $10 billion or more would have stifled the farm sector's capacity and ability to achieve real growth. The consequences would have been higher interest rates, higher rates of inflation and an unstable exchange rate. Of course, that would have further reduced the competitiveness of our rural industries. Restraint is imperative if that balance and growth are to be restored and if oportunities are to be expanded for our export industries. That is very much the question to which this Bill relates. I argue that the Opposition cannot have it both ways in regard to this Bill. It cannot on the one hand argue for a much smaller Budget deficit and on the other hand when this Bill, which would have certain revenue effects for the Government , is introduced then argue that we should not implement it because primary industry cannot afford to pay at this time. I think it is typical of the attitude that the Opposition has taken in relation to every area of economic decision-making since 5 March. The debate today on the matter of public importance in relation to superannuation, means testing of pensions and tax avoidance was an example of the hypocritical attitude which is taken by the Opposition. If we look briefly at the Opposition's attitude, we see that its claims that our policies in some way have imposed a greater burden on the primary sector than on any other sector of the economy are without substance and without foundation. Indeed, if one compares the record of the previous government in regard to primary industry and particularly some of the industries covered in this Bill, its record is quite unsatisfactory. I point out briefly that under the previous Government severe imposts were made against the primary sector. I think the most notable of those was that on fuel, which rose in price under the Fraser Government from 14c per litre to 42c per litre earlier this year. That is a 300 per cent increase. Significantly also, under previous Liberal-National Party Governments, high inflation and high interest rates took their toll on the farm sector. I quote from a speech made by the honourable member for O'Connor ( Mr Tuckey) in this House on 25 May. In referring to a gentleman in his electorate, he said: One gentleman who had farmed a property for 30 years, has seen his debt gearing grow from practically nil to 70 per cent of the deemed value of his property over the last four years. I point out that that rapid rise in interest rates occurred under the previous Government. It is an issue to which our Government has addressed itself already. I think honourable members opposite would be pleased to know that in the area of interest rates housing interest rates have already dropped by half a per cent. In concluding my remarks in support of this Bill and in opposition to the amendment I say that the Government's decision to recover 50 per cent of the export inspection charges certainly does take into account the views of the Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry, which very firmly laid responsibility for quality control on the industry. It also noted that cost sharing should continue. Export inspection charges for meat have not been increased since their introduction in 1979 and inflation has eroded that cost recovery rate so that it has now fallen to almost 20 per cent. The same argument that is applied to the recovery of 50 per cent of export inspection charges for meat applies to commodities throughout the community; that is, there is a need for an industry contribution to ensure that industry does take some responsibility for quality control. I think honourable members would also recognise that 50 per cent-a 50-50 basis-is the usual level at which government and industry share costs for many similar endeavours. Many of the research programs that are operated through secondary industry operate on that 50-50 basis. The decision by the Government to recover from industry 50 per cent of the cost of export inspection services must be seen as part of a number of government decisions to be taken which will significantly improve the effectiveness and the efficiency of export inspection services. The Government has already announced the necessary legislation-that is, the Meat Inspection Bill of 1983-which will provide for the Commonwealth to undertake domestic meat inspections in New South Wales and other States and Territories which refer those responsibilities to the Commonwealth. It is of particular interest to me, representing the electorate of Bendigo in Victoria, that the Victorian Government has indicated its willingness to enter into negotiations with the Commonwealth on this matter. I think the most significant aspect of this legislation is that it provides, in combination with further meat inspection reforms, for a better, more efficient and effective service which should guarantee our export markets for many years to come. These primary products play a very vital consideration in our export field and in their contribution to Australia's overall economic capacity. It is for that reason that I reject what I consider to be the very opportunist amendments moved by the Opposition and commend the four amending Bills to the House. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Cowper)(5.42) —I wish to express concern about the implications of the severity of the meat inspection charges imposed by the legislation. The increase in charges is unprecedented. I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) which draws attention to the consequences of the measures. Of course I refer in particular to the difficulties confronting primary industry which is recovering only slowly from the worst drought in history and is not at this time able to bear the burden of such a massive increase in charges. I am of the opinion-the amendment suggests this-that the industry should not be expected to contribute 50 per cent of the cost of Commonwealth inspection until the restructuring of the Export Inspection Service is completed and the Service is as efficient and cost-effective as possible. There is inadequate industry participation in the inspection procedures as things stand at present. I regret that there has been insufficient consultation with the industry on all aspects of the development of the export inspection services and the inspection charges. I say this because of the serious effect that the charges have on the livestock industry. In my own electorate there are three abattoirs; all are affected. I give as one example the Mid-Coast Co-op Meat Society Ltd abattoir at Macksville on the mid- north coast of New South Wales. The increased meat inspection charges will cost local beef producers more than $290,000 in a full year. The 300 per cent increase in charges will cost that abattoir close to an additional $5,600 a week , an amount which of course will be passed on to the producers. It will be a deduction from their income. The increases will come out of the growers' pockets . There is just no alternative. It is just another slug for the cattle producer at a time when he can ill afford this kind of heavy charge. Mid-Coast's inspection costs will soar from the previous figure of about $144,000 to $435, 000 in a full year. Some of the larger abattoirs in New South Wales will face an increase of up to, and in some instances more than, $1m a year. The Country Meatworks Association of New South Wales has described the increases as extortionate, and it does so with justification. The inspection charges for cattle weighing more than 90 kilos will rise from $1.80 to $5.40. Inspection charges for cattle and pigs from 40 kilos to 90 kilos will rise from 60c to $1. 80, and inspection charges for cattle, sheep and goats weighing under 40 kilos will rise from 18c to 54c. Abattoirs throughout Australia are being forced to pay for a federal meat inspection service which, on the admission of the Government, is the consequence of the Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry. Its efficiency and its costly, poorly-managed and overstaffed structure were so very clearly enunciated by the previous Government and the previous Minister for Primary Industry. Without equivocation they clearly indicated to this Parliament and to the nation that this was unsatisfactory. That was the reason for the Royal Commission being appointed by the previous Government. It is important to recognise that in remedying this problem the whole burden should not immediately fall upon the livestock producers of this country. If we look at what had been the position beforehand and the fact that some abattoirs are now faced with these charges that I have referred to of $5.40 for cattle because of adherence to the quite proper procedures of a royal commission and the adoption of the findings and recommendations of that royal commission, we will see that it is the responsibility of the present Government, and particularly of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) to ensure that an effective service is created, that that service is put into operation in an effective way and that there be a cost factor that is reasonable to all concerned. It must be recognised that the export content of the meat industry is of vital significance to the economy of this country and to the export earnings. Merely to whack on such an enormous burden without some sharing of it on the part of the overall economy of this country is without precedence. I noticed that the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) referred to charges imposed by the previous Government in the 1979-80 financial year. He quoted the figures. The increase was a meagre proportion of that proposed now either in percentage terms or in total outlay. Mr Brumby —Fifty per cent recovery. Mr IAN ROBINSON —Of course the previous Government did not shrink away from some cost recovery but it certainly did not go to the extent of the present proposition taking cost recovery as well as the imposition of new and heavy charges. I strongly urge the Government to review at this late hour the consequences of what it is doing to the beef industry of Australia. It must also recognise that it is taking this action at a time when, at long last, after more than a decade of effort, some unanimity has been achieved in the matter of dual meat inspections. This was welcomed particularly by the New South Wales Labor Government. The New South Wales Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries was exuberant about what had been determined by the Australian Agricultural Council but that was obviously before he was aware of what the new charges would be. There is deathly silence on his part at present. There is deathly silence on the part of those other supporters of the action promoted by the previous Government and followed through by the present Government. The reason is that they have now seen what this present Government is prepared to do to the primary producers of this country. I repeat: There is no reality in the approach that is being made. It is for that reason that the amendment proposed on behalf of the Opposition by the honourable member for Darling Downs in all the circumstances is a very reasonable approach at this time. I had no idea what the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) was talking about. He said that the Government was taking decisive action and that there would be a single meat inspection. He talked about a range of things that escape reality if one has any understanding of the rural sector at all. Yet I understand that he represents the rural seat of Eden-Monaro. I hope that the producers in Eden-Monaro will have a close look at what he said in this debate on this very important issue. I appreciate the participation of members newly elected to this House. The honourable member for Bendigo, whom I mentioned a short time ago, made a thoughtful contribution. He has looked at the overall economy, but he obviously has no knowledge of primary industry or he would not have said what he did. Mr Brumby —I am off a farm. Mr IAN ROBINSON —The honourable member must have left the farm a long time ago because he is very out of touch with the rural sector. Of course, all of this is pertinent to the implications of the measures before the House this evening. I will not dwell on the issue of meat inspection because a number of Opposition speakers canvassed the details very adequately. I just say on my behalf and on behalf of my electorate that I deplore the action, the way it has been taken, and the lack of practical understanding of this total issue. I mention briefly that there is a similar aspect in relation to the provision for eggs and export inspection charges for the poultry industry. Mr Hand —Your immigration spokesman is dealing with this Bill. Where are your farmers? Mr IAN ROBINSON —I do not know what that interjection is all about, but obviously it is without any foundation. I want to urge some reality in this matter. There has to be recognition on the part of the Government, in particular the Minister for Primary Industry, of the realities of primary industry today in the difficult economic climate in which it is struggling. It is all very well for the honourable member for Bendigo to compare primary industry with the overall economy of this country. Except for one admission, he overlooked the fact that if there is a recovery process then it is primary industry that must be sustained and helped if that recovery is to be effective. Yet the Budget statement says clearly that there could be a growth factor of 3 per cent or 4 per cent but only half of it will come from primary industry. Let us face facts. Primary industry is on its uppers, and the Government should recognise this. It certainly does not as a consequence of this legislation. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(5.54) —In closing the debate I should say that the Government rejects the amendment moved by the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) on behalf of the Opposition. It is pretty obvious, from listening to honourable members who have taken part in this debate , that many have researched the subject very thoroughly. I should particularly like to thank the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay), the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow), the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil), and the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby). The honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) also raised a couple of matters of substance, and I inform him that I will get back to him on those matters. I have had a chance to read the speech made last week by the honourable member for Darling Downs, and it is pretty obvious that the National Party thinks that abuse can pass for debate. It was supposed to be a cognate debate, it sounded more like a cognac debate from some of the inanities and banter in the honourable member's speech. He said that I made a lame duck excuse when I said to a meeting that I could not win because this was the policy of the previous Government. I have brought into the chamber some correspondence I have chosen at random. I have a minute which states: In April 1982, the State Boards were advised that your predecessor had approved a new basis for the charging for domestic inspection . . .'. This sort of thing has been going on for a long time. Opposition members talked about no consultation. Again, just by chance, I have a telex involving a person- I will not give his name-in the fishing industry. This telex just confirms that there is ongoing debate and consultations with the industry. Here I have proof. I did not think I would have it with me, but I have the proof. I make no apologies on behalf of the Government. I make no apology for being honest when I tell people that I cannot win. I could not win. Last year the Australian economy went into a hole. This Government picked up the end of the economic recession. We had had a drought, and the previous Government had allowed wages to escalate by something like 17 per cent to 20 per cent. This Government took office with three million people on welfare, over 800,000 people unemployed, and a record Budget deficit. This decision was made in terms of the Budget. I could have had a dream run if I had got another $30m for primary industry; but there are 26 other Ministers. If we multiply that figure of $30m by 26 that gives a total of $780m. What then would members of the Opposition benches be moaning about? I appreciate all the efforts of the National Party to get me into Cabinet. If only members of the National Party knew what little effect the nonsense with which they carry on has on the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke ). They simply do not understand. They do not focus their attention on what actually happens in this Government. They like to believe their own stupid propaganda. This revenue decision was taken after bilateral discussions with the Minister for Finance, the Expenditure Review Committee, the Budget Cabinet itself and the revenue Cabinet. The economic situation we are in is the reason for the decision that was taken. This was as a result of the policy of the previous Government; I have already proved that. Opposition members are all hypocrites. Mr Braithwaite —You couldn't spell it. Mr KERIN —Yes, I can. We have had all this flawed logic that the Inspection Service has yet to be proved, that it is a continuing, inefficient and costly organisation. Of course, what Opposition members are really saying is that it is not actually working at present, and that is absolute nonsense. I do not know how they can say that the inspection service is yet to be proved. We acknowledge , as the previous Minister for Primary Industry would acknowledge, that changes are still being explored which could well lead to cost savings. We also acknowledge that many initiatives have been taken since the service was set up 18 months ago. In recognition of the work still to be done we have said that the industry should not have to bear the full cost of operating the service. In the Budget calculations we excluded special training costs and costs for excess manpower arising from the changes in inspection practices and procedures. Opposition members have said that there is no consultation. I cannot understand that. The consultants are examining the method of charging and they have had discussions with a number of sections of the industry. Consultation between industry and consultants will continue until their work is complete. I have already mentioned a telex that I am sending off tonight detailing these ongoing consultations. The fact of the matter is that practice review papers have been sent to the dairy, egg, honey, fish products, dried fruits, grain, wool, edible oils and live animals industries. Papers such as these cross my desk all the time. I do not know where the heck honourable members opposite get these ideas from. Again, the flawed logic of the honourable member for Darling Downs came through when he said that there has been no consultation. I have laid that one to rest. He said also: 'Lo and behold, the Minister announced that there would be an interim policy council'. On the one hand he is saying that there is no consultation and on the other hand he is trying to give me a bagging because an interim policy has been set up. The concept of an inspection policy council was first raised in my Department's discussion paper in April 1983, if the honourable member for Darling Downs had only had enough wit to read the thing. With the progress of discussions, together with an obvious interest by industry and other parties in the inspection service, the decision was taken to establish an interim council to provide an immediate forum for and progressing of the single national inspection service for industry to interface with the Department of Primary Industry. We are intent on the industry being given exposure to the costs and the basis of the costs. Opposition members have also said that the egg industry has not been told anything. A paper describing proposals for new inspection arrangements for eggs and egg products was circulated to the industry on 15 October 1982. Consultations between the Department of Primary Industry, egg boards and the Council of Egg Marketing Authorities of Australia took place on 3 November 1982. A follow-up paper was circulated in December 1982. On 16 August 1983 a revised paper was circulated to industry and further comments were sought. We anticipate that the new arrangements will begin to be implemented about mid-1984, but timing is dependent upon industry response to proposals set out in the August paper. I do not know where people get the idea that there is no consultation. The previous Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Peter Nixon, set up the process of consultation, and I am continuing that process, yet honourable gentlemen come into this House and disown him, I suppose. The honourable member for Darling Downs said something about the fact that the Cattle Council of Australia and the Sheep Meat Council of Australia have put a submission before the Government seeking a review of the export inspection charge decision. I actually saw members of the council and told them that I would be sending them a follow-up in writing. I spent an hour or two with the honourable gentlemen. I see industry representatives all round the country. I do not know how much more consultation we need. This is a decision by a government in a Budget context. The honourable member for Darling Downs raised another point with respect to forward contracts. If there are strong grounds for firms that may get into difficulty as a result of a lack of forward contract provisions, we will be willing to consider possible action to ameliorate the difficulties being experienced, particularly with wheat. Wheat is customarily traded under forward contracts. The profit margin is small. Since the introduction of inspection charges for wheat in 1979, forward contracts written before the date of notification of increased inspection charges for wheat delivered after the date of the new charges have attracted the old rate. It is proposed that forward contracts for wheat written before 14 September attract the old rate, whether shipped in bulk or containers. The other point the honourable gentleman raised was with respect to figuring. He said there will be an extra $25m this year. The actual amount for 1983-84 over 1982-83 is $15.9m. The actual amount of recoupment this year will be 39 per cent. I point out that the honourable member for Darling Downs was using costs of $1.56 in 1978-79 and $10.98 in 1983-84. He failed to inform the House that in 1978-79 there was no export inspection levy for meat, none was in place. He is not comparing like with like. There are a few other nonsensical arrangements. The honourable member for Darling Downs also said: 'I am not saying anything about what is happening in Queensland'. Discussions have taken place between officials. These discussions have been constructive. But also of interest is the following: According to a report in the Melbourne Sun News-Pictorial of 9 September, the Cattlemen's Union of Australia proposed that a solution to the two-service position in Queensland would be for Commonwealth inspectors to work in export works while State inspectors handled meat works which supply only the domestic market. I invite honourable members to have a look at the Queensland situation. I get sick of the misrepresentation by the National Party in Queensland about what is happening in that State. In the same report the Queensland Minister for Primary Industries is reported as saying that this had already been considered by State Cabinet but would result in a significant loss of funds because two-thirds of State inspection fees came from export works. I think the points to note in this matter are that of the total number of State inspectors, which amounts to about 130, some 35 are located at export works for the purpose of domestic product inspection. In general, Queensland inspectors take their place on the meat chain beside Commonwealth inspectors and do the same level of inspection. This could be undertaken solely by Commonwealth inspectors, thereby eliminating the double fee. But, as Mr Ahern is reported to have said, this would reduce revenue to Queensland by about two-thirds. Let us not have any nonsense about Queensland. It is responsible for the continued imposition of the dual service. There is the usual nonsense and larrikinism about socialist coffers and that we are not following the previous policy of having a strong decentralised service. This simply is not true. The overall staffing of the Service has remained pretty consistent. There has actually been a reduction of seven staff since January 1983. With respect to the central office people complaining about the previous system, the reason why we ran into so much trouble was that it was understaffed centrally. We had a system on the cheap and that is how we got into so much trouble. Since the Australian Labor Party has been in government the number of people at central office has increased from 94 to 117, but 25 of them are on short term transfer from regional offices, and back to the regional offices they will go. So all this talk about no decentralised system is nonsense-that is all I can say. We had a service before. It was on the cheap and that is why we ran into so much trouble. The work that is being undertaken in Canberra at present-that is work following on from that begun by Peter Nixon-is very complicated. Six consultancies are involved. I could give a few examples: There is a comprehensive review of inspection standards and practices for all products including meat to increase productivity; there is development of a common Australian construction and equipment code; there is development and implementation of objective product description; there are the negotiations with the States and the Northern Territory on the single inspection service; there is the development and implementation of a compliance and integrity program; there are the ongoing reviews in consultation with industry on charging methods; there is the application of modern computer technology to manpower planning and security; we are developing a new system of halal slaughter; and we are developing management programs relating to training, industrial relations and development of responsibility to the regions; and we are preparing new legislation accompanying ministerial orders. We are engaged in a very complex task. We fundamentally believe that is should be a decentralised service, decentralised to the regional offices in the States. We are continuing with that principle because it is a good one and a strong one. The real test of the Export Inspection Service will be when we can get people at the work place in the abattoirs taking decisions that accord entirely with professional standards and those that will guarantee the integrity of our products on overseas markets. To get 2,000 or 3,000 people into place doing that sort of thing is a massive task. The previous inspection service was on the cheap. We are in the business of fixing it up. Finally, in rejecting the amendment of the opportunistic Opposition, I mention one of the statements made by the honourable member for Darling Downs, that is, his statement that the Government does not like the wives and families of farmers. That is typical of the inane sort of nonsense we have come to expect from the honourable member. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr McVEIGH —Yes. I claim to have been misrepresented. In the course of the speech made by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin)-I have to give honourable members a little bit of a preamble to develop the point- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —No, just make your personal explanation. Mr McVEIGH —The Minister indicated that, as far as wheat was concerned, charges for contracts entered into prior to 1 October would attract the lower rate. I asked: 'Would that also apply to meat, edible oils, seeds and eggs'? He just glossed over it. I am wondering whether he is suffering from amnesia. I would like a reply. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I fail to see any misrepresentation. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr McVeigh's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Mountford) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 42 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 21 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Johnson, LesBeddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Brown, Robert Keogh, L. J.Brumby, J. M. Kerin, J. C.Campbell, G. Klugman, R. E.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J.Cohen, B. Mayer, H.Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterEveringham, D. N. Morrison, W. L.Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Fry, K. L. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Steedman, A. P.Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. Wells, D. McM.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J.Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. Newman, K. E.Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDrummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Street, A. A.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Reeves, J. E. Fife, W. C.Bowen, Lionel Lusher, S. A.Brown, John Cowan, D. B.Child, J. Anthony, J. D. Question so resolved in the affirmative. 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 Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 24 August, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 24 August, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 24 August, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Debate resumed from 7 September, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction) —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House has a general debate covering this Bill, the Home Deposit Assistance Amendment Bill 1983 and the Housing Loans Insurance Amendment Bill 1983 as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) -Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the three measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(6.21) —In the absence of the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife), who is in hospital, it is my pleasure this evening to lead for the Opposition in relation to this package of three Bills. It is the intention of the Opposition to divide the House not on the first two Bills but on the Housing Loans Insurance Amendment Bill, the reasons for which I will canvass later. The question of home ownership in Australia is particularly dear to the Liberal and National parties. It is something which the Liberal and National parties have always stood behind. They have made every possible effort to ensure the highest level of home ownership. That is contrasted with the approach of the Australian Labor Party over the years, starting with the late Jack Dedman who said that to create a lot of small home owners in Australia would only create a capitalist society. So it is no wonder that in 1947, when those words were used, the level of home ownership was 58 per cent- Mr Jacobi —That is the Old Testament. Mr MOORE —Even the honourable member for Hawker would recognise that by 1971, after a long period of Liberal-Country Party government, that percentage had risen to 68 per cent. A substantial effort was put into the area by ensuring adequate funding was available. After the brief period of the Whitlam socialist Government this figure dropped back to 66 per cent. Following the return of the Fraser Government, once again the level of home ownership went up to 68 per cent . This only points to the obvious intention of the citizens of Australia and their marked preference to own their own homes. Why do they do this? In a sheer economic sense, they do it because it is a far cheaper investment than renting, because it is a capital investment and because it gives families great security, the freedom to express themselves in their own environment and the great satisfaction of developing their homes as they wish. Because of that, we in the Liberal and National parties are particularly proud of what has been done by our governments over time. It might be worth while to point out the position prior to these legislative amendments. We offered a tax rebate to all those who purchased homes. A very significant amount of money was saved by the person who bought a home and took this tax concession. On top of that, there was a grant of $3,500 to those who had a savings record. This in itself contributed something like $550m in a full year to the housing sector. On top of that, the previous Government, through negotiation with the banking system, made an extra $400m available to ensure that money was available for those in the housing sector who needed it. This is reflected in the number of home loans approved in the period December 1982 to March 1983 for people who took up the benefits of the previous Government's offer. The result is shown on a chart which came to me only today from the Real Estate Institute of Australia. The chart points to a very significant improvement in that period when people took up the policy of the previous Government and put it into place. Since then there has been a dramatic fall-off in the whole of the building sector. The commercial area, no doubt, has experienced a sizable reduction. This reduction in commercial activity reflects the very high levels of interest rates prevailing throughout 1982 and into 1983. No doubt, high interest rates will inhibit investment. They certainly inhibit the ability of people on fixed incomes to meet their repayment schedules. In some cases the terms of the loans were extended by years; sometimes the home owners were forced to give up other areas of their consumption patterns in order to meet repayments. This brought about the fall in real estate values between 1980 and 1982. In some cases the high interest rates brought about a series of bankruptcies or mortage foreclosures. So the impact that interest rates have on housing is dramatic. Let me relate that briefly back to the question of the tax rebate. The benefit of that rebate, depending on one's tax scale, probably was of the order of 1 per cent to 2 per cent. It was under those circumstances that the previous Government looked at the initiatives taken by this Government in its celebrated statement of 19 May. That statement contained glowing comments about this Government's initiatives in housing. The net effect was that the Government knocked out the tax rebate. All of those people who had bought houses on the understanding that they would receive the tax rebate were left with an interest bill which was not tax deductible. They had to pay an extra $300 a year or, alternatively, the higher interest rate to which I previously referred. It is worth recalling the famous campaign pledges by the Australian Labor Party . It is almost history now how the Labor Party went around the country making speeches and promises about this, that and the other. It has not kept those promises since it came to office. That is the last thing it does. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said that this Government would retain the rebate scheme. The Labor Party told people right across Australia that it would retain that scheme. What did it do? On 19 May it knocked out that rebate. The Labor Government believes that it can say anything, do the opposite and get away with it. Because of that promise people bought homes; they bought homes on the understanding that the rebate system would be retained. However, this Government has blindly walked away from its promise and has left those people wondering what is going on. Thousands of people will not forget that broken promise. In announcing the housing initiative on 19 May, the Government not only knocked out the tax rebate but it also said that its new proposals would not apply until 1 October. Of course, needless to say, those who were interested in buying homes thought that they would defer the purchase of those homes until after that date. They put it off. The market was affected in that respect. What does the First Home Owners Bill do for those people who wish to participate in the scheme? The Bill provides that the full grant may be paid, over five years if applicants wish, to first home buyers whose taxable income is $24,300 or less. Assistance is reduced for incomes above that amount and is totally phased out when a person's taxable income reaches $27,900. A married couple with a taxable income of $24,300 or less and with two or more dependants will receive $7,000 tax free. That is a very sizable contribution. Another benefit of the scheme, as I read the Bill, is that it allows people who transfer in their jobs, such as school teachers, Defence Force personnel and miners, to retain the benefit. That, in itself, is a very commendable benefit. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr MOORE —Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was referring to the difference in approach between the Labor Government and the former Liberal- National Party Government and to the impact that interest rates had on investment generally and on the housing sector in particular. I mentioned how these impacts had adversely affected the housing sector in the last two years. I said that I was pleased to see the recent developments in the interest market where lending institutions have reduced interest rates not because of Government policy, as I heard at Question Time this morning, but because commercial demand for money is just not there. The law of supply and demand means that there is far more money in the market than there is demand. As a consequence, the price of money goes down; witness for example, interest rates. As a consequence of that I hope that all those who have been disadvantaged by the disallowance of the tax rebate will reap some benefit in this area and that the housing sector as a whole will benefit from it. Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was also making some laudatory comments about aspects of the First Home Owners Bill such as the transferability of the grant, and the fact that people who have been advantaged in this area in the past will now be able to enjoy the same position as those who have a more settled life style. On top of that there are other aspects which I am sure will have enormous appeal to the first home buyer. The Home Deposit Assistance Amendment Bill seeks to eliminate the savings requirement previously in place and imposed on people who sought assistance in the housing sector. The Opposition and I regret that this savings requirement has been withdrawn. I do so because benefits are certainly to be had from the discipline of saving-benefits to the individual, the financial system and in the general area of responsible financial management. If an individual were to buy his home with no savings whatsoever he would be committed to paying back a very sizable amount of money for which he would have to make provision. If he did not have a history of provision making that would be a severe discipline. To meet repayments would be a significant test and a significant give-up on personal consumption. The previous requirement struck me as being not a very arduous forced saving and one which certainly allowed people to come to grips with the responsibility of saving. Money that was saved was reinvested within the industry. To me a very significant factor was that people who were seeking funds and assistance would, in the future, be making a contribution and from their contribution would flow others from which they would ultimately benefit. So I regret the passing of this aspect of the legislation. I understand that in a depressed market the elimination of that aspect would certainly be of some assistance. But in my view it would not overcome the general beneficial effect of the discipline of saving which I think is desirable. The effect of all those factors, plus lower interest rates and a very substantial growth in the amounts and numbers of loans that have been sought from the financial institutions, as I pointed out previously, might well add to the cost structures if they were quickly tipped into the market. In some areas of established homes there is some upward pressure on prices. While I have no doubt that those who own the homes are grateful for that, the pattern of pricing existing homes, the price of which is largely less than the cost of building a new home of comparable size, means that there would have to be some lift in the market before people took on the added burden of involving themselves in contractual building, which certainly carries with it some major problems and decisions. The Opposition will oppose and advise the House on the Housing Loans Insurance Amendment Bill 1983. This Bill proposes two things. Firstly, it seeks to repeal the authority to sell the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. Secondly, it seeks to extend the ability of the Corporation to guarantee loans across the board. You will be aware, Mr Speaker, that the previous Government had the view that the HLIC was a government body intervening in the market-place and competing against private enterprise from a completely advantaged position because it was able to offer government guarantees whereas the private insurance corporations could not. Even honourable members with a very slight degree of interest in financial matters will readily recognise that a corporation with a government guarantee has a natural advantage in the market-place. I note that the HLIC has been operating since 1966. It is a substantial operation. In the 10 years from 1972 to 1982 the number of loans insured by the Corporation increased from 26,000 to 38,000. During that period the amount of loans insured has increased from $294m to $1,403m. This is a very substantial growth. But, to me, the most important aspect of the HLIC's accounts is the fact that on no occasion from 1972 to 1982 did it incur an underwriting loss. Indeed, in four years the underwriting profit exceeded $1m. On top of that, we find that because the Corporation paid no tax or dividend until 1977 the investment income of the Corporation is now just short of $6m a year against an operating profit in terms of premium income and operating costs of $917,000. That obviously has a substantial impact on the future. The Corporation runs a major operation which is very well sustained from its own resources. It employs only 48 people. However, I think it has made a contribution. In an area in which it is very doubtful whether one can contain government intervention, the HLIC has 60 per cent of the market and as such plays a dominating role within the market-place. In my view and in the view of the Opposition such corporations ought not to be the preserve of government because of the special advantages that accrue. The Bill seeks to extend the powers of the Corporation. At the moment there are some restrictions on the HLIC. However, it is proposed to amend section 4 of the principal Act to allow the guaranteed rights of the Corporation to include the following: (a) the development of the land for use for any one or more of the following purposes, namely- (i) commercial, industrial, health care, cultural, educational, entertainment, recreational or community purposes; or (ii) any purpose prescribed for the purposes of this sub-section, . . . . Those powers seem to me to cover everything but the rural sector. One can have a go and seek to get a loan guarantee from the HLIC. It seem to me that if we consider those powers together with the very substantial cash flow of the Corporation as set out in its annual accounts, which are very clearly presented, and I commend the corporation on that, over a five year period we will have a near monopolistic approach to mortgage guarantee. What is the Government up to? There was a great burst in the Whitlam years to turn this Corporation into some nationalised insurance corporation. This could well be the thin end of the wedge . The attitude is: 'Have a go at it. We have the cash flow; extend the power and see what we have in five years'. It is quite likely to be substantial. That certainly would not be in the best interests of the private sector. Even the Prime Minister talks about how important it is to have the private sector in a good, healthy and competitive situation. In this case the Government is proposing to take a government-owned corporation with 60 per cent of today's market and a cash flow of nearly $60m and extend its ability across the board into all the areas I have just mentioned. What will we have in five years time? We will have a very substantial government domination of this area. If it is not nationalisation by announcement it certainly will be nationalisation in advantageous areas of growth through the use of government guarantees, which will not be to the benefit of the private sector. Because of that the Opposition will divide the House on the Housing Loans Insurance Amendment Bill. I wish to refer also to the experiences of the HLIC. Some very commendable graphs in the report indicate very clearly the quite dramatic fall in the number of loans insured from 1979-80 to 1981-82 and the impact that that has had on claims upon the Corporation, which really has not been as effective as I thought it would be, bearing in mind the movement of interest rates. Because of that I suspect that in 1983-84 the level of claims will be up substantially on that shown in the report. However, I have no doubt at all that if one were to draw a line through the Corporation's income and its profits, which have risen from $3m to just short of $6m in four years, one would find that the impact in the form of extra claims will be short lived. In summary, the Opposition, while it sees some very admirable points in the first two Bills before the House, would not see them as having any great advantage over the actions taken by the previous Government. It sees them as an attempt to shift the emphasis from home ownership into public sector housing. They seek to extend the powers of a government corporation. Its future influence will certainly exceed its present influence. In terms of healthy competition, the Opposition sees no reason why the Government should be intruding into this area. These measures are fraught with dangers for the future. The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) is a moderate in these matters. It would frighten me to have some of the left wing of the ALP-those with a more socialistic bent than the Minister-in control of these matters. There would be all sorts of goings on. The House will recall the last effort in this area and the vast land purchases made by the Department of Urban and Regional Development under the present Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren). The then Government bought up swags of land around the countryside, most of which we are still paying for. We have not found a use for it. I well recall an agricultural company being consulted on what to do with the land until we found the people to use it. Such was the foresight in those magnificent purchases by DURD in years gone by. Mr Braithwaite —Who did that? Mr MOORE —It was the current Minister for Territories and Local Government. On top of that, it is very unlikely that the people will see beyond their personal interests. I hope that the Government will give private home buyers who have been disadvantaged by the disallowance of the tax rebate the real incentive to go on and, with the good luck that has come about, be able to use the lower interest rates to further their ambitions in the housing sector and home ownership. Mr KEOGH(Bowman)(8.15) —I support this package of measures that we are debating cognately-the First Home Owners Bill, the Home Deposit Assistance Amendment Bill and the Housing Loans Insurance Amendment Bill. Whilst the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) indicated his support for the first two of the measures, it is interesting to note that he clearly indicated that the Opposition intends to divide the House in respect of the Housing Loans Insurance Amendment Bill. I would say only that that Bill embodies a proposal by the present Government to reverse the decision of the previous Government and to repeal the legislation which authorised the sale of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation to the private sector and, to some extent, to extend the Corporation's charter to allow it to insure commercial building loans. I guess that it is understandable that the only reason the honourable member for Ryan was able to give in support of the Opposition's determination to vote against this measure is that, in his own words, it does not support the private sector. The honourable member may like to know-if he is not aware of it-that the Government is not sad about that. The Government has proposed this legislation to repeal the previous Government's legislation so that it does not support the private sector. The Home Deposit Assistance Amendment Bill makes a slight alteration to what has become known as the home savings grant, in that the Government acted a couple of months ago to remove-from 1 August until such time as the proposal in the first of these three Bills comes into effect-the requirement that savings would qualify a person for the grant from the Government to assist in the purchase of a home by a first home owner. I congratulate the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) on the initiative that he took in introducing this change to the present legislation. As he will appreciate, my only concern at the time was that it was not put into place earlier, because many people who supported the Labor Party in the election campaign were anxious to see us have the opportunity, as a government, to implement the very attractive measures that we proposed for home owners. We are understandably disappointed that it was necessary for them to wait for the opportunity-and for some of them to miss out-to participate in the beneficial effects of these measures. I had to explain to those people, by telephone and by letter, on a number of occasions that although I was sure they appreciated that it was in their interests to make a move to buy at that time rather than to wait for the savings by which they would benefit, it was not possible for the Government to have these worthwhile measures in operation almost overnight, as may have been expected by some following the election win by the Labor Party on 5 March. What we are proposing this evening is embraced in those three measures I have recounted to the House. I shall base my remarks principally on the first of those measures-the First Home Owners Bill. The honourable member for Ryan said this evening that the Liberal Party, which he represents, has a great interest in and concern for home owners and is most anxious to foster the opportunity for Australians to own their own home. One finds that hard to believe. His Party was in office for almost a generation. With so many years in office his Party was in a position to determine and put into effect policies that would have shown the claims he made this evening to be fact rather than fiction. He even talked about 68 per cent of Australians owning their own homes at the time his Party went out of office. That might have been so, but the point is that he failed to mention that that percentage was falling disastrously. Honourable members opposite claim that when their Party was in office it supported that great Australian dream of home ownership. At that time the Australian people were struggling to achieve home ownership, and if they did so it was despite the policies of the previous Government. Under its policies the Australian dream of home ownership was fast becoming a nightmare. Mr Speaker, let me illustrate to you and to the members of the Opposition who are prepared to listen to the facts how, after their period in office, young Australians were benefiting from what may well be termed policies which were directed not at assisting home ownership but at propping up the problems that their policies had allowed to develop in the housing industry. They were propping them up with their eyes directed to votes in the next election rather than to determining how they could assist young Australians to achieve home ownership. There is probably no area of Federal responsibility in which the former Government failed more disastrously than it did in meeting its responsibility to develop a satisfactory national housing policy. In other words , the former Government failed to organise for the Australian people the availability of housing at an economical purchase or rental price. This evening we are dealing with the measures of this Government to make available, probably for the first time, a satisfactory scheme whereby those with the most need receive the most assistance, and that is the scheme which is incorporated in the provisions of the First Home Owners Bill. It may be said that the problems created by the previous Government in the housing area are perhaps secondary to the problems that it created generally in the total area of employment. The situation in the housing area has a very big influence on unemployment. But I am sure I can quite honestly claim this evening that the previous Government's major sin against the Australian people and its major failure was in failing to provide them with adequate housing. It is an undeniable fact that had the former Government been concerned enough by the rising interest rates for which its policies were responsible, had it been concerned enough by the disastrous downturn in home building completion rates that fell lower month by month, particularly after the middle of last year , and had it been capable of putting together a viable plan to revitalise the housing industry, the unemployment problem that we faced when the Labor Government came into office would not have been at anywhere near the disastrous level that it was. These policies will stimulate home building. In recent times young Australians particularly have faced increasingly the grave problem of being unable to take the step to home ownership because of their inability to save the necessary deposit. This legislation will make it easier now for those young Australians to take that step into home ownership. The policy put into effect by this Bill is to be praised. The Minister and the Government are to be complimented for it. Of course, as the housing industry starts to pick up again and as employment levels start to increase, we will face another problem that can be laid at the feet of the previous Government. We will face the problem of the shortage of tradesmen in the buildng industry. There is no doubt that this will be a grave problem. I assure the people of Australia, and in particular the young people who in recent years have been denied the opportunity to gain apprenticeships not only in the housing field but also elsewhere-I talk particularly this evening of the housing field-that they will be supported by the policies of this Government . Through the liaison of this Government with the various State Labor governments-of course, that is the majority of them-and the trade union movement a satisfactory arrangement will be worked out. The many thousands of young Australians who missed out on the opportunity to participate in apprenticeship training in the years when they should have done so-this occurred because of the high level of unemployment-will be given that opportunity through training programs which will be arranged to provide the tradesmen for the future development of housing that will result from the implementation of these policies. I urge young Australians to think very seriously, when this legislation is in operation after 1 October, about taking the step from rental accommodation or whatever they are in at the moment into a home of their own. I caution them to be very careful about being led into taking on commitments beyond their ability to handle but I also counsel them to realise that today, as always, there is no substitute for home ownership. It is all very well and good for the honourable member for Ryan to suggest this evening that 40 years ago the Australian Labor Party discouraged home ownership. The Federal Government by its policies shows in a very real fashion its genuine concern for the need for the Government to encourage home ownership. I urge young people to think very carefully about, but to move very positively towards, accepting the opportunity presented in this very favourable package of opportunities that the Government has put before the Parliament this evening. It is an opportunity for them to take the step towards home ownership that has been denied them in the past few years because of high interest rates, coupled with the lack of a positive approach by the former Government to assist them. I congratulate the Minister and the Government for coming forward with the scheme that we are considering this evening in the First Home Owners Bill. It has been welcomed throughout the housing industry as the best move that has been made by any government to assist young people in overcoming the problems of getting their own homes. It has been welcomed by all sections of the housing industry as a correct move for the Government to give an impetus to the housing industry. It has also been welcomed by all those young people, in particular, who have for so long looked at owning their own home, but who have faced the problem of overcoming what is commonly referred to as the deposit gap. Because of the high costs of living, because of inflation-again we can relate that to the previous Government-young people have found it almost impossible to live and to put together the funds necessary to meet the requirements of the lending authorities to have the necessary deposit for home ownership. This legislation is a positive move. It is a real step by this Government to put money into the hands of those young people to assist them over that threshold towards home ownership. The funds available under this legislation will help them in various ways. They will have an opportunity to choose the way most satisfactory to them. Either initially or over the first few years of home ownership they will get real assistance to allow them to establish themselves in a home, an opportunity that was denied them by the policies of the previous Government which, in the field of housing, were directed more to preventing a loss of votes that to enabling young people to get the accommodation they so desperately needed. I urge all honourable members, despite the Opposition's attitude to the third of the three measures, which the honourable member for Ryan indicated, for the sake of all those young people who need a home and who appreciate the benefits that this Government has extended to them by this package of legislation to support all three measures. Mr GROOM(Braddon)(8.34) —As one who fought along with others over a number of years to ensure that we provided adequate assistance for first home buyers I welcome this chance to say a few words about this package of Bills, the First Home Owners Bill, the Home Deposit Assistance Amendment Bill and the Housing Loans Insurance Amendment Bill, despite the deficiencies that are evident in their provisions. I found the comments that were made tonight by the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh) very interesting. At one point he said that the Australian Labor Party was not concerned about the private sector. I am not too sure what he meant by that. He was referring to the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation- Mr Keogh —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. It may be as well for me to correct the honourable member. That is not what I said at all. I said that the Opposition is concerned only about the private sector. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr GROOM —The honourable member is very touchy. If he reads Hansard tomorrow, he might have to correct the Hansard record. That is my recollection of what he said. The disappointing aspect for those who are concerned about home ownership is that, if they look at the package of measures that are provided for by the Government, they will find that in fact the amount of money to be provided for private home ownership has been reduced. I refer honourable members to the table that appears at page 56 of the printed copy of the economic statement that was made by the Treasurer, Mr Keating, in this House on 19 May of this year-the May mini-Budget. Honourable members will see at that page the details of the package from which this legislation flows. They will find that there are a number of different aspects to the package. The Government has terminated the home deposit assistance scheme. In 1983-84, that means a saving to the Government of $50m. In its place, it has established the first home ownership assistance scheme. We are now debating that Bill-the First Home Owners Bill-and the scheme is said to cost $80m in this financial year. We add on to that amount funds for welfare housing of $127m but then take away $50m for terminating the housing interest rebate scheme, and then take away $30m for the termination, from 1 October, of the March housing interest rebate scheme. Some aspects of that particular scheme continue, but there is a saving of $30m. In this year, the cost to revenue is $77m, but the bulk of that is additional funds for welfare housing. So the clear fact is that, if this package is carefully analysed and not looked at superficially, and if all the propaganda being told about it is not accepted, honourable members will see that, as far as private housing is concerned, in 1983-84 the Commonwealth Government is saving $ 50m. There is $50m less being spent on private housing in Australia by this Government. If honourable members look at the same table they will see a saving of $255m next year. So, out of the whole package, in the next financial year the Government is not spending more money; it is spending $255m less on housing. In 1985-86, it will spend $265m less on housing. I will acknowledge that the latter two years do not include the appropriation which will obviously take place for welfare housing in those two years. If we look at it rationally, objectively and honestly, we will have to agree that the total amount of money for housing has been reduced. The main reason why it has been reduced is that the Commonwealth has terminated the assistance that was to be provided for people spending large amounts of money in mortgage repayments and the interest on those mortgage repayments. This is a real blow to the people-- Mr Keogh —Many of them did not need the help. Mr GROOM —The honourable member has had his go. Just let me have a go for a moment or two. This is a savage blow to the people in Sydney and Melbourne and in all the cities and towns around Australia who face very hefty mortgage repayment bills. What happened? During the election campaign, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) went all around Australia-the Minister for Housing and Construction ( Mr Hurford) may have too, but I do not have him on record; he can correct me if I am wrong-saying: 'We won't touch the interest tax deductibility scheme. You will still be able to put in a deduction for the interest you pay on your mortgage.' He went all around Australia promising the people this. What sort of Prime Minister do we have who makes that sort of promise and, as soon as there is an election, breaks that promise and dishonours his word? What is his word worth? We heard the Prime Minister during Question Time today admit quite proudly that he had received, I think, $1,100 for a speaking engagement as a member of the Parliament. I think that is a disgraceful admission that has been made by the Prime Minister. He said it quite proudly and then he added on other amounts. We are paid as members of parliament, and paid a reasonable salary, to express our views to the community at large. Here we have a man who pretends to have integrity as a prime minister, asking for payment for speaking to the public. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —The honourable member should come back to the provisions of the Bills. Mr GROOM —I relate that point directly to the fact that a promise was made before the election and during the election campaign that interest rates on mortgages would remain deductible for taxation purposes. As soon as the election was over that promise was broken. And the man is not concerned about it. It is almost a case of George Orwell's 1984. I suggest, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you read his book. You will see the double talk that features in George Orwell's book. We are seeing it come from the mouth of this Prime Minister. His bond is worth nothing. His word is worth nothing. This is evidenced by the statement he made and the promise which has now been broken. We should also carefully analyse the effect that the Budget will have on home ownership. Mr Keogh —Very good. Mr GROOM —Well might the honourable member say 'very good'. I will explain the matter to him. During Question Time today the Prime Minister very proudly said that interest rates on housing loans are on the way down. He said: 'This is great and this proves that our Budget strategy was well founded and was correct' . He is living in a fool's paradise if he believes that he can just take one isolated reduction and say: 'This establishes the fact that our strategy is correct'. If he looks at the official Budget Papers, particularly Budget Paper No. 1 of 1983-84, he will see it specified there quite clearly that there will be pressure on interest rates during this financial year. Mr Keogh —So what? Mr GROOM —The honourable member for Bowman says: 'So what?'. He does not know what that means. It means that interest rates are likely to go up. Mr Keogh —It does not say they are going to. Mr GROOM —I will refer to the document. The honourable member can read it for himself if he wants to. Under the title 'Financial Markets' three points are made: A further fall in corporate borrowing and an increase in household lending , a marked increase in public sector borrowing and continued pressure on interest rates. That is the likely outcome. I do not want to be a doomsday man, but if one looks at the amount of the Budget deficit-approximately $8 1/2 billion-and looks at the real evidence contained in the Budget Papers and the sound advice from the officials, not comments that are made during Question Time , one should have to come to the conclusion that for a start the Budget deficit is quite likely to be higher than $8 1/2 billion and the Government will have to go around the community borrowing vast amounts of money to finance that deficit. There can be only one result from that and that is upward pressure on interest rates. So we have this ridiculous situation in which on the one hand we have taken away this tax deductibility and at the same time during this financial year we will have this upward pressure on interest rates. The people living in the suburbs of our great cities and towns, paying mortgage interest, will suffer . They will be hoodwinked by this hoax being perpetrated by this Government. I ask anyone who is concerned about housing, mortgage interest rates and the promises that have been made, to look carefully at the Budget Papers and to analyse and read the words carefully. In particular, people should read the statement made by Mr Keating, especially page 56, which contains a table. The facts are there for everyone to see. There are a few points I would like to make about the first home owners scheme. One is that a strict means test is applied in order to get the full amount of the benefit. A family-that is both husband and wife-must have a taxable income of $24,300 or below that amount. The cut-off point is a family income of $27,900 . A family has to raise a deposit, does it not? It has to make ends meet. So in many cases both partners have to work. When a young couple works, in reasonable sorts of jobs, their income will be above those limits. If a couple's income is above $27,900 they will not get a brass razoo out of this scheme. Where is the benefit for such a couple? There is no savings requirement. That sounds good. There is some merit in that idea, but there are factors which work against the interests of those who want to buy a house. The scheme will not encourage people to deposit their money in a bank or building society, which are the traditional lenders for housing. Once upon a time the scheme encouraged people, because of the savings requirement, to deposit their money in a bank or building society. The effect of this new scheme is that those institutions will not have the same amount of money available to lend for housing. There is a misconception in the idea that there is no savings requirement, because in almost every case there will be a savings requirement. the maximum lump sum payment which a home buyer with two or more children can receive is $3,500. A home buyer with no children will receive $2,500. That is not much different from the figures which were available under the old scheme. There are not many houses which one can buy with a deposit of that sort. There is a savings requirement. People will have to work and save some money to get a deposit. The scheme is administratively complex. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government did not simply continue with the previous scheme. Mr Hodgman —It was a good scheme. Mr GROOM —It was a good and very effective scheme. Mr Keogh —This is better. Mr GROOM —We will wait and see about that. There are many complications which the honourable member obviously does not understand yet. The administrators understood the old scheme. They had a history of working with it. Now that all these changes are taking place it must be very frustrating for the officials who have to administer the scheme. There are questions to be asked. When will the lump sum be paid? People want the money at the right time. I direct that question to the Minister for Housing and Construction. He may be able to answer when he sums up the debate. Will people be paid on the signing of the contract, which is the relevant date, or will they be paid on settlement? Mr Hurford —The second reading speech tells you. Mr GROOM —I have read the second reading speech. I ask the Minister to clarify the point. I know that in the second reading speech he talked about the money being paid to the lending institution and that certificates, letters of advice and so on would be issued. It seems to me not to be a very clear statement. Mr Hurford —I will tell you again. Mr GROOM —The Minister says he will tell me again. Will the money be available on the signing of the contract? Mr Hurford —I will tell you when I sum up. Mr GROOM —The Minister will tell me when he gets some advice. Mr Hurford —If you want me to interrupt your speech and tell you now I will do so, but I think I would probably be out of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! I ask the Minister to resume his seat. The honourable member for Braddon will continue his remarks. Mr GROOM —It is important that the matter be clarified. The money is needed at the time of settlement. That is the time when the money has to be provided for the purchase of a house. That is when the money should be available. From what I hear, the housing industry has some doubts about the scheme. There is an officialdom-the bureaucrats-in the housing industry. That officialdom, which is based in Canberra, says it speaks for the housing industry. When one gets down to the grass roots level sometimes one sets a different opinion from ordinary home builders and people within the industry-the people in the real world. They are very upset about the prescribed payments scheme. I think it is relevant to mention this scheme because it does affect housing and no doubt it will affect the price of housing. The point has been made that this scheme is a great boon for the housing industry, but the industry is terribly upset about this prescribed payments scheme. It is incredibly complex. I do not know whether those honourable members who are in the House at the moment have studied all of the detailed documents that have to be filled out by people within the industry. If they have they will see the cost to people in the industry which they will have to pass on to home buyers. That is the problem. Costs will continue to spiral as a result of this kind of taxation measure. That is a matter on which the Minister might again comment. I acknowledge that it is not directly on all fours with the legislation we are now discussing, but it is a matter of concern to people within the building industry in my electorate; that is, Braddon in the north west of Tasmania, down the west coast and on King Island. That sales tax on piping and tubing and certain other materials used in the building industry will also have an impact on costs. There is a whole range of new costs, and this package is not what it purports to be or what it has been sold as. There are a lot of uncertainties about the scheme. There are a lot of aspects of the scheme which I believe will do harm. It certainly does not help the home buyer generally. The Budget itself does not help the home buyer generally because it, through the high deficit, will put much pressure on interest rates. If there is a key factor in private housing it is that we must keep interest rates as low as possible. Most of the experts acknowledge that if we are to do that we have to reduce the call on public funds. That means that we have to be concerned about the general size of government and try to get down the size of government, the bureaucracy and the tax Bill, if possible at the same time. Another factor that is relevant to housing is unemployment. How disappointing it is when we look at the Budget again and see the statement that unemployment in Australia will edge up during this financial year. That statement is in the official Budget Papers. I will quote again from the document if anyone has any doubts about it. The relevant statement is contained in the Budget Statements 1983-84, Budget Paper No. 1, issued and circulated by the Honourable P. J. Keating, M.P., Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia. At page 65 that document reads: Labour market Mr Keogh —We are honest; not like the last Government. Mr GROOM —The Government is honest, I will give it that. The document states: . . . an edging up in the rate of unemployment. That again relates to one of the promises made to the people of Australia; the promise that 'we will do something about unemployment'. Only a few weeks ago the Government said: 'We will get unemployment down'. Here is the admission in the official papers tabled in this House by this Government that unemployment will go up. How disappointing it is for the people of Australia, especially the young people of Australia, when they read those sorts of comments. Mr Hurford —You agreed to 15 minutes. Mr GROOM —The honourable member is upset about what I am saying. Mr Hurford —No, I am not. I am telling you that you agreed to 15 minutes. You are saying nothing, so for goodness sake get on with it. Mr GROOM —The main point is that this package will not assist private home ownership. In fact the amount of money that is being provided for home ownership in this package. Mr Keogh —What rubbish! Mr GROOM —It is there for the honourable member to see. He says: 'What rubbish'. He should have a look at the figures for himself and see what I am getting at, if he can understand them. The amount being provided for private home ownership has been reduced in this financial year and, according to the figures, for the next two financial years. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(8.54) —I will try to restrict my comments to the legislation before us. I firstly take the opportunity to contratulate the Minister for House and Construction (Mr Hurford) on his presentation. It is unfortunate that some people do not read the material that is distributed in this place. The first of the Bills, the First Home Owners Bill, has two great advantages which meet the Government's commitments and philosophy. Firstly, it will stimulate employment in the housing and construction industry and in the industries which benefit from a flow-on of increased activity in that area. Secondly, it will achieve the more obvious objective of making home ownership more accessible for those in the income brackets presently finding that objective most difficult. In many ways this Bill is an example of how government spending can achieve the dual purpose of meeting a social objective helping thousands of people in this community and at the same time creating numberous jobs in the key industries with major impact on the economy as a whole. If the previous speaker allows the legislation to be enacted he will begin to see its benefits. They will make his arguments appear fairly shallow. The legislation provides an example of how levels of spending budgeted directly to job creation can be misleading when a government has these dual objectives in mind. The creation of jobs must and will remain the prime policy of this Government. The stimulation of key sectors such as the building industry will bring benefits to the people throughout a much broader spectrum. However, other important elements in this legislation differentiate between the philosophy of a democratic socialist party which is committed to redistributing the economy in favour of low income earners and the disadvantaged-which the Opposition seemed to have little regard for when it was in government-and that of an Opposition devoted to serving the interests of capital, the greedy, and widening the economic inequalities within this society. This Bill removes the requirement on young couples and home buyers to meet certain savings guidelines before being eligible for home buyer assistance. This requirement of the previous Government discriminated against low income earners who were unable to meet the savings requirements. It hits those people at a time of life when their commitments are often higher and they are most in need of the type of assistance provided in this legislation. It is ludicrous to say to young people at a time when they most need assistance that they can have such assistance only if they meet a savings requirement that for many is quite impossible. I ask some of the previous speakers to think back to when they were first married and had the responsibilities of that period and remember how difficult it was for them to save and meet requirements such as these the previous Government placed on young couples. This Bill realistically confronts that problem and brings all those home buyers under its umbrella. The third of the cognate Bills, the Home Deposit Assistance Amendment Bill, allows for the savings requirements to be removed. But beyond that benefit, the First Home Buyers Bill makes two other important changes. The benefits are available to householders with a taxable income of $24,300 or less. It maintains at reducing levels to a cut off point of $27,900. These figures will be adjusted annually in line with the movements in average weekly earnings. This is a realistic income level ensuring that those most in need in society will receive this assistance. The second important change is that applicants will have three options under the scheme: An annual subsidy over five years; a lump sum with a lower annual subsidy; or an even higher lump sum with yet lower annual subsidies. As the Minister has stated, these options allow applicants to choose between making higher repayments, offering a higher deposit or being eligible for a higher loan . However, I must point out that there are problems the Government must consider in expanding these types of programs. As I am sure the Minister is aware, we must provide a balance which will not 'disbenefit' our commitment to public housing. We have made a commitment to double public housing stock over 10 years. This was an election commitment made by the Leader of and spokesman for the Australian Labor Party. The commitment itself will only scratch the surface of the problem which was ignored by the previous Government. From the defeat of the last Labor Government to the election of this one, our free enterprise advocates , now thankfully in opposition, cut public housing funding by 64 per cent. I think that is probably one of the major reasons-it is certainly one reason-why people in the community swung heavily against them at the last election. As a Government we have a long way to catch up in the public housing area. I would hate to see that catch up retarded by an overcommitment to the private ownership philosophy. That philosophy comes from years of conservative governments at both Federal and State levels in Australia, a period notable for the sharp move away from rental housing to the privatisation of the market. This period saw developers grow rich with the support of governments such as that represented by the Opposition and of governments which imposed few controls. The basic principles of urban planning with provisions of services of public transport and reasonable accessibility were forgotten in the scramble for profits. As a result the governments of today are faced with major cities, particularly Melbourne and Sydney, which have been badly planned outside their immediate urban environments and require massive spending to compensate for the planning disasters of almost half a century. The carrot of home ownership has also forced average income buyers and young families and householders to spend disproportionate amounts of their incomes on housing. This commitment has served the conservative forces by binding these people to the economic slavery of home repayments. It has served the conservative cause by turning the family into an alienated ghetto using financial commitments as a barrier to militant industrial and political activity . I concede that the alternative today is for most people to be bound to the exploitation of private landlords. They are a group of people in society against whom I hope this Government moves very shortly. In my electorate landlords are probably the biggest offenders against people. The way in which they treat some of these people through evictions and exorbitant rents must be taken account of by this Government. Therefore, a democratic socialist government must make a deep commitment to increasing public housing stocks and providing a real alternative to the present system. Having said that, I believe that employment benefits inherent in this Bill and its commitment to assisting those people most in need-a commitment that this Government made before the election and one which it will continue to carry out-make this Bill most commendable. I also commend to the House the Housing Loans Insurance Amendment Bill. Its major thrust is to amend legislation from the previous Government to hand the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, a government body, over to its big business mates-its cronies. We saw evidence of the former Government's position when this Government reintroduced bottom of the harbour legislation to get money from the tax avoiders that the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) tried to defend. Members of the Opposition rejected that legislation. They are the people who tried to flog off the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation to their business mates in the insurance industry. The Corporation was introduced by the previous Labor Government -to serve a public purpose. There is absolutely no reason why it should be handed over to big business other than to hand government established profits to the mates of the previous Government. The expanded franchise given in this legislation will have the same benefits as I talked of earlier. It will boost employment opportunities in the building and construction areas. Therefore, it is another example of legislation not directly creating or financing employment opportunities nonetheless creating those opportunities. However, again I give a warning. In difficult economic times the great myth of home ownership is threatened as unemployment, high interest rates and the disadvantage of low incomes place pressure on home buyers. In recent years thousands of homes have been repossessed and sold. If one drives through any major city one sees the 'For Sale' signs in front of houses. It has been the habit, particularly of some major building societies, to sell these homes at less than the market value and to claim the difference from the HLIC. The HLIC, or the appropriate insurance body, then claims the difference from the home buyer. I am aware of numerous heartbreaking cases where families who have had their homes repossessed have been literally thrown on to the streets with a huge bill hanging over their heads. The best interpretation of these activities is that building societies have been too anxious to sell the homes too quickly, knowing that there is an insurance backup but not caring for the disadvantaged persons whom they have evicted from the homes. The worst interpretation is far more sinister. I believe that the Government should use the HLIC to ensure that the best market value is obtained if homes must be sold because of defaulting buyers. However, I believe that we should go further and use the advantages open to us through this public enterprise to prevent buyers being thrown out on to the street when the problem lies with factors outside the purchaser's control-factors such as employment, erosion of real wage values and high interest rates. The three Bills before the House are a step towards assisting those people in need. From the beginning of the election campaign through to this Government's election we have been committed to assisting those in need. Having listened to the comments of Opposition spokesmen, in particular the honourable member for Braddon, I doubt whether they have read the legislation. I repeat: This legislation will make it easier for people on lower incomes to buy a house, to settle down and to raise their families. In commending the legislation, I point out that I have raised the other matters in the hope that the Minister for Housing and Construction will take them into consideration in the future. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(9.05) —Despite seven years in Opposition during which the Australian Labor Party gave assurances that it knew where it was going in relation to housing, the Labor Government has been slow to take positive action. It is no exaggeration to say that there have been a few hiccups along the way. To claim, as the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) did in his second reading speech, that the Government has 'an ambitious and innovative program for action in housing' is plainly gilding the lily. If we look at the substance of the Government's announced program, there is very little that could be considered innovative. One would have to have very low horizons indeed to reach the conclusion that there is anything ambitious about it. To make a virtue, as the Minister has tried to do, out of consultations before the Government's intentions were announced calls for some imagination. All this talk of consultation tends to be meaningless. If talks with the housing and finance industries resulted in the Government accepting the views of practitioners in those industries it may well be a matter of some pride and satisfaction. However, the Minister makes no such claim, and it must be concluded that, whilst talks took place, in no material way did they influence this so-called package. That is just as well because the Government will claim and will deserve any credit due. It should not be in a position at some time in the future to blame anyone in the industry if the program fails. For a strange and chastening example of what this Government seems to mean by consultation we have to go back only to the May mini-Budget and ensuing events. The Minister for Housing and Construction announced the more important of the decisions reflected in this legislation at the time of the May mini-Budget, as honourable members may remember. On that occasion he claimed full and prior consultation with all State governments. Soon afterwards the Western Australian Minister for Housing is reported to have said: Incentives to first home buyers contained in the mini-Budget could actually bring the home building industry to a halt. As it turned out, the Western Australian Minister was right, and the Hawke Government had to institute interim measures to fill the void it had created by deferring commencement of its deposit assistance scheme. I get back to the point and to the Western Australian Minister's statement that the measures then announced could bring the house building industry to a halt. He said that after the claimed full consultation with his colleague the Commonwealth Minister. That would seem to indicate that each Minister, jointly and severally, did not consult or if he did, one or the other was not aware of or was prepared to ignore the other's views. Either answer would seem to indicate confusions between ministerial colleagues from the same party about the reasonable outcome of consultation between cohorts, what may be thought to have been the natural outcome of discussions or consultations between seemingly natural allies. One thing is clear: Consensus could not be claimed then. Why did the Western Australian Minister for Housing express his contrary view? He is quoted as reasoning: I have a real fear prospective home buyers will hold off until the new incentives come into operation and that this could bring the home-building industry to a halt. He was dead right. The questions which logically arise are these: Did the Minister for Housing and Construction tell his Western Australian counterpart that increased non-repayable, tax free grants will not be available until after 1 October 1983? Did the Minister for Housing and Construction acquaint housing industry representatives of this delayed commencement date? If he did, the Western Australian Minister and housing industry representatives were merely crying wolf. If the Minister for Housing and Construction did not, the Commonweath's claims for the value of consultation and, by innuendo, consensus are fatuous nonsense. The best way this Commonwealth Government or any Commonwealth Government could help the housing sector of the building and construction industry would be to set about reducing deficit spending to manageable levels. Instead, this Government comes up with a so-called package for housing which panders to many myths promoted by politicians and, to a lesser extent, by bureaucrats from the housing industry. Apart from housing for the needy, any current lack of demand for new houses reflects the realities of the market place. There is no lack of long term finance; there is no lack of capacity in the building industry. However, there is a lack of reality in this Government's so-called initiatives in relation to housing. It is a long time since there was a sustained shortage of funds held by lending institutions which traditionally finance house purchases. That old chestnut is not relevant in today's housing market, but the Minister is not afraid to throw it in for good measure, as it were. There is a comparative abundance of funds. Recent published figures bear adequate testimony to that fact. Although improving partly because of measures taken by the previous coalition Government during 1982, new housing commencements remain considerably below optimum levels. While the market continues to sort itself out, we may very well reflect on the reasons it will be difficult to increase the number of new housing commencements, particularly in the private sector. The first has to do with high levels of interest payable by mortgagees. In saying that, I am mindful of the welcome news that interest payable by mortgagees has been reduced by one half of one per cent with the real prospect of more to come in the near future- perhaps another half a per cent. But interest rates remain burdensomely high, even with these promised and prospective reductions. Given that this Government seems to have committed itself to Budget deficits anywhere between $8 billion and $11 billion over the next three years, there can be no room for optimism in relation to interest payments. Unless the Government reduces its spending or its deficits it will be faced with an accumulated national debt of $70 billion or thereabouts within three years which will take it very close to its total outlays in the year 1985-86 if we can rely on expenditure growth patterns of recent times. Interest payments just to service accumulated borrowings of that order will account for $7 billion or $8 billion in three years time. Mr Cadman —Absolutely frightening. Mr ROCHER —It is frightening. If anyone thinks that prospect is not frightening, let him also reflect on demands to be made on the Australian financial market by State governments, statutory authorities and demands taking the form of semi- government borrowings. In the light of that scenario the Government may well ponder its decision to discontinue tax rebates for housing loan interest claimable by both existing and potential home purchasers. Certainly the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard) and the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) in my own State of Western Australia will have some explaining and rationalising to do to their electors, particularly those with mortgages. The second reason for uncertainty in the housing market, and in my opinion the most important, is the failure of this Government to commit itself to reducing the number of unemployed over the next three years. Despite election campaign rhetoric this Labor Government, through the Treasurer (Mr Keating), appears to have accepted that it is inevitable that at least 700, 000 Australians may expect to be unemployed over each of the next three years. Whatever that says about the Government's sincerity will be left for the electorate to judge at the appropriate time. For the home building industry this means that a whole host of young couples will decide not to purchase the greatest single asset they will buy in their lifetimes until such time as they are convinced their employment prospects are sound. I believe that will not happen until Australia has a Liberal led Government occupying the Treasury benches in Canberra. Not just the 700,000 plus unemployed will not be able to purchase housing of any sort, let alone new houses. To that list must be added those tens of thousands of others presently employed who under this Government do not have the confidence to take steps to realise the dream of owning their own homes. We can be grateful, I suppose, that the Minister has deferred, at least for the time being, the 'funny money' housing bond scheme enshrined in the ALP's housing policy. That omission by deferment may well prove to be his greatest single achievement. We may also consider the suggestion that this so- called housing package will in itself lead the way towards economic recovery. Those who believe, as I do, that increased new housing starts are usually only precursory to economic upturn might easily misread the outcome of these measures , whatever the benefits. Mr Cadman —Oh, they won't be fooled. Mr ROCHER —I am assured by my friend that they will not be fooled. New housing starts arising out of normal economic activity should not be confused with commencements attributable to one-off forays by a government using handfuls of taxpayers' money. Without the necessary underlying economic strength we all want for Australia, nothing lasting is achievable in housing or in any other desirable economic activity. At the wondrous National Economic Summit Conference the Minister on behalf of his Government outlined a five point program which purported to give some hope for employment prospects in the building industry. This is what he envisaged might be the panacea for the ills of the building and construction industry: An expanded capital works program; more money for public housing; a community works program; jobs on local roads; and adoption of lease- purchase arrangements to facilitate construction of Commonwealth office buildings, presumably to accommodate those armies of public servants to be recruited as a result of the ALP's big government policies. Mr Cadman —A taxation led recovery. Mr ROCHER —A taxation led recovery, indeed. Well, I have news for the Minister and the Government. The only thing worth a can of beans to the house building sector of the building industry is additional funding for public housing. That benefit will be very narrow and will offer work prospects only to those who are contractors. There is nothing in it for the commercial cottage builder who traditionally builds houses for private sale, who in number forms possibly the largest segment of the cottage building industry and who is, indeed, the backbone of the house building industry. I offer the Government a few words of encouragement and exhortation on its welfare housing policy. In his second reading speech the Minister for Housing and Construction spoke of focussing on more innovative approaches to the provision of public housing in negotiations with the States. That is a move that I welcome. Traditional public housing has not been a great success in Australia or in many other countries in the world. So I welcome the promise of innovation. But I most earnestly request the Minister not to circumscribe the debate by restricting it to-and I quote his words-'the provision of public housing'. The problem to be tackled is the provision of decent housing to those who cannot afford to pay market rates. The traditional approach has been for governments to buy, cause to be built or otherwise acquire accommodation and then to rent it at uneconomically low rates to a relatively few at the top of a long list of applicants. The subsidy is attached to the accommodation and the benefit goes to those who are fortunate enough to get that accommodation. I have cited ample evidence in earlier speeches in this House that this indirect approach is an inefficient one. Not all public housing goes to those most in need and not all of those most in need get public housing. What is more, there is no certainty that those who are in need and who get public housing will remain in need of subsidised accommodation as their financial circumstances improve. The expense of moving from public to private sector accommodation is also a factor that can deter or prevent families from moving house and on many occasions makes finding a job even harder. In this regard I note with some satisfaction that the Government makes provision for the portability of the first home owners scheme. The Government's awareness of this problem in home ownership suggests that it will appreciate the analogous situation in welfare housing. All those disadvantages of traditional welfare housing can be overcome by adopting the following two principles for all Government housing programs: First, rent for public housing should be at market rates; and second, welfare housing should be achieved by subsidising the tenants and not by subsidising the property. The Minister's mention of the expected results of the review of the mortgage and rent relief scheme suggests that his mind is open to ideas such as this. I am sure that all honourable members on both sides of the House would prefer to see efficient and equitable welfare housing systems in this country. To summarise, Mr Deputy Speaker, apart from the additional money allocated for public housing, the package represents a backward step. With that one important exception, nothing can be said to advantage the prospects for home ownership in Australia. Certainly the broken election promise to retain the existing deposit scheme as an option to the new scheme is a retrograde step. So is the discontinuation of the tax rebate to lower the impact of historically high interest on home mortgages. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(9.21) —In speaking in this debate, I begin by congratulating the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) for his personal efforts in this area. I congratulate also his Department and personal staff because, as I want to outline in a moment, a lot of effort has been put in , and some points I will make in respect of the comments of previous speakers will show that that effort has been put in. It is not effort that proceeded as if somehow we on this side had a monopoly of truth and those on the other side did not. I detect the sad echoes of the past in that some of the speakers opposite seem to think it appropriate to bash, bash, bash as if somehow they possess wisdom and we do not, and yet out there in the community it is very clear that people are wanting solutions to their problems and not argumentation, which is a rather pointless activity. I will come back to that point in respect of some earlier comments because people listening to this debate are relying on us to perform and the more that honourable members opposite engage in this pointless exercise of bash, bash, bash the more the people realise they were justified in getting rid of the previous Government in March. I think it needs to be said that the negotiations the Minister for Housing and Construction and his staff have had with the industry and the unions will stand our proposal in good stead. We are debating three issues tonight. The first one is the home deposit assistance scheme, which has been amended; the second is the first home owners scheme, which we are introducing; and the third is the determination to continue with the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. I say to those opposite, including the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher), who has just sat down, the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) and the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom), that in a sense they were on the right track with their home deposit assistance scheme. That is really the sad part about it because after we made the announcement of the first home owners scheme on 19 May, I returned to my electorate on 20 May and when the housing industry people began to speak to me it became apparent that one of the shortcomings of our proposal was that many people were deferring their decisions until October. The Oppposition was quite right; the State Minister for Housing was quite right. However, there were some legislative impediments-to say nothing of the fact that we do have some contrary people in the other place who may have knocked back that legislation-which meant it was better, in a way, as an interim measure to remove the savings requirement from the previous Government's scheme. So here we are; we are not pretending we have it all right. We are saying what the reality is, and the reality is that members of the Opposition were on the right track except that they were dealing with the wrong people. We were trying to deal with the people most in need. We have amended the home deposit assistance scheme. In referring to that, let me talk about the people with whom we consulted. I was interested to hear the honourable member for Curtin talk about there being no consultations. I know the Minister for Housing and Construction, at the Housing Ministers conference, had already spoken about the schemes we were bringing in, so he had consulted. The honourable member for Curtin has gone ahead and said that there was no consensus or consultations and that the schemes were not innovative or ambitious. I have also taken on board the comments of the State Minister for Housing, Mr Wilson, who talked about deferrals. I have already dealt with the question of deferrals. Somehow it must have been imagination, because let me list the people with whom we have consulted since May. They were people such as Jack Richards, representing the permanent building societies in Perth; Harvey McLeod of the Master Builders Association; John Hawkins of the Perth Building Society; Ron Smith of the Housing Industry Association and Collier Homes Pty Ltd; Bruce Brotherson, the Registrar of Building Societies; Derek Park of the Real Estate Institute of Western Australia; my good colleague Gavan Forster of the MBA; Keith Holten of the Federation of Building Societies; Bill Brewer of the Westpac Banking Corporation; Alan Harris of the Rural and Industries Bank of Western Australia; and Peter O'Dea of Abode Homes. These are the people whom I must have imagined we have consulted with since May. I will go on. There was also David Fischer of the R and I Bank; Keith Campbell of Pacesetter Homes; Ray Clohessy of the Building Workers Industrial Union-we also involve unions in our considerations. These are the sorts of people with whom we have consulted since May in seriousness and honesty to try to get a better housing approach. Had honourable members opposite been serious, they would have gone through this process as well . However, they did not. Another thing I have to say to them is this: If they say that our schemes are not working, why is it that the Real Estate Institute of Western Australia topped 400 sales in August for the first time ever? Why is it that 47 per cent of those sales were for first home buyers, of whom it is calculated 87 per cent will qualify for the grant? That is not fiction; that is factual. Mal Dempsey and Associates and The Professionals in real estate also claim that they have had the best month for a long time. A survey done by the Master Builders Association shows a substantial increase in the number of advertisements for trades people in the West Australian newspaper. I am talking about commencing trades. The honourable member for Curtin has to understand-I will say it clearly and, if need be, slowly-that the commencing trades of carpentry and bricklaying are those in which there has been a substantial increase in orders. Again, we are not imagining that. Contrary to what he said, it is very clear that the scheme is working. It is also said that our schemes are not delivering jobs in the industry. We surveyed the top 10 builders in Perth and they showed increases in activity from 50 per cent to 200 per cent. One comment made by major builder was: 'There will not be enough trades people to build all the homes that we have had ordered since you amended the scheme in July'. Again that is not fiction; that is factual. I repeat: Despite the Opposition's talk about our not consulting with people, here is evidence that we have listened to them. We have tried to amend things; we have tried to get a scheme that works. I say honestly to honourable members opposite that their scheme had some sense to it. We have removed the savings component and it is now even more sensible. The problem with their scheme was that people on lower incomes could not meet the threshhold. Why was that? It was simply because of economic circumstances. With the reduction in overtime that occurred in industry-we all know about that-people were not able to build up any savings and, therefore, people on lower incomes were not able to get started in the housing industry. That is not a case of party politics; that is reality. It is not a case of taking sides; it is a case of dealing with the real issues. Has the amendment to our scheme announced in July worked? I have given some facts and figures already which indicate that it has worked. The honourable member for Curtin made some comments about my colleague the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard) and me in the seat of Stirling having to be very concerned because we are not delivering the goods. The reports we have from organisations such as Pacesetter Homes show that they are selling houses in suburbs such as Balga in the electorate of Stirling and Girrawheen in the electorate of Moore. Those houses are being sold to people on very moderate incomes. Some of those people are coming off the public housing list, so we are freeing up some public housing capacity for people to take up private sector capacity. Again, that is not a question of party ideology, it is not a question of a neat argument in this place; it is a question of dealing with the reality presented to us by people out there. I am not trying to pretend that we on this side have a monopoly of truth. That is one of the problems that the electorate sensed with the previous Government. It always claimed that it was right. We do not claim that we are always right. We claim that we are sensible enough to listen to what people have to say to us. The amendment to the home deposit assistance scheme, the previous Government's scheme which we brought through in July, has worked. The first home owners scheme will also work; because in the last few days there have been substantial reduction in interest rates. Again, it is not just a question of our side putting up a whole lot of argument and pretending that we have it all right. Interest rates have fallen because, first of all, the Budget has met with the agreement of the financial institutions; secondly external factors with respect to the United States dollar have been working in our favour; and, thirdly, there is clear evidence that financial institutions are very liquid at the moment and so can afford to move more money into the market place. The crucial thing that has to be said is that, as a consequence of the Budget and this housing scheme, institutions as widespread as the Commonwealth Savings Bank, Westpac, the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd, the National Bank of Australasia Ltd, the Commonwealth Trading Bank and the R and I Bank of Western Australia have all chosen to drop rates from around 12.5 per cent to 12 per cent. A one-half per cent reduction has occurred in the home borrowing area. I might add that it is a source of satisfaction that some of the reductions have occurred also on existing loans as well as on new loans. One of the things that we had to face up to with the removal of tax rebates was that some people already locked into the system were, perhaps, marginally disadvantaged. However, with reductions in interest rates we can demonstrate that that disadvantage is not as severe. Interest rates have been lowered not only by the banking system but also by the building societies. Interest rates have been lowered in New South Wales by the NSW Permanent Building Society Ltd, the St George Building Society Ltd, the United Permanent Building Society Ltd, in Victoria by the RESI Permanent Building Society and in Western Australia by the Town and Country Permanent Building Society, the West Australian Building Society and the Perth Building Society. Canberra building societies also have reduced interest rates. Again, this is not something that has been concocted by the Government. This is economic reality. It enables people either to meet their housing repayments more easily or to begin to get into housing. Our objectives are to generate jobs and to get more people into homes. Those objectives are being met in terms of the schemes about which we are talking-the modification of the home deposit assistance scheme and the first home owners scheme which this Bill proposes-and, certainly, by the interest rates targets which were one of the factors in budgetary policy. It is no good enough for those sitting opposite simply to say that we have not succeeded in terms of having a larger deficit. The projected deficit has obviously been accepted by the financial institutions. Because of that, they are prepared to lower their interest rates. That is the factual circumstance. Mr Deputy Speaker, I think it has to be said also that, when we look at the ways these schemes operate, there are some areas of concern. I have dealt already with the issue of tax rebates. Quite obviously, the tax rebate system introduced by the former Government had some benefit to it. However, the disadvantage was that it was neither efficient nor effective; it was socially regressive. The reason was that the higher the income one received the more effective that rebate was. I understand that honourable members sitting opposite forgot from time to time about people on lower incomes. Those people have reminded the Opposition and us of this fact because they have stopped voting for the conservative parties. We have not forgotten them. We deliberately directed the policy to those people. We have not been locked into some ideological situation where we are trying to pretend that all we are going is looking after the public sector because, as I have said, the people we have consulted are in the private sector. Honourable members sitting opposite are really stuck with the evidence. The evidence is overwhelmingly against them. It is overwhelmingly in support of the Government and of the Minister for Housing and Construction and his State counterparts who are delivering the goods with respect to housing. I now devote a moment or two to talking about the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. That is an issue which concerns the Opposition. It has said it will divide on the legislation. The HLIC exists to provide mortgage insurance. One of the things that I would like to see in terms of the HLIC is an extension of its capacity to provide insurance not only for those who lend money but also for those who borrow money. I am sure it will come as a surprise to those sitting opposite that one of the great disincentives to people borrowing money is the threat of unemployment. One of the proposals that I put very seriously to the House is that, if we extend the capacity in the HLIC, through its charter, to provide mortgage insurance for those who borrow and therefore protect themselves against the circumstance of unemployment, we will have provided, again, a great social advantage for people in the community. I put that view seriously. The calculations are that with something like a $100 fee over and above the existing fee paid for insurance on behalf of the lender, we could provide insurance for the borrower. That would give a great incentive to people to enter the market. People on moderate and middle level incomes have a great disincentive to get into the market because, if they lose their jobs, they cannot meet the repayments. That again, is a piece of factual evidence. It is not a question of the Government dressing it up. If we extended the charter of the HLIC, we could provide good coverage for these people. We would provide also a further stimulus to the housing industry. I believe that that is an important proposal. We have to deal with the issue of homelessness. In the Budget $50,000 has been appropriated to conduct such a study into homelessness. Homelessness developed under the former Government. It still exists under our Government. It is a social tragedy. We do not pretend that it is not there. We do not shy away from it. We will address ourselves to it after we have done some analysis of the implications of it. There is also the question of rents. One of the big problems that governments of all colours face is how to deal with that large area of the population which pays rent. One of the only ways to deal with it is to increase the available housing stock and therefore keep down the market price in terms of rent. As I began by saying, I think it is important when we look at these schemes to say that the home deposit assistance scheme amendment which we have put in has worked. It certainly has increased commencements in my own State of Western Australia and in the Federal electorate of Stirling. Employers, unions and potential home buyers are demonstrating that-I gave the evidence in my speech earlier-and there is a lot of evidence from the Master Builders Association and others to show that it is working. I think that beyond that the first home owners scheme will provide that further stimulus. But in addition, I believe an important factor is that interest rates are now proving to be very optimistic signs that the housing industry can continue to perform. I believe it will perform. It has been demonstrated that the Budget has been accepted in terms of a strategy. However, there is a word of caution; that is, that at the current time, with the current demand for housing and tradesmen in housing, certainly in metropolitan Perth, we will be short of skills for housing. One of the important issues we have to face-and this is in direct contradiction to what the honourable member for Curtin said-is that there will not be enough tradesmen to build the houses in Perth. It would be a retrograde step to do as the present Opposition did in its time and simply bring in migrants. We are much more concerned to train tradespeople in the appropriate areas. I am very pleased to see that in the Budget we have appropriated more money-substantial amounts coming under the vote of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations-for skills training and industry training. So obviously we are addressing ourselves to that important need. I believe it is important to say that these three pieces of legislation embody some important economic and social goals of this Government. They are the goals of economic performance, of creating jobs, and of consulting honestly and sincerely with our partners in industry in unions and in State governments. We are doing that. It is also important to recognise that the schemes will offer an increasing number of people the opportunity to get into their own homes. It is already occurring. There is a dominant trend occurring, certainly in the electorate of Stirling, and I am very pleased to be able to welcome that trend. In summing up I say that if we look at the evidence coming back from industry, there is a lot to say that not only should we commend these Bills to the House but the community as a whole is saying to us that it commends these Bills to the House. Mr FREE(Macquarie)(9.38) —I will take only a couple of minutes to indicate my very strong support for this package of Bills and to congratulate the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford), who is at the table, for the excellent features contained in Labor's new first home owners scheme. It contrasts with those schemes that operated under the previous Government from time to time and in various fashions in a number of very important ways. Apart from its generosity this scheme has clear objectives. It has been formulated after careful assessment and consultation with the housing and finance industries, again, unlike its predecessors. Again, unlike its predecessors, there is no suggestion that this scheme will be subject to the chopping and changing which became the hallmark of earlier Liberal assistance schemes. Unlike its predecessors it is clearly based on need. It is simple. It is flexible. Its benefits are portable and, most of all, a real effort is being made to communicate its features to people in the industry, to lending authorities and to home seekers. I was very pleased to hear the Minister say that information will be made available not only throughout the capital cities but also in centres located in western Sydney and Melbourne. Under the old schemes many people simply did not apply because they did not know of the existence of the schemes and the benefits available to them. The Minister will, of course, recall that he was in my electorate on Friday last to open the Penrith Building and Leisure Centre. This information centre is the largest of its type in the southern hemisphere. The fact that it was opened on Friday last is a tribute to the vision of its Managing Director, Mr Pieter Berkhout, and his fellow directors. On that occasion in a first class opening speech the Minister for Housing and Construction explained the first home buyers scheme to a large, enthusiastic and attentive gathering of local people. That gathering included people from local government, people involved in the building industry and people involved in lending to home buyers. I am pleased to report that the response from that gathering was overwhelmingly enthusiastic. People are endorsing the scheme because of its clear objectives, its generosity, its simplicity and its flexibility. I share their view that this program will give home seekers the help they need. It will also give the building industry, and therefore employment, the boost it needs. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(9.40) —in reply-In closing the second reading debate I want to thank all of those honourable members who have spoken. Government members who participated in the debate included the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh), the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand), the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) and the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Free). I sincerely thank them for their support and for the homework that they have done on this important legislation. As the honourable member for Melbourne, among others, indicated, this is a first step. We are not resting on our laurels. However, we have undertaken an enormous amount of consultation with a wide range of people. We believe that we have it right in this area. We shall be watching the results and, indeed, trimming the sails and undertaking initiatives as they are required. The honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), the shadow Minister for Finance, led for the Opposition in substitution for the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife ), who is the shadow Minister for Housing and Construction. I would like to send a message to the honourable member who, I believe, has been unwell and who may be listening to the broadcast tonight. We hope we shall see him back in the House very soon. I know that he will miss the opportunity of being able to take part in this debate. The honourable member for Ryan made a few points in a serious speech to which I would like to respond. First of all, he seemed to think that the Fraser Government's panic measures of March 1982, which were its last attempts at a housing policy, were satisfactory. The honourable member presented some distorted figures and sought to suggest that the housing activity position had been improving after the 6 March 1982 initiatives-that is hardly the word I would use-or the 6 March 1982 changes made by the Fraser Government. That is far from the truth. The best indicator of how the housing industry is faring is housing commencements. I want to read to the House some figures relating to housing commencements in a more recent period. Leading up to March 1982, commencements were at a relatively low figure of 29,130. Then came the measures to which I have referred. In the June quarter commencements were down to 28,420, in the September quarter to 26, 620, in the December quarter to 24,920 and in the March 1983 quarter to 24,010. We do not yet have the figures for commencements for the quarter ended June 1983 . However, on every indication dwelling commencements for the year ended 30 June 1983 are going to be about 106,000. This is a 20-year low. This is the inheritance of this Government from the previous Government. We have to go back to 1962-63 to find housing commencement figures as poor as those for the year 1982-83. The honourable member for Ryan sought to make capital out of the need to terminate tax rebates on home interest repayments. Tax rebates have not been terminated for first home buyers who qualified for the first home buyers tax rebate scheme upon buying their first home after March 1982. He pointed out reasonably accurately that the general rebate made a difference in interest rates of 1 per cent to 2 per cent. At the same time, of course, he and his colleagues made great play about cutting government spending and the deficit. They have told this nation, as they have told members of this House, that they would want to cut the deficit by about $2 billion. Now where would they make cuts other than perhaps in housing and construction? They said that if they were in office they would not cut expenditure on defence or social security. If we take out the great amount of expenditure on defence and social security we are not left with many areas. We can be certain that there would be enormous cuts in the interest rebate. There would be nothing like the first home owners scheme that is the subject of the legislation before the House tonight. The fact is that due to wise economic management we are now seeing a reduction of interest rates. That reduction of interest rates will more than offset the benefit available to those who could take advantage of the general tax rebates. The third point made by the honourable member for Ryan related to our waiting until 1 October for this scheme to be introduced. I pay tribute to the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh), the previous Minister for Housing and Construction, because he takes a constructive interest in the administration of housing. He could educate those on the other side of this House as to the fact that my officers have had to work incredibly hard for four months in order to get this legislation to the stage at which it is today and for it to be launched in the way in which it should be launched so that the people who can benefit from it will know about it. Some of those officers are here tonight and I pay tribute to them for the work they have done. Of course they have needed these four months in order to bring the legislation to this stage. The fourth matter raised by the honourable member for Ryan was the removal of the savings requirement. That arose out of the need to stimulate the market prior to 1 October. We anticipated that there would be problems. We knew that we were bringing in a very attractive scheme. We knew that the scheme that we had inherited from the Fraser Government was a miserable scheme that had not been properly presented. Part of the home deposit assistance scheme was reasonable, but as to the tax rebate, nobody knew what they would benefit from until the end of the financial year. There was no way that the lending institutions could understand just how much would be available to those who were benefiting from the previous Government's tax legislation. We have combined the two forms of assistance. We have combined the help which is now available for those who require assistance with their deposit gap with direct help with interest rates over the first five years of home ownership-the most difficult years when large mortgage repayments have to be made. The honourable member for Ryan and his colleague the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) suggested that there was some merit in the discipline of savings leading up to the taking out of these contracts. I say to them both that that is nonsense. The people who can really determine whether an applicant is ready for home ownership, is ready to take on a mortgage, are those who are doing the lending. They are the people who will be sitting down with the applicants and assessing whether they are suitable to receive the loans. Whether or not they have a savings interest will not be applicable to this decision in many cases. It will depend on the individual circumstances. I believe that a troglodyte attitude has been expressed in relation to this matter and that we can safely leave the decision to the lenders. They will know whether the applicants have the capacity to undertake home ownership. Home ownership itself, of course, creates a discipline and requires people to save. Before dealing with the last point raised by the honourable member for Ryan in relation to the Housing Loans Insurance Amendment Bill, on which, due to ignorance, I believe he will divide this House, I wish to deal with a couple more points made by the honourable member for Braddon. He said that the home deposit assistance scheme was just as good. I ask the rhetorical question: Why has there been such enormous enthusiasm for the first home owners scheme from everyone in the industry, be it the Real Estate Institute of Australia, the Housing Industry Association, the Master Builders Federation of Australia, or the lending institutions, all of whose members had a hand in the consultation and advised us leading up to the introduction of this scheme. Honourable members have to take only the slightest interest in what is happening in this country's housing market right now and to learn just how the number of applicants to offices of the Department of Housing and Construction around the country has mushroomed enormously since people learnt of the first home owners scheme, to know that they are talking nonsense when they say that the home deposit assistance scheme is anywhere near as good as the one that we have introduced. I pay tribute to the quality of the advice that I have received, starting off at the mini-summit on 28 April, which was when this scheme took a very important new stage of birth. The second point made by the honourable member for Braddon concerned young people working and the difficulties that that creates. He has probably overlooked the fact that, unlike some schemes in the past, if a young couple's previous year's taxable income debars them from taking advantage of this scheme, but one of them has left work-perhaps to have a baby-we shall take into consideration not the previous year's joint income but the current year's joint income. that will help enormously to look after the people for whom the honourable member has a genuine and proper concern. The next point raised by the honourable member was: When will the lump sum be paid? I draw his attention to the outline of the details in my second reading speech. The application can be lodged as soon as there is a contract. Of course, in the case of an established house, that is easy to determine. In the case of coming to an arrangement with a builder, the point of contract is when the agreement is signed with the builder prior to the house being built. But then, payment of the lump sum will be made before settlement, or it could be made at settlement if the amount is assigned to a lending institution. Mr Groom —Can it be before settlement? Mr HURFORD —Yes, it can be, but we would prefer to pay it to the lending institutions in those cases, because we want this money to attract people into home ownership. We do not want it to be just for an extra, for building a fence, or anything like that. We want it to attract a whole new class of people into home ownership, those on the margin of home ownership who otherwise could not afford home ownership. In the way in which the scheme has been designed, with this option available-whether it is the $7,000 if there are two children over the age of 5, or, if there are two children, at the other end of the scale, $3, 500 help with the deposit gap, and then $750, $650, $550, $450 and $350 interest help-it will be best if that is assigned to the lending institution so that the institution itself feels that there is security in making, perhaps, an additional loan. Mr Goodluck —Can single girls get it? Mr HURFORD —We can have any permutation and combination of people who can benefit from this scheme. It could be single men, single girls or two or three people together. But whoever is named on the contract has his or her or their income included in the calculation to see whether jointly he, she or they deserve this help from the Commonwealth. Mr Groom —What will be the delay between the application and the payment? Mr HURFORD —We are hopeful that our administration will be such that we shall be able to get the payment made about two weeks after the application is made. Lastly, the only other honourable member who took part in the debate was the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher). He has left the chamber already but I will say that I thought his contribution was disgraceful. It was ill-researched. He has obviously not been in touch with the industry. His remarks have been more than adequately answered by the honourable member for Stirling. He did not speak about the subject for most of the time. How on earth he beat Senator Fred Chaney for preselection for the seat of Curtin is just beyond my understanding. I come now to the Bill dealing with the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, on which I understand the Opposition will divide this House. The fact is that the previous Government's decision to sell that Corporation was strongly opposed not only by the then Opposition but also by most people who are involved in the industry. The Corporation's retention was a clear commitment by the Australian Labor Party, now in government. When the Government announced that the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation was to be retained-I announced that at an annual conference of the permanent building societies-that announcement was warmly welcomed not only by the Australian Association of Permanent Building Societies but also by the Housing Industry Association, the Real Estate Institute of Australia and, indeed, the cream of the private sector in the housing industry. The Opposition has failed totally to mention the two-pronged approach we take to the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation in this Bill. Firstly, we are extending its charter. We do not resile from that in one small way. Secondly, of course, we are introducing that special payment to put the Corporation, as far as possible, on an equal footing with the other bodies in the housing loans insurance area. Far from further advantaging the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, the action we are taking will equalise the position in regard to its competitors in the private sector. Clearly, as was stated in the Press releases put out by the permanent building societies and others, there is enormous support for this measure the Government is taking. I say to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), who is in the chamber at present, that he really ought to be better advised by those of his colleagues who are involved in this area. Let me read from the Press release of the building societies: The building society industry also welcomed the Government's decision to extend the charter of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation . . . AAPBS had campaigned vigorously against the decision of the previous Government to abolish the HLIC. No wonder the Opposition has lost its traditional support when it cannot even keep up with what bodies such as the permanent building societies want in an area such as this. Mr Groom —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. One of the important issues raised earlier was sales tax. Can the Minister answer that point, please? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr HURFORD —The way that point was put was so convoluted that it was unintelligible. I think it could be said that I have done more than the normal task in answering questions in this second reading debate. I have been very proud of the support I have received for this measure. I thank those who have helped us to bring it to this stage. We believe that we can lift the number of housing commencements in this country from the 20-year miserably low figure of 106,000 to a rate of 130,000 to 135,000 by the second half of this financial year. It has been with pleasure and pride that I have introduced this Bill to the Parliament. I now hope that the Parliament generally will not only pass the First Home Owners Bill and the Home Deposit Assistance Amendment Bill but also support us in what we are doing with the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Hurford) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 7 September, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Hurford) read a third time. Debate resumed from 7 September, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Hon. Les Johnson) Ayes 65 Noes 41 -- Majority 24 -- AYES Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R. Beazley, K. C. Jones, Barry Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J. Bilney, G. N. Kent, L. Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J. Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C. Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E. Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J. Campbell, G. McHugh, J. Charles, D. E. McLeay, Leo Charlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J. Chynoweth, R. L. Mayer, H. Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B. Cross, M. D. Milton, P. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, Allan Dawkins, J. S. Morris, Peter Duffy, M. J. Morrison, W. L. Edwards, Ronald Mountford, J. G. Everingham D. N. O'Neil, L. R. T. Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Fry, K. L. Scholes, G. G. D. Gayler, J. Scott, J. L. Gear, G. Simmons, D. W. Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H. Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R. Hand, G. L. Steedman, A. P. Hayden, W. G. Uren, T. Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McM. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Hurford, C. J. NOES Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D. Andrew, J. N. Lloyd, B. Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J. Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T. Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C. Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C. Coleman, W. P. Newman, K. E. Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R. Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, Ian Drummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C. Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M. Fisher, P. S. Shipton, R. F. Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC. Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M. Hall, Steele Street, A. A. Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D. Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Howard, J. W. PAIRS Reeves, J. E. Fife, W. C. Bowen, Lionel Lusher, S. A. Brown, John Cowan, D. B. Child, J. Anthony, J. D. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Hurford) read a third time. (Budget Debate) Debate resumed from 8 September, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(10.14) —It would appear that Australia is slowly beginning to pull out of the recession but that growth in the economy in 1983 will remain slow. The most reliable estimates set Australia's growth rate this year at 0.2 per cent, which is a shade lower than the 0.3 per cent achieved in 1982. The question now is simply whether the 1983 Budget will capitalise on the opportunity to build on that 0.2 per cent growth and lead us to a resurgence. In other words, does this Budget lead us to conclude that a growth rate of, say, 3 or 3.5 per cent can be achieved in 1984? Regrettably, I believe that this Budget will not build on the 1983 growth rate which resulted from the previous Government's policies. The Hawke Government has failed to grasp with open hands the opportunity to lead this country out of its recession. The consequences of continued recession are all too obvious. At the risk of stating the obvious, this Parliament or any parliament must have as its paramount concern the future of our country. Consequently, youth unemployment poses one of the most expensive and heart rending social and economic problems now facing this country. The true awfulness of being poor and young, and young and cynical, is difficult for us to truly imagine. We must not slam the door in these people's faces. Why then do I believe that this Budget will not lead to economic growth? I believe that the Budget, not to put too fine a point on it, rejects the private sector and also rejects the rural sector. Clearly the Government, through its Budget antipathy to both the private and rural sectors, believes that increased public expenditure will achieve economic growth. That, Mr Deputy Speaker, is a mistaken belief that will cost Australia and its unemployed dearly. It is only through vigorous and profitable-I know the word 'profit' is anathema to members of this socialist Government-growth that Australia will come out of its present recession. Let us first examine the Budget's treatment of the private sector before examining the attacks on the rural industry. The overall expenditure in the Budget increased by a massive 15.8 per cent. One major effect of the Budget' s $8.4 billion deficit will be higher inflation. It is ludicrous for the Treasurer to expect an inflation level of 7.5 per cent in the next year. As he said in his Budget Speech as reported at page 57 of Hansard of 23 August 1983: The Consumer Price Index could rise by about 7 1/2 cent in year-on-year terms . . . The Treasurer arrived at that figure only after the effects of the Medicare system were taken into account. On the Government's figuring this will artificially reduce the consumer price index by 3 per cent. Consequently, that means an underlying rate of inflation of at least 10 per cent. Whatever chance there was of achieving single digit inflation was lost as a result of the huge deficit. Inflation will lead to demands for wage increases outside the Government's very frail and already crumbling prices and incomes policy with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The strain on small businesses in particular will be crippling. Inflation also will not help Australia's trade balance, as its major trading partners have reduced inflation to around 2 per cent or 3 per cent. In Budget paper No. 1, the Treasurer has this to say about our relationship with our trading partners: At present . . . the Australian economy is not well positioned to improve its share of world trade. In particular, our inflation rate is currently more than twice that of our major trading partners. Prospects for 1983-84 are for no more than some narrowing of that margin. That is the effect of inflation as a result of the huge deficit caused by this Government. Another effect upon inflation is indexed excise duties. I refer to the indexed increases and excise duty on beer, spirits and cigarettes-3c on a packet of cigarettes, 3c on a bottle of beer and 30c on a bottle of whisky. Prices in future will go up in line with the CPI on 1 August and 1 February of each year. That is simply institutionalised inflation. Another major effect of the huge deficit will be interest rates. Like it or not , interest rates will not drop by any appreciable margin but will remain at a level which discourages and indeed in most cases prohibits investment in businesses. Continued high interest rates sound the death knell to small businessmen and entrepreneurs. The effects on large companies are all too obvious. As profits are diminished by interest repayments on loans, investments in new projects are curtailed. The bottom line is that unemployment increases. The recent 0.5 per cent decrease in home loan interest rates is due to a drop in American interest rates and capital inflow into Australia. The Budget fails to tackle, let alone diminish, the three major economic problems in this country; that is, inflation, interest rates and unemployment. The unemployed have every reason to feel betrayed by a government which, on election to office, promised to create 500,000 jobs in three years. The Government knows that to create 500,000 jobs in three years would require a growth rate of at least 5 per cent per annum. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), and the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) in particular, have persisted with this cruel myth. Indeed, 'myth' is not the word; it is a cruel hoax. It has to be described for what it is-a hoax. It is shown to be a hoax at page 68 of Budget Paper No. 1 which indicates that unemployment will increase by half a per cent in 1983-84. Mr Hunt —All their own doing. Mr McGAURAN —It is all their own doing. Moreover, it is their own figure. However, I fear that this is a very optimistic view of the growth in unemployment in the next financial year. I very much fear that the figure will be significantly larger. That fear is already crystallising. The Australian Bureau of Statistics showed that there was a loss of 52,000 jobs in August; that is, 52,000 fewer jobs were available in August than in July. That is a major effect of this Budget and it will increase, regrettably, in the months to come. Some political commentators propagate the myth that the economic policies of the Government are not too far removed from those of the Opposition. Perhaps the only factor in the Budget that I and my colleagues can take some comfort from is that this myth has been shown to be utterly false. The Opposition's alternative Budget would have provided relief and incentives for the private sector and would have rejected out of hand increased undisciplined public expenditure. The Opposition believes that economic growth is achieved through the private sector. The Government believes that it is achieved through the public sector. That difference is clear and unequivocal. It will be laid before the Australian people to choose at the end of a year, when the Government Budget of big spending and stimulation of the public sector can be properly judged. Our political philosophy is intertwined with the rights of individual success, individual growth and individual profit. The Budget strikes at the incentives for individuals to work hard and to accumulate savings. I now turn to the Budget's treatment of the rural sector. It needs to be said that the mini-Budget of 19 May, with its unprecedented savagery, laid the groundwork for the Budget of 23 August. Do the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance have to be told of the importance of the rural industry to this country? Do they have to be told of the importance of the rural industry to our foreign trade? Do they have to be told of the huge number of Australians who rely, either directly or indirectly, on the rural sector for their employment? I suggest that the Government's action in the 19 May mini-Budget and the 23 August Budget leaves not a scintilla of doubt about its discrimination against country people. Whilst total outlays in the Budget for agricultural and pastoral industries will fall by nearly 10 per cent over the previous year, as I mentioned earlier overall Budget expenditure will increase by 15.8 per cent. If this figure is not sufficient proof of the Government's discrimination against country people, any examination of the specific measures against country people is sufficient. These measures are very easy to list. In the May mini-Budget we had these measures against country people: First, the reduction of general depreciation allowances; second, the removal of the tax incentive from the income equalisation deposit scheme; third, an increase of 2c a litre in the excise on aviation fuel; fourth, abolition of the special depreciation allowance for petrol storage; and fifth, abolition of the automatic in-out opting provisions of the tax averaging scheme. That is probably another matter to which the Minister who is endeavouring to interject might like to give consideration. The problem with the Minister for Finance is that when he is not surrounded by his advisers he has difficulty coming to grips with some of these technical matters. The list continues: Six, cancellation of the bicentennial water resources program-nobody has ever accused the Minister for Finance, who is still endeavouring to interject, of having a great intellect or a pleasant personality ; seven, the decrease, at a cost of $10m in 1983-84, in the subsidy payable under the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme; and, eight, the increase in interest payments on Telecom Australia and Australia Post borrowings, resulting in higher telephone and postal charges. Those are the eight measures. Let us have a look at the August Budget. Its list of discrimination against country people is as follows: First, increased cost recovery- Mr Simmons —Tell us what you would have done. Mr McGAURAN —I have been asked, if I may pause in this litany of discriminatory acts against country people, what I would have done. The honourable member has either just walked into the chamber or, in the typical fashion of Government members, has been sitting here in some sort of stupor. I have said, and said repeatedly, that this Opposition is committed to stimulation and growth of the private sector because by way of stimulation of the private sector economic growth is best achieved, and economic growth will bring jobs. That is probably not a matter of tremendous concern to the honourable member; but, if he mixes and circulates amongst the unemployed, and particularly unemplyed youth, it would be a matter of as much seriousness to him as it is to the members of this side of the House. The August Budget hits country people through a number of measures, most of which have been documented by my distinguished colleague the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) as well as my equally distinguished colleague the honourable member of Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron). The honourable member for Maranoa represents the people of Queensland in a vigorous, distinguished manner. The mini-Budget and the Budget hit hard at the rural sector at a time when it was recovering from the worst drought in Australia's history which resulted in great suffering-suffering which I and my National Party colleagues either witnessed or experienced at first hand. The figures need to be pointed out to this Government . They show that there was a fall in gross farm product of 18 per cent which, measured in real terms, means that farm incomes show the largest percentage decline in the last 30 years. All the Government can do is to take away what little incentives there are and, moreover, unfairly and harshly burden primary producers by its cuts in expenditure. In conclusion, by its Budget the Government has failed to capitalise on the slight growth rate predicted for 1983-84, and its failure is due to its concentration on public expenditure at the expense of the private sector. The matter is that simple, Mr Speaker, and for Australia it is that tragic. Debate interrupted. Excise on Grape Spirit-Miss Sandra Walters-Education-Funding for Job Creation Schemes-South West Tasmania-Nuclear Research-America's Cup Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr FISHER(Mallee)(10.30) —The grape spirit tax introduced by the Hawke Government is the categoric breaking of an election promise and, if not withdrawn, threatens not just the viability of thousands of grape producers supplying grapes to wine makers but also the very future of the wine industry itself. The supply of dried grapes for packing far exceeds the demand in Australia at present as our industry has to export its surpluses each year into a world market-place which is over-supplied. As you, sirs, would no doubt be aware, world prices for dried fruit are presently severely depressed and returns to our growers from the sale of exported fruit barely covers the cost of production. This new excise on grape alcohol will cause a fall in the production of fortified wines. This in turn will cause the diversion of many thousands of tonnes of dual purpose grapes from wine making into drying. A large wine maker in my electorate has already indicated that his intake of gordo grapes next year for winemaking will be substantially reduced if the excise on grape alcohol remains in place. If the tonnage of gordo grapes which is dried next year is allowed to increase substantially, the impact on the dried fruit industry as a whole and on growers' incomes in particular will be devastating. The principal effects of this measure introduced by the Government will be that there will be increases in excess of 40 per cent in the retail prices of some lower cost wines with more expensive ports and dry sherries rising by about 37 per cent. Lower sales will result in substantially decreased intakes of grapes in regional areas such as the Riverland, the Riverina and Sunraysia which supply the bulk of Australia's multipurpose grape material. Price increases in Australian fortified wines will also result at least partially, if not totally, in substitution by lower priced imported fortified bulk wines for bottling in Australia. The financial effects of the requirement that duty be paid within seven days of usage cannot be sustained by Australian winemakers. Even if this payment is deferred until just prior to sale, the effect of the impost will be disastrous. Of a total of 294 million litres of Australia wine sold in 1982-83, almost 50 million litres, or 17 per cent, were fortified wines, flavoured wines, and vermouth. However, because a bottle of fortified wine contains twice as much grape material as a bottle of table wine, makers of fortified wine use more than 34 per cent of all grapes crushed for wine. The maintenance of adequate consumption levels of fortified wines is therefore of particular significance to the Riverland, the Riverina and the Sunraysia grape growing communities. Another company, one that produces some 24 per cent of all fortified wine in Australia, has informed me that it has already advised its growers that it will reduce its intake by 20,000 tonnes of grapes in the 1984 vintage. At an average of $170 per tonne, this represents a gross loss to the grape growers of some $3. 5m. As I said, in 1983-84 some 50 million litres of fortified wine were sold in Australia. One tonne of grapes yields about 400 litres. On this basis fortified wines would have absorbed 150,000 tonnes of grapes. At an average price of $170 a tonne this represents a gross income across Australia to grape growers of some $25.5m. For every 10 per cent drop in sales these grape growers, predominantly independent in the regional areas, would lose a gross income of $2,550,000. I am also concerned that because of this tax and under present circumstances it is unlikely that many Australian winemakers will continue to produce ports, sherries and other fortified wines if they can only satisfy the market more profitably with imported wines. If this occurs the financial effects on wine makers will be negligible. On the other hand, it could well mean that the loss of all grapes presently grown for making fortified wines will occur throughout these particular regional areas. Over recent weeks the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Hicks), other members of the House and I have asked the Government to drop this totally destructive tax. I reject as a gimmick the suggestion by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) that he will consider a different form of excise collection. The Australian grape industry is going through an extremely difficult period. Grape growers cannot cope with the additional impost . I call on the Hawke Government to admit its gross error and to withdraw this tax and any thought of a general tax on the industry. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(10.36) —Located on the Queensland coast, about 1,000 miles north of the State capital, is the small township of Cardwell. Cardwell hosts a vigorous Returned Services League sub-branch. The Cardwell-by-the-Sea sub-branch has no club house. It conducts its business from a shire council building. It does have a great sense of service to Australia. It was the first RSL sub-branch in Australia to donate money to the bush fire appeal. This move mushroomed through Queensland and eventually became a nation-wide RSL fund raising appeal for bush fire victims. The sub-branch members donate financial assistance not only to former comrades in arms and their families but also to the community generally. I wish to speak about a young Australian who recently shared with the Cardwell- by-the-Sea RSL sub-branch a notable Australian achievement. Last week a 19-year- old girl, Miss Sandra Walters, was crowned the 1983 RSL Golden Girl. Every year, over the past 24 years, the Queensland RSL has conducted a Girl in a Million quest. It is a State-wide quest involving eight RSL districts. Over $1 1/2m has been raised during the period the quest has been conducted. Lately the funds that have been raised have provided homes for war veterans. Such homes are located at Cairns and Bowen. The Golden Girl quest is the charity section of the Girl in a Million quest. Sandra Walters raised a total of $12,142, the highest amount raised in the 1983 Girl in a Million quest. To raise the money, Sandra and her local committee, chaired by Mr Jim McLaughlin, ably assisted by Mr Cliff Muncey, conducted many fund raising activities which included fashion shows, discos, street stalls and the like. One event alone, a trash and treasure market , raised $1,500. Sandra visited the Australian Army Field Force Battle School at Jarra Creek, near Tully, during her fund raising. Army reservists from the 12th Independent Rifle Company of Launceston were so impressed by her dedication that , upon their return to Tasmania, they conducted a raffle which included a prize of a week's holiday to the exotic Hinchinbrook Island resort near Cardwell. This splendid effort raised $710 from Launceston people. Sandra's parents, Ray and Veronica Walters, reside at Kennedy, a railway township servicing the forestry district north of Cardwell. Her family is very community minded, well liked and respected in the shire. She has three sisters and a brother. Her ambition is to be an air hostess. Her outstanding effort in raising the highest amount of money in Queensland for this quest is applauded by the people of North Queensland. The Cardwell-by-the-Sea sub-branch President, Mr Bob Russell, and other people in my electorate are of the opinion that her effort is in the highest traditions of Australian womanhood and they congratulate her. The Hawke Government-an authentic Australian government- recognises in Sandra's efforts those fine qualities that are so vitally needed if Australia is to achieve and maintain its rightful role among the free nations of the world. Truly, Sandra Walters is a citizen of the new Australia led by the Hawke Government. I am honoured to say that the Hawke Government and, I hope, the Opposition, extend congratulations to her and to members of her family. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(10.40) —Last week the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) published letters in at least two newspapers-the Canberra Times and the Sydney Morning Herald-in which she complained that a paragraph in an article which she wrote a couple of years ago, in which she expressed opposition to parental freedom of choice in education, contained an editing error. Some people have taken this letter to imply that there was a fundamental error and that she is not opposed to parental freedom of choice in education. I am not surprised that the Minister is touchy on the matter since the paragraph in question has explosive implications and has been frequently quoted back to the Minister as further evidence of her dogmatic hostility to non-government schools. Let me quote the paragraph of the letter which appeared on page 46 of the Sydney Morning Herald dated 10 October 1981 over the name of Susan Ryan. This was in a review of the book Politics is for People by the British member of Parliament, Shirley Williams. The paragraph reads: It is with reluctance that I for one conclude, after reading this book, that the freedom to send one's children to an independent school, is bought at too high a price for the rest of society. The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs now tells us in her letters to the Press that she did not write this paragraph which in fact is a quotation from Shirley Williams's book. Her letter says: Unfortunately, an editing error resulted in this comment being attributed to me . Of course, all honourable members will accept what the Minister now says. In saying this, I am a little more charitable, incidentally, than the honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer) who last week, without consulting me, said that I had made 'a knowing misquotation' from the Minister's book review in my speech in this chamber on the Government's cuts in grants to non-government schools in my electorate. In fact, at the time I spoke, I did not know of the Minister's letter to the Canberra Times that morning. If I had, I would have then made the comments I propose to make now. As I said, all honourable members will accept what the Minister now says. It can, in any case, be easily confirmed by referring to Shirley Williams's book where, at page 158, the sentence in question appears with one qualification. The editing error was quite a big one since, as well as leaving out quotation marks, it involved adding the new words 'after reading this book', which of course do not appear in the book. It ties the conclusion drawn more closely to the book reviewer, Susan Ryan. It is presented as her conclusion 'after reading the book' . However, the correction does not bear the implication that the conclusion against parental freedom of choice is not the Minister's. What is more interesting about the letter is not what it says but what it does not say. A sentence from Shirley Williams's book was wrongly attributed to the Minister but it still clearly expresses the Minister's view. The letters to the Press gave the Minister a fine opportunity to say publicly-certainly to a wider public than reads Hansard-that she rejects Shirley Williams's view and that she is in favour of maximising parental freedom of choice in education. But, of course, she does not say that because she does not believe in it and she is in favour of reducing, if not eliminating, freedom of choice in education. That is why she has been a member of the Australian Council of State School Organisations which wanted State aid abolished. That is why she has appointed to the Australian Schools Commission two men who are opposed to State aid. That is why there is now, for the first time, no representative of any non-government school on the Australian Schools Commission. The fact is that Shirley Williams's view that 'the freedom to send one's children to an independent school is bought at too high a price for the rest of society' is also the Minister's view. The Minister has had ample opportunity to deny this and she will not, apart from quibbles about the difference between Australian and British systems. On the fundamental question she is silent and her silence is deafening. In the remaining moments I wish to refer to one of the absurdities that characterises discussions of non-government schools of level 1, including those in my electorate. Government members say that because the schools charge fees of about $3,000 a year they are wealthy or privileged schools. The basic fact is that most of the parents who prefer these schools endure financial hardship to send their children to them. Most of the mothers go to work purely to pay the fees. They do not complain about this because they are exercising freedom of choice and do not expect that to be easy. But they do expect to be treated fairly by the Government and to be helped by a basic grant for every Australian child, while agreeing that quite obviously schools in special need should receive more than the basic grant. This the Government and the Minister deny. The people who will most suffer are those who are already enduring hardship in order to meet the fees. They will face greater hardship when fees go up, which they will after these cuts. I believe this decision is one which, like the tax on superannuation lump sum payments and its assets test for pensioners, the Government will come to regret. Ms FATIN(Canning)(10.45) —Tonight I rise to congratulate both the Federal Government and the Western Australian State Government for the wage pause program grants made this week in my Federal electorate of Canning. Total money allocated in Canning amounts to $287,669. In all, 50 jobs will be created and 50 men and women in Canning will have the dignity of a job, even if only for a short time. As is known, jobs created under the wage pause program and the new Commonwealth employment program are to give the long term unemployed and disadvantaged in our community the opportunity to gain work experience. My first priority as the member for Canning is to do everything within my power to bring work to the jobless for I recognise the tragic plight of men and women faced with unemployment. It is because of this priority that I am proud tonight to mention the councils, community groups and organisations which have been successful in gaining funding for their projects. These bodies are to be congratulated for their community spirit in applying for funds to create jobs. I urge them and others to further apply for the substantial funds which are now available under the community employment program. Within the electorate of Canning, there have been successful sponsors. The city of Gosnells was given a grant for work by a drafting team. The grant of $25,309 will be for one job for a draftsperson for 26 weeks, and two jobs for drafting officers for 26 weeks. The Combined Services Club in Rockingham for work on the Warnbro Sound fishing reef, was given a grant of $34,088. The jobs created will be one for a leading hand for 12 weeks and nine for process workers for four weeks. The Apex Club of Gosnells received a grant for work on the Apex park at Wilkinson Homestead. The amount of the grant is $34,558. There will be a job for one bricklayer for one week, one bricklayer/labourer for one week, one carpenter for one week, one gardner for four weeks, four labourers for 16 weeks, one supervisor for 12 weeks and one carpenter/labourer for 12 weeks. The shire of Rockingham was given a grant for work to construct a playground and equipment for that playground. The grant is $59,235. The jobs that will be created are for two leading hands/truck drivers for 19.5 weeks and four reserve attendants for 19.5 weeks. The town of Armadale received a grant for recreation facilities. The grant will be $120,549. The jobs that will be created are four stone layers for 16 weeks, two truck drivers for 16 weeks, 12 labourers for 16 weeks and two concrete finishers for 16 weeks. The shire of Serpentine/Jarrahdale received its grant for work at the Byford Hall and war memorial. The grant is $13,930 for one horticulturist for 26 weeks. This is a total fo $287,669 and there will be 223 weeks' work. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.48) —It is now 75 days since 1 July this year, a fateful day in the history of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, when the High Court of Australia, as a result of the actions of the Hawke socialist Government by the narrowist possible majority, declared that the Gordon below Franklin power development scheme in Tasmania would not proceed. The people of Tasmania as they were duty bound, ceased construction thereupon of that major project. I speak tonight about what happened in the 75 days following 1 July. It is a matter of shame and regret that notwithstanding the firmest and clearest commitments made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on behalf of the Hawke socialist Government, that since 1 July when the High Court gave its judgment in this case and work thereupon stopped, not one cent in compensation has been paid to Tasmania, nor has the Hawke Government provided one job for the 377 Tasmanian workmen who have been displaced in their employment. It is a matter of profound shame and regret that the people of Tasmania now find out that the word of the Prime Minister and this Government simply cannot be trusted . The Prime Minister has said on a number of occasions that no money can be paid until the draft agreement is accepted and executed. I reject that proposition as legally untenable and, in political terms, contrary to the normal practice. I remind honourable members of this House that on previous occasions when there has been a need for a Commonwealth payment to be made, payments have been made and made on account and quite properly so. In the case of bushfire relief and the recent tragedies in Victoria and South Australia, the previous Government said: 'Here is a payment to you on account'. Back in 1967 the same course was taken by the then Prime Minister, Mr Holt. This Government has provided in the Budget an appropriation of a miserable $30m for 1983-84 in respect of compensation to the State of Tasmania in relation to the action of the Australian Labor Party in bringing to a halt the Gordon below Franklin power development scheme. The Prime Minister should act like a statesman and say to the Premier of Tasmania: 'We will pay to you on account that $30m and you in due course will account back to the Commonwealth authorities showing that the money has been paid for compensation payments to men who have been put out of work and to contractors who are now about to go bankrupt'. The State of Tasmania is currently properly investigating-quite frankly, it should look very carefully at it-the draft agreement which has been sent to it by Prime Minister Hawke. Quite frankly, I think it is a death warrant . The honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom), the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr) and the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman)-all Liberal Party members-and Liberal members of the Senate have been outspoken on this matter. But what of Australian Labor Party senators? They have not spoken one word. They have been prepared to see Tasmania sold out, as has the State Leader of the Opposition, Mr Wriedt and the State members of the ALP have adopted a supine and acquiescent approach. The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), who is at the table, is a member of the legal profession. He will know that what I have said is correct and that the money can be paid on account. The position is now so serious that in Tasmania we are receiving letters from people who wrote to the Press opposing the dam but saying that Tasmania should be properly compensated. Spike Milligan is a very good example. They are now seeing their points of view dishonoured. They are seeing the cause for which they fought prostituted by the Government. Dame Joan Sutherland is another such person. This Government has once again failed to honour its commitments. Could it be, Mr Speaker, that the present Government is taking it out on Tasmania because the people of that State had the good sense not to swallow the socialist bait and gave the Labor Party a thrashing on 5 March-something which many other Australians will wish had happened in many other parts of Australia on that day. Mr KENT(Hotham)(10.53) —Australia is presently spending about 30 per cent of its annual energy research funding on nuclear energy research. Almost all of this nuclear research is being carried out at the research laboratories of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission at Lucas Heights. One of the two major projects, centrifugal enrichment, is to be scaled down. However, this project was very costly and calls into judgement the strategies of the AAEC. The same question can be asked about the scaling-up of the synroc development. The $1m pilot plant for synroc is for non-radioactive simulated mixtures of isotopes. While synroc process has some scientific basis it is far from being scientifically demonstrated as an answer to the high level waste problem which has plagued the nuclear industry from its inception in the 1940s. The justification of claims for the advantages of synroc over glass come from limited laboratory tests on non-radioactive isotopes and an analogy between synthetic rock and natural rock. The number of variables and the time scales of the extrapolations used call for much more evidence to be gained at great expense before critics are likely to be satisfied, if ever. Testing in the AAEC laboratory has made very little way on the incorporation of radioactive isotopes. This restricted approach to the real problem of the handling and performance of high level waste, or even isotopes fractionated from it, must relate to practical considerations. One is that the AAEC is remote from the actual handling of high-level waste in either spent-fuel storages or reprocessing plants. From the 1981-82 annual report it seems that only now are actual tests with some fission products being carried out. The building of a pilot plant for non-radioactive simulated mixtures of fission products seems to be putting the cart before the horse. The information likely to be gained in the way of fabrication techniques may not be much more than is known now about ceramics technology. It will certainly add little to finding out how to quantify the cost of operating a 'hot' plant in which handling of radioactive materials calls for complex and very expensive equipment and safety measures. In supporting these initial stages of synroc development the Government is being committed to a very expensive program before any convincing appraisal of synroc can be made. Ironically, the claims for synroc are based largely on claims that it performs better than glass. Professor Ringwood has so devastatingly criticised glass that it can hardly be taken as a credible material to serve as a basis for comparison . Workers overseas have found synroc enbarrasingly susceptible to leaching if it has aluminium in its formulation. No doubt experiments will be made to exclude aluminium, but these results raise two questions: Why a pilot plant until these problems have been resolved in the laboratory, and what other damaging effects may occur in the conditions to be faced over hundreds of thousands of years? So far little interest has been evinced overseas in synroc. This raises the question of whether AAEC is beginning an indefinite development program open ended in terms of ultimate cost. The two countries either operating or building a vitrification plant, France and the United Kingdom respectively, are planning to put their glass blocks in cool storage for up to 50 or more years. This decision is an acknowledgment by the authorities involved not only of the limitations of presently known disposal methods as they appraise them but also of the fears of people. The synroc process will have to come up with a very spectacular demonstration of safe disposal if those fears are to be dispelled. In the United Kingdom even the exploratory drilling for disposal sites has been stopped because of fierce opposition of local governments. Last week Professor Ringwood circulated an unsolicited paper telling us how wise it would be to export our uranium. The good professor should have left the question of whether or not we are going to hawk our uranium around the world to the Labor Party to decide. He should have concentrated more on telling us how much the nation is spending on his research into high level radioactive waste disposal and whether he is proposing to make Australia the world's dumping ground of high level radioactive waste. His paper left many questions unanswered in this regard. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(10.57) — Early tomorrow morning the race of the century - the America's Cup-commences at Newport, Rhode Island. I believe that this event will be the consensus sporting event of the year. On behalf of all the landlubbers in the electorate of Maranoa in Queensland, Australia, on behalf of all the people who go to sea in boats around the coast of Australia, and I am sure on behalf of all honourable members on both sides of the House, I send our best wishes to the crew of Australia II, with John Bertrand as the captain, and of course to Dennis Connor in Liberty. Obviously the America's Cup races have been a tremendous cost to Alan Bond and to the people who have involved themselves in this competition in the past, including Sir James Hardy and Kerry Packer. Warren Jones, of course, is the Executive Director, and we send our best wishes to John Bertrand and his crew of eleven. Gretel II, Challenge 12 and Advance competed against Australia II to bring it up to its fine pitch. The race takes four hours and at the end of that time usually only a couple of seconds separate the boats. The British boat Victory has been defeated and we have also sailed against Canada and Italy. We also congratulate Ben Lexcen on the excellent keel he has designed. We have seen all sorts of cartoons about it, depicting it in the shape of a beer bottle, a stubby , you name it. I think this designer certainly deserves the congratulations of all Australians, and here is hoping that his design will come off and that Australia II will win. Even the Australian Telecommunications Commission has got into the act. One can phone Newport on the hot line, on 900 410 1234. Mr Speaker, I ask on behalf of all members in the House and all those who may have left-I ask those who have left to come in-that you forward a telegram of good will and support from this House to the crew of Australia II, because this race, the first of a possible seven, takes place early tomorrow morning. Let us hope we can make the Yanks walk the plank. After 132 years of competition, the Cup is still stuck in the New York Yacht Club. The British lost the Cup in 1851. All I can say, on behalf of all honourable members here tonight, is that I hope the best yacht wins, but let us hope that the winning yacht is Australia II. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Mr Dawkins —Mr Speaker, I require the debate be extended. Mr SPEAKER —The debate may continue until 11.10 p.m. I call the Minister for Finance. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance)(11.00) —It is not my intention to delay the House for that long. Mr SPEAKER —We are all grateful for that. Mr DAWKINS —I am sure you are, Mr Speaker. I think you alone would be of that view. It seems to me that it is the duty of Ministers in this House to respond to scurrilous accusations which are made by honourable members on the other side of the House during an adjournment debate, and that I understand is why this provision exists in the sessional orders. I am sure that the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) is in a mood to distort the truth, as he is on any appropriate occasion. Mr Cadman —That is objectionable. Why does he not stop that sort of thing? Mr Hodgman —You are an unpleasant little person. Mr DAWKINS —I think both honourable members who interjected are experts in distortion-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I invite the Minister to ignore the interjections and to deal with the matter he wishes to deal with. Mr DAWKINS —And I am sure that they would have disputed my view. The honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) in his contribution tonight made reference to some reported comments of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) and he ascribed to the Minister in his remarks certain views which she palpably does not hold. When she was asked some time ago, in 1981, to review a book by Shirley Williams entitled Politics is for People she provided to the Sydney Morning Herald a review which was duly printed on 10 October. Regretfully the report of her review was inaccurate and I will in due course table the proper and undistorted version of her critique or review of the book. The honourable member for Wentworth purported that certain opinions, which were in fact the opinions of Shirley Williams, were the views of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. The Minister made it perfectly clear in the review that she provided to the Sydney Morning Herald that there should be quotation marks around a sentence which in the newspaper turned out not to be in quotation marks and which, therefore, was reported as her view rather than the view of the author, Shirley Williams. The words in contest are these: It is with reluctance that I for one conclude that the freedom to send one's children to an independent school is bought at too high a price for the rest of society. Apparently that view appeared on page 158 of Shirley Williams's book. Senator Ryan quoted that reference in her review, but unfortunately the way in which it was translated or reported in the newspaper had it as Senator Ryan's view rather than Shirley Williams's view. The honourable member for Wentworth went to some length to say that it was not just a question of quotation marks being left out but that certain words were added. Of course, in the full text of the review provided by Senator Ryan those additional words did not appear. Therefore, for the benefit of the House, for the benefit of the people of Australia and, more particularly, for the benefit of the honourable member for Wentworth I seek leave to table the full text of the review provided to the Sydney Morning Herald by Senator Ryan at that time. Mr SPEAKER —Is leave granted? Mr Ruddock —I have not seen the document, Mr Speaker, and there is a usual courtesy-- Mr DAWKINS —There you are; you have a look at it and you study it overnight. The honourable member for Dundas can look at it. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. If no other Minister rises, the Minister may continue. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance)(11.05) —The honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) has the document. Whether he provides leave to have it tabled is a matter for him to decide. If he is interested in having the matter cleared up I imagine he will allow the paper to be tabled. That is the document that was provided to the newspaper. Unfortunately, it is not the version that was not printed in the newspaper. Clearly, that happened a number of years ago. What is now intended by the Opposition and particularly by the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) is to imply that the views that were wrongly ascribed to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) are the basis of the policy which she is now pursuing. In fact, if one had any sense at all, one would realise that the policy which the Minister, and indeed the Government, were pursuing was one of increasing access to any kind of education which parents choose for their children. What this Government has been concerned about and more particularly what the Minister has been concerned about is the great disparity that exists within the non-government school system. What the Minister is attempting to do, and indeed is successfully pursuing, is to close the gap between the very privileged end of the non-government schools system and the very under-privileged end of the non- government schools system. What she and this Government are in fact doing in this Budget is providing additional resources to those 80 per cent or more of schools which operate at levels far below those which would be considered appropriate for providing an adequate education for children in this country and , as a result, withdrawing resources from those schools which are over provided for. Therefore, an attempt has been made. Unfortunately, the honourable member for Wentworth has become a willing tool in this campaign to distort the views not only of the Minister but, indeed, of the Government in this regard. What this Government stands for is equality of opportunity and equality of access to whatever kind of education parents choose for their children. This is a scurrilous campaign against the Minister. It is based on a distortion which is willingly publicised by the honourable member for Wentworth. The honourable member for Wentworth was, of course, an undistinguished leader of the opposition in the New South Wales Parliament. He was an absolute failure as a politician in that forum. He has now decided to translate himself to this Parliament, where he has continued his campaign of distortion and misrepresentation in the interests of some particular and curious views which he happens to hold. Mr Hodgman —Did you tell him you would make this attack on him? Mr DAWKINS —The honourable member for Wentworth did not indicate to me that he intended to make his speech tonight. If the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) likes, I will start on him as well. The honourable member for Wentworth engaged in a campaign based entirely on a misrepresentation of the views. He did not attempt, for one moment, to test whether the views which he ascribed to Senator Ryan were, in fact, her views or a mistaken-an honest mistaken- misrepresentation of her views by the Sydney Morning Herald. Senator Ryan, in the interim, attempted to correct the fault once this became a matter of public notice. Indeed, she provided to the Sydney Morning Herald a letter which set the record straight. Under those circumstances, I think the very least Senator Ryan is entitled to is an apology from the honourable member for Wentworth. Of course, what he attempted to ascribe to Senator Ryan, and indeed, through her to the Government, is an entire distortion of what this Government is on about in terms of improving opportunities of access to education for children and their parents. Therefore, I hope that, the tabling of this document, if the Opposition is prepared to agree to its being tabled, will lead to an apology from the honourable member for Wentworth tomorrow. Mr Ruddock —Having now had an opportunity to examine the document, Mr Speaker, yes, leave is granted. Mr SPEAKER —Leave is granted for the tabling of the document. The debate having concluded, the House stands adjourned until 10.30 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11.10 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Willis to present a Bill for an Act to repeal the Salaries and Wages Pause Act 1982 and for related purposes. Mr West to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Overseas Students Charge Act 979. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 13 September 1983: Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposal for collection of information-1983-No. 11-New topics to be included in population survey, October 1983 Commonwealth Teaching Service Act-Determination-1983-No. 7 Remuneration Tribunals Act-Remuneration Tribunal-Determination 1983/3- Remuneration and allowances for holders of offices in the First Division of the Australian Public Service and holders of public offices The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 125 Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 11 May 1982: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the fact that the United Nations General Assembly has met twice since 1978 to discuss disarmament and both sessions have called for an increase in information dissemination to allow world public opinion to have a positive influence on the armaments race. (2) If so, (a) does he have full information on the carriage and storage of nuclear weapons on ships, aircraft and other vehicles visiting Australia or its territories or passing through its airspace and (b) will the Australian Government release that information to the general public in support of the United Nations' request for information dissemination. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Special Sessions of the UN General Assembly devoted to Disarmament question have now met twice in New York: In 1978 and 1982. The 1982 session, which recognised that world public opinion may exercise a positive influence on the attainment of meaningful measures in arms limitation and disarmament, as well as the need for it to be well informed to discuss and debate all points of view relating to disarmament issues, launched the World Disarmament Campaign, which has three primary purposes: 'to inform, to educate and to generate public understanding and support for the Objectives of the United Nations in the fields of arms limitations and disarmament as stated in the Final Document adopted at the first Special Session .' (2) (a) and (b) The nuclear powers whose naval ships have visited or are likely to visit Australian ports follow a policy of neither confirming nor denying the presence of nuclear weapons on board a particular ship. The same policy is generally followed in respect of nuclear capable aircraft, although I am advised that the US Air Force B-52 aircraft passing through Australian air space or landing at Darwin are involved exclusively in training and ocean surveillance activities and are not armed. I do not have available to me any additional information to the above. Question No. 128 Mr Jacobi asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 12 May 1983: Further to the former Attorney-General's answer to my question number 5062 ( Hansard, 9 November 1982, page 2929) relating to my request for a reference to the Australian Law Reform Commission on crime committed through or in connection with the use of computers, can the Attorney-General say whether the reference will be approved. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The Law Reform Commission is fully occupied at present with existing references . I will keep the question of a reference on computer related crime under review , and my Department is monitoring developments in this area. Question No. 166 Mr Wells asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 18 May 1983: (1) Is it a fact that the last Australian census for which records have been kept is dated 1828. (2) Is it also a fact that this census still provides valuable material for genealogical societies and other Australians interested in tracing their origins . (3) Can he say if many other countries, such as the United Kingdom, retain census information, or more specifically that part of it which does enable people to trace their ancestors, but keep that information secret for 100 years. (4) Has his attention been drawn to the civil liberties argument that census information should not be publicly available; if so, will he be prepared to accommodate this argument to the extent of keeping census information intact but not available to the public until 100 years after its collection. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. I understand that records survive, in whole or in part, in States other than Queensland, for some pre-Frederation censuses held subsequent to 1828. (2) I have no information at my disposal which would enable me to answer this part of the question. (3) In the United Kingdom, census information is made available for historical, genealogical, sociological and other research after a lapse of 100 years. The United States makes census returns available to the public after 72 years. In New Zealand, commencing with the 1966 Census, schedules collected in every second census will be retained and made available for research purposes after 100 years. Information on retention practices in other comparable countries in not readily available. (4) I am aware of the civil liberties argument against the retention of census schedules and support it. I concur with the decision announced by the then Treasurer in November 1979 that the practice of destroying all records of names and addresses and of not entering into the computer record such names and addresses should be continued. The legal obligation on people to answer census questions is accompanied by strict measures to ensure confidentiality of the information provided. It would be inconsistent with the purpose of the census, and the guarantee of confidentiality, to retain information on identified persons and households, even if public access were denied for 100 years after collection of the information. Question No. 236 Mr Jacobi asked the Minister for Science and Technology, upon notice, on 25 May 1983: (1) In relation to animal experiments under the authority of the CSIRO for the calendar year 1982, or for the latest years for which figures are available, can he indicate (a) the number of animals, classified according to species, used in experiments or series of experiments, (b) the purpose of the experiments and (c) the nature of the experiments. (2) In relation to animals kept on CSIRO premises for experimental purposes, can he indicate (a) the minimum cage size for each species, (b) where more than one animal is kept in a given cage, the number in each cage, (c) whether animals are regularly released from the cages for exercise; if so (i) how often and (ii) for what period on each occasion, and (d) the number of Animal Experimentation Review Committees operating within the CSIRO, including (i) the membership of each committee and (ii) the qualifications and position of each member. (3) Are all experiments conducted in accordance with the National Health and Medical Research Council (NH&MRC)/CSIRO code, in particular in respect of the use of anaesthetics; if not, why not. (4) Is he able to provide any information regarding experiments funded by the NH&MRC and the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. (5) Is he able to indicate (a) what experiments are performed at commercial laboratories in Australia, (b) if the LD50 test and the Draize Eye Test are performed in this country, (c) what regulations exist to control experiments in such laboratories in the ACT and the Northern Territory, (d) whether any animal experiments in which his Department may be involved are conducted by the Departments of Primary Industry and Defence, (e) what experiments are conducted, and by whom, through the Australian Research Grants Scheme (ARGS) and (f) whether the ARGS requires recipients of grants to comply with the NH&MRC/CSIRO code; if not, are they bound by any other code; if so, can he furnish details. (6) Is it a fact that universities are subject to State administration in this area, but that the ANU is the responsibility of the Federal Minister for Education and Youth Affairs; if so, can he say what experiments are conducted by the ANU and other educational or research institutions within the ACT and the Northern Territory. (7) Has his attention been drawn to a statement in correspondence from Mr R. J. Findlay, Assistant Director-General, Policy Secretariat and Legislation Branch, Department of Health, Canberra, to Ms E. M. Ahlston, to the effect that there are no international regulations imposing legal obligations on exporters and carriers for the humane transport of animals; if so, (a) can he indicate whether that correspondence (i) deals with the importation of monkeys for research and ( ii) applies to other animals as well, and (b) will he take this matter up with the Minister for Industry and Commerce. (8)Will he raise matters concerning animal experiments in or by Federal Government agencies with the responsible Ministers. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Most of CSIRO's research involving the use of live animals is concerned with the control and prevention of animal diseases, improved animal production and the conservation and management of native and introduced fauna. CSIRO is not involved with routine testing of cosmetics, human pharmacological agents, household products and additive narcotics, or with the use of experimental animals for undergraduate teaching of surgical techniques or for vehicle accident and weapons studies. CSIRO's current holdings of animals are estimated to be as follows: cattle 8,647 horses 47 buffalo 2 sheep 32,630 pigs 376 goats 38 poultry 9,240 quail 100 rabbits 635 guinea pigs 517 rats 3,624 mice 22 ,835 dogs 25 marmosets 172 bat 1 native mice 50 native birds 81 kangaroos and wallabies 833 other marsupials 55 The figures given include breeding stock; animals used in animal house, enclosure and paddock experiments; animals maintained under normal conditions but not used in experiments; and those used for mustering. (1) (b), (c) The annual and other reports of CSIRO Divisions and Units which are publicly available indicate broadly the purpose and nature of animal experimentation which is being or has been conducted. These reports contain lists of scientific papers which describe the particular experiments undertaken and the results which flow from them. The Organization also produces each year a Directory of CSIRO Research Programs and this is freely available. The Organization's statement on the use and care of animals in research is contained in its 1982/83 Annual Report. (2) (a), (b), (c). CSIRO does not maintain national records relating to the accommodation of individual animals used for breeding or experiments in all States and Territories. However, CSIRO's adoption of the NH&MRC/CSIRO 'Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals in Research in Australia' requires its recently established Animal Experimentation Ethics Committees to maintain '' appropriate and adequate records related to animal experimentation''. It also requires the Committees to ensure that animals are properly cared for and housed . (d) CSIRO has 14 Animal Experimentation Ethics Committees which are operational at its laboratories throughout Australia. They are located as follows: Townsville (1), Rockhampton (1), Brisbane (2), Armidale (1), Sydney (4), Canberra (2), Melbourne (1), Adelaide (1) and Perth (1). A Committee is in the process of being established at Darwin and one will commence operations at Geelong at an appropriate time. I am concerned that identifying the CSIRO and external members of these Committees might expose those individuals to harassment of the type which occurs in a number of other countries. However, the composition of each Committee conforms with guidelines laid down in the NH&MRC/ CSIRO Code. (3) It is the policy of the CSIRO Executive that all experiments conducted by officers of the Organization involving animals must conform with the NH&MRC/ CSIRO Code. (4) No. However, my colleague the Minister for Health tables in Parliament each year the report Medical Research (a report on medical research projects supported by NH&MRC and funded by the Commonwealth under the Medical Research Endowment Act) and the Report of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories (CSL) Commission. The CSL report describes the research and development work undertaken and lists research papers producted by CSL officers. (5) (a) No. (b) CSIRO used the LD50 but not the Draize test. (c) No. Information about and administration of relevant ACT and NT ordinances as they relate to animal experimentation are matters for the Minister for Health and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory Respectively. (d) I am not aware of such experiments. (e) The names of those who have been awarded Australian Research Grants Scheme (ARGS) grants and the titles of their projects are tables in Parliament annual in the ARGS-Report on Grants Approved. (f) Those receiving ARGS grants have to comply with the codes of conduct relating to animal experiments enforced at their host institutions. However, my Department recognized earlier this year that it would be desirable to bind recipients of ARGS grants to the NH&MRC/ CSIRO Code more formally and arrangements are in hand to write this requirement into the terms and conditions of future ARGS awards. (6) These are matters for the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. (7) No. The Health certification and welfare of live domestic animals being exported from Australia is a matter for the Minister for Primary Industry. The import of monkeys and other animals for scientific purposes is a quarantine matter for which the Minister for Health is responsible. The annual report of the Director-General of Health which is tabled in Parliament provides information about the number of animals imported for such purposes. (8) While the Honourable Member has not identified the matters which he wishes me to puruse with other Ministers, I have asked my Department and CSIRO to make appropriate submissions to the foreshadowed Senate Select Committee inquiry into animal welfare and animal rights (Senate Hansard of 19 May 1983, p612-3 refers). Other details concerning the use of animals in research are given in my answer to Senate Question 243. Question No. 245 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: (1) When were the staff ceilings lifted for Telecom Australia and Australia Post. (2) What changes have taken place in the total employment level of each of these authorities since the ceilings were lifted and in which sections have these changes occurred. (3) Is any recruitment being undertaken at the present time; if so, in which sections. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Postal Commission and the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) The Australian Postal Commission and the Australian Telecommunications Commission are responsible for their own staffing levels. In 1981, however, following the former Government's Review of Commonwealth Functions, external staff ceilings were imposed on the Commissions for the year ending June 1982. The ceilings were lifted on 22 June 1982. (2) In the Australian Telecommunications Commission, from June 1982 to June 1983, total operative manpower has increased by 494. The increases have occurred mainly in trainee groups, and technical operations staff. As a result of pressures to improve productivity some reductions were made in areas of administration and support functions. Reductions also occurred in telephonist staffing as a result of customers dialling their own calls and the converson of manual exchanges to automatic working. Over the same period the full time staffing level for the Australian Postal Commission rose by 124. Changes in staffing levels have occurred in nearly all occupational categories, with the most significant variations being in the categories of Mail Officer, Post Clerk, Assistant Postal Officer and Postman/ woman. (3) The Australian Telecommunication Commission is recruiting in most areas. There have been significant increases in the level of recruitment to the technical and trainee groups. In the Australian Postal Commission staff are being recruited for most occupational categories, with major emphasis being placed on recruiting Postmen/ women, Postal Officers and Mail Officers. Question No. 250 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: Will the Government extend ethnic radio to (a) all the State capital cities, (b ) Canberra and (c) large regional cities; if so, will 2EA and 3EA type stations be established; if not what method will be adopted. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Government currently assists ethnic radio through programs broadcasting in Sydney and Melbourne on the fully-funded radio stations 2EA and 3EA and through Commonwealth subsidies for ethnic programs broadcast on public broadcasting stations and one commercial station in the other State capital cities, Darwin, Canberra and nine regional cities. The Government's policy is that extension of ethnic radio should be through the public broadcasting sector. My department is currently examining the one hundred submissions received in response to the Discussion Paper on the Extension and Development of Ethnic Radio issued late last year. I will take these submissions into account when deciding on the future development of echnic radio. Question No. 252 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: Has he, his Department, or Australia Post, determined a definition of a 'letter ' and 'electronic mail'; if so, what are the definitions; if not, are such definitions being considered. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Postal Commission, is as follows: No. The question of a legal definition of a letter has been under consideration by Australia Post for some time. The matter has not been reviewed by the Government . Any necessary definition of the term 'electronic mail' will be considered in the drafting of amended legislation to give effect to the Government's recent decision on that matter. Question No. 256 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: (1) Has the Chairman or the Managing Director of Australia Post written to him proposing that Australia Post should conduct an electronic post service; if so, on what date did he receive the letter or letters. (2) Has he replied to the letter or letters; if so, (a) on what date did he write to Australia Post and (b) will he make this correspondence available to me for inspection. (3) Has the Government decided that Australia Post should be permitted to conduct an electronic post service; if so, on what date was that decision made. (4) Did he advise Australia Post that it could call for tenders for a consultancy service concerning a possible national electronic post service to provide improved postal services; if so, on what date did he give that advice to Australia Post. (5) Has his Department or Australia Post made any estimate of the cost of implementing a national electronic post service; if so, what is that estimate. (6) What effect would the cost of implementing a national electronic post service have on the cost of postal services. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based in part on advice from the Australian Postal Commission, is as follows: (1) to (3) I announced on 12 April 1983 that Australia Post would be permitted to operate an electronic mail service. (4) to (6) Australia Post has called tenders for a consultancy on a national electronic mail service. The consultants will report on the whole range of issues surrounding the provision of electronic mail services including estimates of costs. Question No. 265 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: Will the restrictions on the Australian Postal Commission providing agency services on behalf of the private sector be removed; if so, when. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I announced on 9 August 1983 that the Government had endorsed action to implement the recommendation of the Bradley Committee of Inquiry into the Monopoly Position of the Australian Postal Commission, that Australia Post be authorised to provide agency services on behalf of private sector principals (as well as public sector principals). I hope to introduce legislation to this effect in the current session of Parliament. Question No. 269 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: Is it proposed to provide specific legislation for the Special Broadcasting Service similar to that recently provided for the ABC, in accordance with comments made by Senator Button prior to the 1983 general election; if so, when. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The matter of specific legislation for the Special Broadcasting Service will receive consideration when appropriate.