Tuesday, 20 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: 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 Adermann,Mr Beddall,Dr Blewett,Mr Braithwaite,Mr Ewen Cameron,Mr Ian Cameron,Mr Carlton,Mr Chynoweth,Mr Cross,Mrs Darling,Mr Dobie,Mr Ronald Edwards,Mr Keating,Mr MacKellar,Mr Milton,Mr Peter Morris,Mr O'Neil,Mr Porter,Mr Punch,Mr Ian Robinson,Mr Wells and Mr Wilson. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled the petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the majority of Australian pensioners are denied the human right to share fully in one of the foremost scientific advancement in communication of our time , namely, telephone communication. For 20 years the telephone rental 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 humane understanding in absolving pensioners from such increases, as indeed, in giving attention to 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 Duffy and Mr Milton. The Honourable 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 and Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizen showeth: That I protest at the breakdown of our Restrictive Immigration policy which many senior members of our parliament had vigorously supported in their past promises to the Australian people. We urge the Government to accede, not only to the wishes of the majority, as expressed in all public opinion polls, but also to act in accordance with their own statements, for e.g.: 1. 'The avoidance of difficult social problems following an influx of people having different standards of living.'-ALP policy 1972. 2. 'I believe we should do all in our power to prevent the build up of ethnic groups within Australia.'-Mr M. MacKellar 1972. 3. 'We want One Australian people, One Australian Nation.'-Sir W. McMahon 1972. 4. 'Our policies reflect the firm and unshakeable determination of our government to maintain a homogeneous society, a society that is essentially undivided and free of avoidable tensions.' Dr Forbes 1972. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr John Brown. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respecfully showeth: 1. That an airport in the north-western region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. An airport would destroy 2,000 households and impose upheaval, noise and pollution on one million people presently unaffected. 3. The cost of an airport in the north-western region is greater than the alternatives, whilst fog and close proximity to R.A.A.F. Base Richmond would make operations impractical. 4. It would destroy the historic village of Pitt Town, environmentally important wetlands, and their unique adherent wildlife. 5. Your petitioners reject these proposals and call for endorsement of the MANS Committee findings. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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 Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: There are presently only two clinics where residents can donate blood in Canberra: Woden and Civic. Action is being taken to transfer the Civic clinic to Woden, thereby causing severe inconvenience to all those donors who live on the north side of Canberra. Moreover, this proposed action is inconsistent with the call for more blood donors. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Blood Bank Clinic located in Civic, A. C.T., not be moved to Woden Hospital. 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 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 the: 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 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 Disarmanment. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Keating. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. Omega by sending low frequency signals, penetrating sea water enables hunter -killer submarines to establish their position and to launch a 'first strike' attack. Omega is also used by AWACs, the flying radar stations, and for other military purposes. 2. Omega is an important U.S. military base and a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Omega would have a disastrous effect on Victoria and Melbourne . 3. Omega and other U.S. bases in Australia endanger rather than protect us. They add a new unnecessary menace to a nuclear arms race that must be stopped, if we are to survive. Your petitioners pray that members and the House assembled will close Omega. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Whereas space exploration involves the very highest levels of technological expertise and scientific endeavour that has proved beneficial to mankind; and Whereas Australia would face a deterioration of living standards and economy without access to such technologies; and The Australian Government should support the worth of peaceful space exploration at an international level, at the United Nations and with individual nations; and The Australian Government should place a far stronger emphasis on the value of the space sciences, and also encourage industrial support for space technology programs; and The Australian Government should undertake to support biomedical space experiments proposed by Australian medical researchers. 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: This Petition of certain Citizens of Australia shows: That payments to contract and sub-contract owner-drivers of trucks are likely to be reduced by ten per cent on implementation of the new system of tax deduction at source from payments for work and services; That profit or personal remuneration constitutes a very small part of payments received by owner-drivers, compared with capital and running costs and government charges; and That a deduction of ten per cent of gross payments would not only be much greater than required to protect the revenue, but would also cause hardship to owner-drivers and their families. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will not require tax to be deducted from payments to owner-drivers. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully request: That the Government's decision to introduce a means test for over-70 pensions be reversed, as it will cause undue hardship and an unreasonable financial burden on a significant percentage of the aged population of Australia. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will withdraw this legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of we the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the Polish Government has not honoured its agreement to the Helsinki Agreement, particularly with regard to the following issues: the freeing of all political prisoners respecting of all citizen and human rights the right to form trade unions the removal of censorship permission for Polish citizens to travel abroad, especially for family reunions . We humbly request the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, through proper diplomatic channels, to raise in the United Nations forum a strong request to the Polish Government that it honour its obligation agreed to at the Helsinki Agreement. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the citizens of Queensland respectfully show: Last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; alcohol is a factor in 50% of road deaths; alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ban the advertising of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron and Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the citizens of New South Wales respectfully show: Last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; alcohol is a factor in 50% of road deaths; alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ban the advertising of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr John Brown. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth: Last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; alcohol is a factor in 50% of road deaths; alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ban the advertising of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Porter. 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 Motor-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, states: 'The overall objective or our South Australian rationalisation plan has been to eliminate all productive activities on the Woodville site'. 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. 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. by Mr Cross. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of members of Toowoomba RSL of Australia Sub- branch and other citizens of Australia (electors of the Division of Darling Downs) show-their sincere interest in the current national flag and voice their disapproval of any move to change the design of the said flag. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government retain the current national flag without alteration whatsoever. by Mr McVeigh. Petitions received. Mr NEWMAN(Bass) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) Notes that- (a) the Launceston General Hospital is the major public hospital serving northern Tasmania; (b) the costs of the urgent redevelopment of the hospital to date have been shared equally between the State and Federal Government; (c) the first stage of this redevelopment has led to grossly inefficient practices and uneconomic administration; and (d) the introduction of Medicare will place further pressures on the hospital which will make this situation very much worse; (2) recognises that there is an immediate need to commence stage 2 of the hospital redevelopment to overcome these problems; (3) notes that stage 2 of the redevelopment has been delayed because the Government has so far not agreed to continue cost sharing with the State Government; and (4) urges the Government to accept the pressing need for it to share the costs of stage 2 and indicate this to the State Government without delay. Mr STAPLES(Diamond Valley) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that the Youth Affairs Council of Australia has- (a) finalised its nation wide consultation of young people, which has clearly identified the attitudes and needs of Australian youth; and (b) formalised the results of the national consultation in its report titled ' Creating Tomorrow Today', released on Sunday 18 September 1983; and (2) congratulates the Youth Affairs Council of Australia for the quality and scope of its report, 'Creating Tomorrow Today'; (3) urges the Government to take note of this report; and (4) commends the Government for increasing substantially the allocation in the Budget to national youth organisations. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) records its congratulations to the 1983 Brownlow Medal winner, Ross Glendinning, and to the runner up, Maurice Rioli; (2) notes that both these men are Western Australian State of Origin players and that Western Australia are the national league football champions; and (3) draws to the attention of all Victorians this further evidence of the State 's dependence on the products of Western Australia. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with approval the increased grants to the Australian Industries Development Corporation and the increase in its gearing ratio; and (2) calls on the management of the AIDC to aggressively invest all the available funds in new industry projects as soon as possible. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the gravity of the situation in the Lebanon and the potential for further internationalisation of the conflict; (2) expresses deep concern at the terrible devastation of Lebanon and the suffering of the innocent civilians of Lebanon; (3) urges all parties to avoid further acts of escalation and to facilitate as a matter of supreme urgency efforts for humanitarian relief of the injured and distressed; and (4) urges a cessation of conflict and the phased withdrawal of foreign forces. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) recognises the encouraging signs of recovery in the housing industry; (2) urges the Commonwealth and State Governments to pursue increased provision of housing in the private and public sectors; (3) views with concern evidence of price increases amongst material suppliers; and (4) welcomes recent reductions in interest rates and urges financial institutions to consider further reductions in rates to provide further stimulus to the housing industry. Mr BURR(Wilmot) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House urges the Government to give support to Tasmanian blackcurrant growers by adjusting sales tax and import duties in a way that will prevent New Zealand growers from swamping the Australian market and thereby destroying the blackcurrant industry in Tasmania. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House notes with shame that- (1) notwithstanding the notices of motion of the honourable member for Denison given on 8 September and 14 September 1983 the Government has still failed to provide one single job for any of the 377 workers displaced from their employment as a result of its action in halting the Gordon-below-Franklin power development scheme; and (2) the Government at the date hereof has still not paid one cent in compensation to the State of Tasmania. Mr SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon a parliamentary delegation from Japan, led by the Hon. Keiwa Okuda, a member of the House of Representatives. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to the members of the delegation. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr HOWARD —My question is directed to the Treasurer. Does the honourable gentleman recall telling the House in his Budget Speech that the employment gain should exceed 130,000 by the end of the financial year? Did he further say in that Speech that employment should grow by about 1 1/2 per cent, or about 90,000 , over the course of this financial year? As those statements are clearly in conflict, which represents the true prediction by the Government? In the light of the loss of 52,000 jobs in August and the recent survey of manufacturing industry which indicated further job losses to come, does the Treasurer wish to amend whichever of these Budget forecasts he really meant at the time, along with any consequential projections based upon them? Mr KEATING —Contrary to what the honourable gentleman said, the Westpac survey of manufacturing industry was perhaps the most optimistic for a long time. Respondents expect that new orders and output will expand significantly in the December quarter of 1983 and that the general business outlook will improve over the next six months. This last mentioned result is the most optimistic for quite a while. A net 31 per cent of respondents expect the general business situation to improve in the next six months as compared with a net 4 per cent who expect a decline at the June quarter. So the sort of Cassandra proposition we have had again from the honourable gentleman is not supported by the findings of the survey. I might also mention that the 130,000 figure which the Government mentioned was consistent with the projection of 1 1/2 per cent, or 90,000, growth in employment through the year because the 130,000 was a figure we picked up from the time that the Government came into office in March, inclusive through to 30 June 1984. Mr Howard —That is a 15-month figure, then, is it? Mr KEATING —Yes, and we did not try to disguise the fact that it was a 15-month figure. I made that quite clear. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition obviously does not listen to what is said. What we said was that it would be 90,000 through the year, a 1 1/2 per cent employment growth. The honourable gentleman referred to the recent survey, which showed a decline of 19,500 in August in the number of persons employed and which the Government indicated was disappointing. The movement in employment in August is well within the normal range of the monthly variation in the survey-based employment statistics. It is not possible, therefore, to draw on one month's figures and to conclude that there is a new downward trend in employment, and that such a downward trend has been established. After all, this is a sample survey; it is not a head survey. The Government believes that it will take other surveys to see whether there is any movement in that trend. Given the fact that the Westpac survey is optimistic, and that there is a development of optimism in the economy, particularly in the business sector, about the medium term strategy adopted by the Government, the fall in interest rates we have seen recently augurs well, as do the Government's projections for the decline of inflation. All are ingredients of business confidence. It is a sad fact that the Liberal Party of Australia has to get up here and try again to pour scorn upon the Government's attempts to revive the economy. We reject those conclusions, and we believe that the Budget strategy and the figures contained therein are still very much on track. Ms McHUGH —I ask the Prime Minister: Will the introduction of the Government's sex discrimination legislation downgrade the family unit and the role of wife and mother, as claimed by some opponents of the Bill? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the honourable member for Phillip for her question. It is the case that very many women in our community see the fulfilment of their aspirations in terms of the family and, in particular, in terms of their role as wife and mother. That is a totally legitimate and commendable attitude for those women who see their aspirations being fulfilled in that traditional role. Quite clearly, this Government will do nothing at all to prejudice such women in the fulfilment of those aspirations. Certainly nothing in the Sex Discrimination Bill which is currently before this Parliament will have such an effect, despite some unfortunate misrepresentations to the contrary. But the position is quite clear. Freedom to choose must be available to those who seek to fulfil their aspirations in that traditional way. Freedom to choose must also be available to those who seek to pursue a career of their choice. The Bill before the Parliament does nothing to demean those women whose choice is to pursue the traditional role. But the Bill very deliberately seeks to remove those barriers which, unfortunately, still exist in our society, barriers which exist in a way which demeans the status of those women who seek to choose and follow an alternative career. It is regrettably the case-it must be emphasised-that in Australia today very many women still are prejudiced by the existence of those barriers. Therefore, it is necessary that legislative action be undertaken to remove discrimination. Such legislative action is essential if we are to raise the status of women in Australia and if we are meaningfully to achieve equality of opportunity. The legislation before this Parliament outlaws discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status and pregnancy in a number of areas of public life including, particularly, employment, education, accommodation and the provision of goods and services. It requires that women and men are not to be treated less favourably in these areas because of their sex, marital status or pregnancy. It is the case that the legislation before this Parliament will go a very long way towards meeting Australia's obligations under the relevant United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, and we, as a government, are pledged to ratify that Convention. It was the hope-- Mr Anthony —You have already done it. Mr HAWKE —It is no good just ratifying it. One can easily do that. We have to take action to give effect to these things. It is very interesting to hear some noise and to see some embarrassment on the other side, as well there might be. It was the sincere hope of this Government that the legislation we brought forward would receive the support of all sections of this House. Unfortunately, we have the situation revealed now of the absolutely pathetic chaos which exists on the other side of the House in regard to this matter. We have the total abdication of leadership on the part of the Leader of the Opposition, who went on record as saying that a conscience vote would not be appropriate in these matters; but his leadership is such that he is being rolled, and that is the way it will be. I do not know whether those on the other side of the House-- Opposition members interjecting-- Mr HAWKE —Honourable members opposite are an unhappy band of pilgrims. I do not know how good honourable members on the other side of the House are at their French history. They may recall that on one occasion an observation was made to the French statesman Talleyrand. It was observed to him that there were consciences in the upper chamber. To that the great French politician replied: ' Ah, yes, very many. Semonville, for example, has at least two'. What we are going to find, as a result of this pathetic abdication of leadership on the part of the Leader of the Opposition, is the display of that range of consciences on the other side of the House. It is a tragedy that a matter as important as this, and so obviously requiring parliamentary action as is recognised by the honourable member for Balaclava, should have been reduced to this state by the pathetic abdication of leadership of the Leader of the Opposition. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. I ask: Did the Industries Assistance Commission recommend on 26 April that action be taken to correct an anomalous situation whereby one of the world' s largest steel wire producers, namely, Korea, was accorded preferential tariff treatment? The Minister will recall that because of the urgency of the situation and the number of jobs at stake the previous Government had placed a strict time limit of 45 days on the IAC's inquiry and report. Is it a fact that almost five months later the Minister's Department is still preventing action being taken to correct this anomaly? How does the Minister reconcile the action of his Department on this matter and his general statements in the House last week in support of manufacturing industry and adequate protection levels? Does the Minister's agreement to disagree on some matters extend not only to the Foreign Minister but also to his own Department? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —As the honourable member would know, this matter comes within the province of my colleague the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Mr Peacock —Your Department has got it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, and I am not running away from the question at all. I just make the point that the question would be appropriately answered by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, but I do know of the matter. As the honourable member knows, the IAC comes under that Minister's portfolio. Mr Peacock —But it is your Department that is holding it back. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes. So that the honourable member can be helped, I will tell him that the IAC recommended that in respect of a number of wire products there be some removal of preference and in respect of others no removal of preference. The difficulty, as I understand it, and I think my Department is again able to help the honourable member here, is that the Bureau of Customs finds it extremely difficult to differentiate between the types of wire that are imported into this country. In other words, when the consignor sends the wire it comes in various strands or thicknesses which, of course, the IAC report differentiated between. It suggested the removal of preference in some areas but not in others. The difficulty is a very practical one. It is how the IAC report can be implemented if the consignor is not able to distinguish, when consigning the wire, which type will bear preference as against another. That is the position. For the honourable member's benefit, I did indicate to the Customs authorities that unless the matter can be solved in the terms of the IAC report it may well be that we will have to allow into this country all wire, which will result in reduced protection, against the advice of the IAC. Mr Carlton —Five months to get a letter out. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It was not five months. There has been continual discussion with the Customs authorities as to how best they may be able to interpret the IAC recommendation. Mr PUNCH —Has the Minister for Foreign Affairs seen reports of an escalation of fighting in the Lebanon? Has he also seen reports that the United States Navy has shelled military targets, including those in Syrian controlled territory, and that Syria has threatened retaliation? Can the Minister inform the House whether these reports are correct? Can he also indicate to the House the Government's attitude to the growing crisis in the Lebanon? Mr HAYDEN —My understanding is that the reports are correct. They are cause for great care and concern on the part of the Government to monitor the developments as they occur. There is, quite clearly, within these developments the potential for the conflict to assume greater, indeed international, proportions, although this does not necessarily follow. In those circumstances it is a situation which we are observing with the greatest of care. The tragedy is that Lebanon has been ill- fated in history to stand at the cross-roads of other people's ambitions. Once again she is tortured and punished as others play out their ambitions in this sadly divided land. I would not care for anything I am saying, have said before or may say later, to be interpreted as being aimed at diminishing the internal confessional problems which affect the Lebanon, but the fact is that the self-serving motives of outside influences are exacerbating differences there, inflaming tensions and conflicts and lifting them to a very crude and lethal level. There are a number of objectives which we believe should be put in place to allow Lebanon to search out its own destiny alone as a united country. Before it can do that, we believe these things have to be achieved: All foreign troops should be withdrawn from Lebanon, except those who are there on the genuine invitation of the Government of Lebanon and for the purposes of allowing the Government of Lebanon to re-establish political, social and economic stability through the exercise of effective military and police presences; there should be a termination of the arms flows from outside to non-government forces; there should be an exercise of restraint between the various parties in conflict internally in Lebanon, leading to a ceasefire; there should be a reconciliation conference of confessional leaders; there should be a large scale humanitarian relief program supported internationally to allow Lebanon to re-establish itself socially, economically and politically; and the effective role of the United Nations in establishing a peaceful situation should be brought into play. It is our belief that Lebanon should be allowed to succeed as one country, not a country enfeebled by a de facto Balkanisation, which seems to be the fate that some outside forces apparently are determined to inflict upon it if they can. Mr ANTHONY —I direct a question to the Minister for Science and Technology. I refer the Minister to his comments in the House on 6 September in response to a question about the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory. He stated then that the Australian Academy of Science had recommended that 'experienced flying squads of diagnosticians' should be used instead of ANAHL for diagnosing and treating exotic and indigenous animal diseases. I ask the Minister: Is it a fact that the report by the Academy to which he referred was prepared by Professor Bede Morris of the Australian National University? Is it a fact that this report was not endorsed by the Academy's National Committee for Animal and Veterinary Sciences? Is it also a fact that the Australian Veterinary Association Ltd has protested at the way in which this report was handled? Is it also a fact that the report's conclusions have been opposed by both the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the Australian Science and Technology Council? What basis does the report provide for the disturbing statement made by the Minister to this House on 6 September? Mr BARRY JONES —I thank the right honourable Leader of the National Party for this question which, I assure the House, was not by pre-arrangement. Yes, of course I am aware that the report put out by the Australian Academy of Science was in fact originally drafted by Professor Bede Morris, whose position is well known. However, I checked the status of the report by checking with the secretary of the Academy of Science's biological section, Professor B. W. Holloway. I spoke to Professor Holloway in the United States and he assured me that it had been cleared by the biological section of the Australian Academy of Science and was a report of standing; it was not just a report by an individual. What I said in my answer to the question the other day was that there were two alternative views. The extreme view is the view that all we need is the institution of ANAHL in Geelong. The other view is that we ought to have flying squads on the ground and, at the extreme position, that we do not need ANAHL. Clearly, this Government has inherited a mess in regard to this situation. We have the responsibility of trying to make sure that we do the best for the Australian meat industry, the Australian consumer and for Australia's overseas meat markets. It is not an easy problem. A committee of Ministers, which has been set up, deliberated this morning and reached certain conclusions. I imagine that the Prime Minister will be in a position to make an announcement about it within a very short period. Mr Lloyd —Have you ever been there? Mr BARRY JONES —Of course I have been there. I was born within 300 yards of it. The Government has to face the fact that since the 1960s there has been a revolutionary change in the way in which animal diseases are diagnosed. That is common ground and it is certainly accepted by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Three of the leaders of CSIRO came to see me on the subject last night. It is freely conceded by them that, if we had the-- Mr Shipton —Which three? Tell us. Mr BARRY JONES —The Chairman of CSIRO, Dr J. P. Wild, FRS; Professor David Craig , FRS; and Dr Keith Boardman, FRS. The three of them came along and conceded that, if we had known then what we know now about the diagnostic changes brought about by the technological revolution of the last decade, the whole configuration of ANAHL would have been utterly different and it would have been established at infinitely less cost. Nevertheless, it is a situation that we have inherited with an organisation that is overspecific and overdesigned for the purpose for which it is now needed. That is a problem to which this Government has to address itself and to which it is addressing itself very rapidly. Mr SNOW —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. What is the Government's approach to the protection of Australian industry? How is this linked to the Government's concern regarding unemployment growth? Mr HAWKE —As is well known, I think, the Government has given a very clear commitment to maintaining existing industry assistance arrangements in the economic climate that we have inherited. Quite clearly, this Government does not wish to do anything at all which would exacerbate the pressures which are already operating on industry from the collapse of the labour market which took place under the previous Government. As I have tried to point out to the House on previous occasions, it is also very important that there be a degree of confidence and stability in the investment climate so that the prospects for economic recovery can be enhanced. That is a commitment that we have as part of the prices and incomes accord. I may say that all Ministers support that commitment. Those references are made in regard to the immediate situation which we have inherited and within which we have to operate at this time. At the same time, Australia's long term future undoubtedly lies in Australia developing and maintaining a dynamic and competitive economy. The issues involved in that obviously require a long term perspective. They include: Encouraging new industry development and marshalling all the great resources of this great country so that we can in fact capitalise on our great resource base. We would also need-I think this would be common ground across the chamber-to overcome gaps in the capital market which, in our judgment, have prevented an efficient flow of resources to high technology industries. We have attempted to do that. Mr Moore —That is the capital market approach. Mr HAWKE —I would hope that this would not be a matter for cheap interjection but that it would be recognised at all points of the House that the actions of the Government in regard to venture capital and to extending the capacity of the Australian Industry Development Corporation would be relevant to achieving that objective and to encouraging also an indigenous, industrially relevant research and development base. Once we take that longer term view and recognise those things that have to be done, it can be seen that protection is only part of the picture. In the judgment of this Government, we will certainly need in that longer term perspective a gradual and predictable reduction in protection. It should come as no surprise to any honourable member of this House that I should say that because it is well known that I was appointed by the previous Labor Government to be a member of the Jackson Committee to Advise on Policies for Manufacturing Industry and by the Fraser Government to be a member of the Crawford Study Group on Structural Adjustment. We made those positions quite clear in the reports we handed down. We believe that those sorts of approaches in the longer term will be necessary to achieve long term economic growth for Australia and, most importantly, to see that Australia has the maximum opportunity of employment growth through participation in the growth in world trade in general, and in the economic growth of our region in particular. Future protection reductions will be gradual and will be planned in the context of stable and predictable industry policy, and in the context of renewed growth and economic activity. I must say that one of the problems bedevilling Australian industry in the past has been that there has been too little predictability in relevant economic policies. If we are to restore growth it is necessary to have that predictability of policy and also the re-creation of an atmosphere of optimism in the Australian economy. Let me say finally that those who share this view-I trust that it is shared by those on the other side of the House as well as on the Government side-will recognise the fundamental responsibility that lies upon the Government and on the community. If in fact we say that there is a need in the longer term for a gradual reduction in protection in that overall framework because such reductions in protection will be necessary in the community interest, then there is a responsibility upon the community as a whole to share that burden so that it is not left simply to displaced labour or displaced capital. I put those short term views and long term views in a way which I trust will receive the approbation of both sides of the House. Mr MACPHEE —I ask the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations: How does he reconcile his position in support of a left wing motion against new uranium ventures with his responsibilities for job creation? Mr WILLIS —I think the honourable member well knows that the Government's position on uranium will be decided in the near future. Mr Howard —The Prime Minister said it had been decided. The Prime Minister told the business community in Sydney that Roxby Downs would go ahead. Mr WILLIS —Has the honourable member quite finished? Would he like to get up and make a speech about it? We have said quite clearly that Caucus and the Government will be making a decision about uranium policy in the near future. That policy will take account of varying factors, of which employment is certainly one. However, as the honourable member who asked the question will know, it is not always the only factor one takes into account. In reaching that decision we will obviously have in mind various other elements apart from employment. I assure the honourable member that this Government's employment objectives are of predominant importance to it. Of course, we are concerned to ensure that employment growth in this economy is strong. We are quite sure that we will have the Australian economy on a growth path in the course of this financial year, when we will see a growth of about 90,000 in employment. Over the course of the subsequent couple of years we will see a much stronger growth in employment. We are just as sure that were the policies advocated by the Opposition still operating in this country there would be no prospect of gaining any such employment growth. The policies it would pursue-budgetary policy, monetary policy and wages policy-would be bound to ensure that we would not recover from the worst recession for 50 years. If they were the policies being pursued we would continue with massive levels of unemployment and with no prospect of economic recovery. The only way we can get economic recovery in this country is if we can have operating policies which provide stimulus to the economy at the same time as we have operating other policies to prevent inflation occurring. The Opposition has absolutely no policies in that regard. The only policies it has to control inflation are the policies which dampen growth; tough budgetary and monetary policies which ensure that we cannot get economic growth and we cannot get employment growth. That is why members of the previous Government are now sitting in opposition. There is no doubt that if they were still in government they would still be pursuing those policies with the same failure as they showed in their period of office. The only prospect of employment growth and reductions in unemployment to something like tolerable levels in this country is the continuance of the policies being pursued by this Government. Mr STAPLES —Has the Minister for Housing and Construction noted the comments made in one national newspaper that there is a grave risk that all the help that is being given to the housing industry will be counterproductive for home buyers , the industry and even economic recovery? Can this be substantiated in the light of the housing commencement figures for the June quarter announced yesterday? Will the Minister relate his answer in particular to the housing needs and housing commencements of the outer north-eastern suburbs of Melbourne, which include my electorate of Diamond Valley and the nearby electorates of Casey, La Trobe and Deakin? Mr HURFORD —I have noticed those comments in one particular national newspaper. The most charitable thing I can say about them is that either they are based on misinformation or, indeed, they show a grave lack of understanding of what is going on in the housing market and indeed in the economy generally. The latest of those comments was made last Friday. It is interesting to note that in another major newspaper on page 2 there was a headline: 'Doubt on Housing Target '. We cannot have it both ways. The fact is that the latter newspaper was suggesting that our targets will not be achieved, whilst the former suggests our policies will lead to an overheating in the house building and construction industry. I remind the House of the facts. The first is that we would love our targets to be larger, but they are modest. They are modest because they are built on the industry's own estimate of what can be achieved without overheating. The industry's own estimates have been checked by the resources of government, at both the Federal and State level. The next point I make to the honourable member is that of course we have made a great start. He asked me whether we could substantiate the newspaper comments from what was announced yesterday in the light of the Australian Bureau of Statistics release on dwelling commencements. The fact is that we have made a wonderful start to achieving our targets. I am extremely pleased that, for instance, there has been a 13.2 per cent increase in dwelling commencements in the June quarter over the March quarter. Some people have mentioned only the increase for houses, but we must look at the total dwelling market to get a complete picture, and that market includes units, flats and so on. The next point I make is that there is still a long way to go. Even with those improved June figures, we found dwelling commencements of only 105,000 for the year-a 20-year low. So I can only be cautiously optimistic that we will reach 125,000 to 130,000 dwelling commencements in the current financial year. There are hopeful signs, and the main one, of course, is built on the increased confidence that the community has now that the National Labor Government is in control. Let me just go through some of the policies which should lead to a greater improvement in the September quarter. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that there has been an increased appropriation for public housing. Then there is the availability of finance in the capital market generally. There has been a decrease in interest rates because of the sound economic policies being pursued. Furthermore, there are better signs ahead for the September quarter. The September quarter will show the benefits of our removal of the savings requirement from the home deposit assistance scheme. The new first home owners scheme will come on line within a fortnight. So we have reason to be optimistic. The honourable member asked whether there was any way I could relate this good news to his important region of Victoria. I can say that there is. Victoria has been the jewel in the crown to this point in time. There is a 32.1 per cent increase in dwelling commencements in Victoria. Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. If the honourable gentleman would like to make a statement, we would be quite prepared to give him leave to do so after Question Time has ended. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr HURFORD —If there were time I would do that as well because there is so much more to be said. In conclusion, the fact is that in Victoria there were years of neglect because of a Liberal State government. There is a long way to go. I am well aware that the honourable member for Diamond Valley and his friends the honourable members for Casey, La Trobe and Bendigo have a great interest in the provision of proper shelter for the people they represent. Indeed, there will be even greater improvements over what has been achieved to this point in the following quarters. They are forever reminding me of the importance of lower interest rates and the first home owners scheme. I commend them for their interest in the housing market. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask the Prime Minister why he deliberately misled the House in commenting about the-- Mr SPEAKER —I think the right honourable member knows that questions of deliberately misleading the House are matters for substantive motion. I suggest that he reword his question. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask the Prime Minister why, in commenting about the comments he had made about the evidence given by Mr David Combe before the Royal Commission on Australia's Intelligence and Security Agencies, he said-and I quote page 891 of Hansard of 15 September 1983: What I have said in the House about the accuracy of the evidence of the person in question is what I said on oath in the box, which is now a matter of public record. The Prime Minister will recall that he presented his evidence to the Royal Commission before Mr David Combe gave evidence. In those circumstances, how could he possibly have been responding to that evidence in his explanation in this place? Mr HAWKE —The Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia has made the grave mistake, not of reading, but of taking seriously, everything written by a particular correspondent in the Age newspaper. He is always worth reading but he is not always accurate. The simple facts are these: Mr Sinclair —Hansard is not accurate? Mr HAWKE —If the right honourable member wants to hear the answer, he should be quiet. The answer I gave in this House, as always, was 100 per cent accurate. At the stage when I gave evidence to the Royal Commission the statement of Mr Combe was already before the Commission. It was in regard to that statement of Mr Combe that was already before the Commission that I gave evidence. I was subject to examination and cross-examination. The evidence that I gave, that the statement of Mr Combe which was already before the Commission contained inaccuracies, was sustained and accepted as a result of my evidence under examination and cross-examination. Mr ALLAN MORRIS —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Science and Technology, flows from a question asked earlier today. Did the former Government approve of the importation of live foot and mouth disease virus into Australia? If so, how did it make that decision, did it make that decision public, and did it actually put it into practice? Mr BARRY JONES —In November 1980 the then Acting Prime Minister, the Rt Hon. J. D . Anthony, Leader of the National Party-- Mr Dawkins —Is he an FRS? Mr BARRY JONES —He is not a Fellow of the Royal Society. He wrote to the then Minister for Science and Environment, David Thomson, granting approval for the handling of foot and mouth disease virus at the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory. This followed a joint recommendation to the then Prime Minister, Mr Fraser-remember him-from Mr Thomson and the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Nixon, and the Minister for Health, Mr MacKellar. The decision was made at prime ministerial level and was never referred to the Cabinet or to the Government parties for debate. The Government decision was never made public. This was a classic case of making a judgment first, covering it up and then leaving it to others to initiate a public debate, if any. In 1981 and 1982 farming groups and rural councils began to lobby against the importation. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation lobbied very hard for a long term commitment to the importation of live foot and mouth disease virus to Australia for use in ANAHL after it was biologically proven, but in advance of any outbreak in Australia. The decision was not implemented. Following a further investigation by the Australian Science and Technology Council the present Government decided on 30 May that no live FMD virus would be imported but that the matter would be reviewed in 1987. This change in judgment reflects the complexity of the issue. What we need now is a complementary approach which makes the best use of ANAHL as well as the Academy of Science's flying squad approach. It is not a matter of picking between one and the other; we have to make use of both. Mr LLOYD —What action has the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations taken with respect to statutory declarations by mail workers claiming that a New South Wales trade union official is the alleged organiser of a ring inside Sydney mail centres which deliberately misdirected union voting papers in transit? Has he initiated action to determine whether the union elections in 1979 and 1981, to which these declarations and other statements refer, were invalid? If so, what are the consequences for decisions taken and actions by those officials? Does he agree that, if proven, the vote-rigging exercise necessitated massive interference with the mail by Australia Post employees and seriously breached the integrity of the postal system? Mr WILLIS —I am aware of allegations which have been made. Indeed, in yesterday's edition of the Melbourne Age extensive allegations were made about interference by employees of Australia Post with union ballots. There was also an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, which was somewhat more specific, a couple of days earlier. As I understand it the situation is that allegations have been made, as the honourable member said in his question. I am not sure as to the truth of those allegations. But I can say that for persons engaging in this kind of activity-if indeed it has been engaged in-severe penalties are applicable. Under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, section 171 provides for a fine of $500 or imprisonment for six months or both for being in possession of a ballot paper without lawful excuse or for impersonating another person for the purpose of voting. Under the Postal Services Act, section 92 provides a penalty of seven years imprisonment for stealing mail or taking it with a fraudulent intention. Section 93 provides a penalty of two years imprisonment for tampering with the mail. Section 86 of the Crimes Act imposes a penalty of three years imprisonment for conspiracy to commit an offence against Commonwealth law. It is quite clear that an array of penalties is available-some of them very severe indeed-for persons who have engaged in this kind of activity. At this stage I have only had these allegations drawn to my attention. I have not personally taken any direct action in regard to them. I will certainly be having some inquiries made in regard to those matters. If any such action has been taken, if it seems that there is some truth in these allegations, I would certainly be concerned to ensure that action is taken to bring the offenders to justice. Mr BLANCHARD —My question is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. What action does the Government intend to take to remedy the disastrous consequences that asbestos mining has had for the health of the Aboriginal community at Baryulgil in New South Wales? Mr HOLDING —The problems at Baryulgil have been a matter of concern to this Government. The problem has been around for some time and it flows from the opening of an asbestos mine at Baryulgil in 1943. The mine was closed in 1977. A great deal of work has been done on this matter by the Redfern Aboriginal Legal Service. I compliment the Service on its work. Representatives of the Service came to see me about three months ago and established to my satisfaction that there was and is a continuing health problem amongst the Aboriginal community at Baryulgil. On the evidence that they presented, there seems to be prima facie evidence to show that the health regulations governing the mining of asbestos had not been complied with. I discussed the matter with the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in New South Wales. I was asked by the Redfern Aboriginal Legal Service to appoint a royal commission. After discussion with its representatives, we decided that the appropriate course to follow was to refer this matter to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, my own view being, in general, that this Parliament does not always make as much use of its parliamentary committees as it should. This is a serious matter. It involves serious questions of both health and the exercise of our laws to protect people in such a situation. Accordingly, I have asked the Chairman of the Aboriginal Affairs Committee to undertake such an inquiry. I table the terms of reference. In order to enable the Committee effectively to pursue this inquiry, I indicate that legal resources and medical resources will be made available to that Committee. It is time that this matter was cleaned up once and for all. Mr SPEAKER —Pursuant to statute, I present the annual reports and financial statements of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia, Commonwealth Savings Bankof Australia and Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia, together with the Auditor-General's report thereon, for the year ended 30 June 1983. Report Mr SPEAKER —For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Department of the House of Representatives for the period 1 January 1982 to 30 June 1983. Since 1978 the Department has prepared an annual report on a calendar year basis. However, with the proclamation of section 6 of the Public Service Acts Amendment Act 1982, a statutory obligation has been imposed on me, as Speaker, to ensure the preparation and tabling of a report by the Department in respect of each financial year. This is the first report since that requirement has come into effect, and therefore covers an 18-month period. I wish to take this opportunity to refer to some of the more significant developments of interest to me, as Speaker, and, I am sure, to honourable members. First, I mention the transfer of Executive functions. All honourable members will be aware that there has been a move, having its origins in important constitutional principles of the independence of the Parliament, for the transfer from Executive control of a number of functions which concern honourable members. During 1982-83 Parliament has assumed responsibility for certain items which previously had been administered by Executive departments. However, discussions have continued in respect of the assumption of control covering a number of other, more significant, activities. These have included electorate office accommodation for senators and members, provision of services relating to the operation of electorate offices, provision of transport, and some other entitlements. These proposals affect both senators and members, and officers of the two principal departments have been involved in detailed discussion with Executive departments. Mr President and I are in agreement as to the course that should be followed and have arranged meetings with relevant Ministers to progress the matter at a policy level. We have directed that internal planning should proceed on the basis of assumption of policy and funding control in respect of the activities mentioned as from 1 July 1984. A considerable amount of work will need to be done within the parliamentary departments and the relevant Executive departments beforehand in order that this transfer can be accomplished without in any way diminishing the levels of services provided to honourable members and with minimal disruption at an operational level. Secondly, I mention briefly developments in respect of information systems for the Parliament. Honourable members will be aware that Logica Pty Ltd was commissioned to advise in respect of information systems earlier in the year. I thank those honourable members who participated in this matter by the completion of questionnaires and by giving interviews to the consultants. As a result of that project I now have before me some very significant proposals which address the development of information systems between now and 1988 and also those systems possible for the new Parliament House. Honourable members will understand that these issues are complex and involve proposals which are potentially of substantial benefit to the Parliament as an institution, and to members individually, but which involve very substantial costs. Because of these two factors, amongst others, these matters will require most careful assessment. A large number of the possibilities concern the Parliament as a whole, not just members of the House of Representatives or the House of Representatives Department. Honourable members will therefore appreciate that I would not propose to take unilateral action on them, at this stage, but rather to ensure the early and most comprehensive analysis of the possibilities as a whole. I assure honourable members that they will be kept informed and consulted to the fullest degree necessary. Lastly, it has become obvious to me that the Parliament generally has reached a high level of activity. This is manifested in a number of ways, but especially in matters such as the operation of parliamentary committees. A large number of honourable members are working extremely hard in their committee activities and do not need me to remind them of this. I mention this matter, however, as I wish all honourable members to be assured that the Department will make every effort to support the House, its committees and members in the discharge of their diverse responsiblities. I commend the report to the House. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 6 (2) of the Australian Science and Technology Act 1978, I present a report prepared by ASTEC on Videotex in Australia: Interactive Information Services. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —For the information of honourable members I present the annual review of the Australian Development Assistance Bureau for 1981-82. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Anthony) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The disastrous effects of the Government's confusion and inconsistency on the uranium industry. 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 ANTHONY(Richmond-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.05) —Before 5 March this year the Australian uranium industry was on a path of assured development and growth. It offered great benefits for Australia. In the past six years, since the Liberal-National Party Government presented to this Parliament policies designed to allow the further mining and export of uranium, the nation saw the emergence of a vigorous, profitable, expanding industry. Production, exports and jobs were all at record levels. Heavy exploration spending was uncovering ever increasing reserves of uranium ore. The Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory uranium province had been given new, secure and independent sources of income. Queensland Mines Ltd's Nabarlek project and the Ranger mine of Energy Resources of Australia Ltd were the forerunners. These were the most soundly based and secure mining projects ever to commence in this country. The rich Pancontinental project, Jabiluka, was expected to come into production by the end of the decade and Koongarra, planned by Denison Mines, around the same time. With production from the gigantic Roxby Downs mine at Olympic Dam in South Australia expected to begin about the mid-1990s, utilities around the world had faith in the long term security of supply that we could offer them. Since August 1977 I approved contracts of more than 44,000 tonnes of U3O8 valued at more than $3.500m in current terms. Our Government had issued reasonable and generally accepted determinations on the export pricing arrangements. These determinations authorised approved projects to enter the market place with full knowledge of the minimum terms and conditions acceptable to our Government under its uranium export policy. All four Northern Territory mines-Nabarlek, Ranger, which was already operating, Jabiluka and Koongarra with development approval and conditional approval respectively-were out negotiating for contracts. All of this great development took place against a background of persistent opposition by the Australian Labor Party. It was with the emergence of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that the industry saw some hope that there might be a more moderate and sensible uranium policy but I must say that the hopes of the industry have now been butchered. There is absolute turmoil because of the confusion with Government policy. The sound situation that we established has been dramatically changed since the election of a Labor government in March this year. On 17 March the new Government withdrew the sales determinations I had issued-the contracts necessary for the development of Koongarra and Jabiluka were worth approximately $800m-and the industry, worth billions of dollars a year in exports and offering jobs for thousands of people, was thrown into confusion. Since then confusion has deepened. The Labor Party's policy on uranium has been under attack within the Government and has been supported by important party figures outside of government and the union movement. The Prime Minister and his colleagues have made contradictory statements on the issue. The result is that Australia, probably the world's greatest potential producer of reasonably priced uranium, has no policy at all in this area. We are a world laughing stock because of this and the Hawke Government must bear responsibility. It is necessary to go back a bit to study the reasons for these developments and to look at the policy. That policy, adopted by the Labor Party last year, was a very confusing and internally contradictory document. It left the left and right wings of the Labor Party to make all sorts of claims. Safe in the bosom of chardonnay socialists in Fitzroy, left wing Labor members could claim that it was a blueprint for halting uranium production. Out of the front line in Darwin the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) could, as he did on 23 February, support full scale uranium mining and exploration in the Northern Territory. Those South Australian candidates who recognised that their chances of election would be nil if they halted the great Roxby Downs project pointed out to voters in South Australia that there was an escape hatch for Roxby. Somehow their uranium in South Australia was totally different from the uranium in the Northern Territory. The Labor Party's non- policy on uranium was all things to all men. Of course, this could not last. After all, how can any policy be sensibly administered unless there is a clear understanding of what it provides? The Deputy Prime Minister thought he understood it. After first revoking all determinations issued to uranium mines, as I noted earlier, he then issued determinations to Ranger and Nabarlek allowing them to negotiate on contracts with power utilities in the United States. Other Labor figures, however, said that the Deputy Prime Minister was wrong. Indeed, they came very close to demanding that the Deputy Prime Minister' s head should be taken. Even the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) on 8 June was quoted as saying: To release new contracts would be contrary to the policy of the Party and I for one would not support that were the proposal to come before Cabinet. These conflicting statements set a pattern of bungling, confusion and contradiction which has continued right up to this moment. No one knows what the Government's uranium policy is or whether it has any policy at all. In an interview published in the Business Review Weekly on 2 September the Prime Minister said that the go-ahead for Roxby Downs and new contracts for Ranger and Nabarlek would all be covered by his Party's policy. On 2 September he said that Roxby Downs was going ahead. He said: Nothing is going to stop that. But on 12 September the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) cast doubts on that claim. Asked about approval for Roxby he said: There is a presumption around, based on various people's interpretations of what is in the Labor Party's platform. But that is part of the comprehensive policy review decision. So much for what the Prime Minister had to say. On Sunday, two more Ministers repudiated the views of the Prime Minister. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and the Minister for Defence Support (Mr Howe) supported a declaration by the Victorian Labor Party rejecting new contracts for Ranger and Nabarlek and calling for the widest possible party debate on a decision regarding Roxby. All these moves have clearly been designed to put maximum pressure on the Prime Minister to cave in to the Left on the uranium issue. They have succeeded. Already, the final decision promised by the Prime Minister for yesterday has been deferred for another month. Mr Deputy Speaker, since this Government was elected much has been written about the supposed decline of the power of the left wing of the Labor Party. The current chaos within the Government on uranium policies shows that a lot of people have made a mistake. The Prime Minister and the more sensible members of his Cabinet are clearly afraid to defy the Left over this issue. Despite the fact that two-third of Australians support the export of uranium for peaceful purposes and despite the fact that the official advice from all Government departments favours export, the Prime Minister is afraid to move. Unfortunately for Australia while the Prime Minister plays politics with this issue the world is moving. According to the most recent estimates world nuclear power capacity will grow by an average 12.9 per cent a year each year until 1990. Over the years 1983 to 1995 the average growth rate is expected to jump to over 40 per cent. Production and consumption of uranium are expected to be approximately in balance by 1988 or even earlier if world economic growth and oil prices pick up soon. That is just five years away. There are enough uncommitted markets for the profitable continuation of operations at Nabarlek and Ranger and there is room for the development of further Australian uranium mines. The market is turning. Spot prices have improved. Last September they were $17 a pound and at the end of August they were $24 a pound. Australian producers and potential producers have received firm inquiries from genuine buyers. Utilities in the United States of America have made inquiries about their long term needs. Even Japan is actively considering its long term needs and purchasing strategy for greater uranium power. If we do not start developing new mines now we will be left out of the race. Other countries are willing to meet this demand-notably Canada and South Africa. Australia is the only country which has major uranium deposits and is not developing them further. To the outside world our policies must seem absolutely crazy. Australia's planned and operating mines need to be getting contracts now to be able to take advantage of these changing conditions. The operating mines need to be assured of their long term future. The proposed mines need the contracts to get finance for development and to get into operation in time to meet the new demand. But what does this Government do? It sits on its hands while it waits for the Left in the Labor Party to wake up to the real world. Unfortunately, I do not think there is much chance that it will wake up. The actions of the Government are a disgrace to this nation. It lacks leadership and direction and it is pandering and kow-towing to the fanatical anti-uranium elements. This Government has already badly damaged the name of Australia in the eyes of the world. It has done great damage to this country. Ultimately, unless it comes to gripes with reality, great harm will be done to our trading relations with some of our most valued trading partners. This Government talks about its concern for the unemployed. The South Australian Chamber of Mines has estimated that up to 4,650 potential jobs were lost because the South Australian and Federal Governments prevented the development of the Honeymoon and Beverley mines and a uranium enrichment industry. The Northern Territory Government estimates that around 2,000 potential permanent jobs will be lost if the Government prevents the Koongarra and Jabiluka mines going ahead. Western Australia and Queensland will also suffer in proportion if this Government maintains its illogical and indefensible policy in relation to uranium. So too will the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory-another group about whom this Government claims to care. With all four proposed Northern Territory mines in full production payments to Aboriginal communities would total approximately $150m a year at today's prices. The Australian economy will suffer. When the two new mines, Koongarra and Jabiluka, are in full production, their expected export earnings will be about $4 billion over 10 years. This is expected to represent over $1 billion in Federal taxes alone over that period. Surely to deny this amount of revenue is to put additional burdens on already heavily paying Australian taxpayers. This Government is throwing all this away in the cause of a discredited, illogical and internationally unacceptable policy in which neither the Prime Minister, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) nor the Minister for Resources and Energy really believe. It is strangling a great Australian industry and with it the hopes of thousands of Australians. There is no excuse for this policy that we have seen of late. It is causing immense confusion and delay and is dashing the hopes of many people who thought that this was going to be the means of further jobs and further development in Australia. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The right honourable member's time has expired. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(3.20) —This matter is of public importance. It is of public importance that we at least have a debate about what went wrong with the administration of uranium policy over the years it was under the control of the National Party. I emphasise that. The National Party has been running uranium policy. It is no good running away from that. The rump of the Opposition has always had the ability to control resources and has always controlled them on its own terms-'Dig them out of the ground and flog them at any price; it does not matter'. But in the case of uranium the world has a real concern about what happens. The International Energy Agency has many safeguards to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. There are 50,000 nuclear weapons now in the world because those safeguards have not been able to prevent that proliferation. Because of the free market force orientation of the National Party, what has this country done? We have already sold and sent overseas 12,000 tonnes of our uranium and have committed another 42,000 tonnes. Let me put this as a matter of record: My Government permits the export of uranium under existing contracts, and that will continue. Mr Steele Hall —I thought you had put it off for a month. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member often thinks wrongly, and that is why he is in that position. All other aspects of uranium development-mining, production and export, including the international safeguard aspects of export-are currently being examined by the Government as a matter of serious concern. Why would we do that, honourable members might ask. That examination has not cost one job. It has not lost one contract. Let us look at the confusion of the former Government's policy. Where is the strength of a policy that says: 'Dig it out of the ground and flog it at any low price that might be available'? When I looked at this position on 17 March this year I found that the distinguished gentleman who brought forward this matter of confusion had given approval for the two existing mines to get contracts and for four other mines to get contracts. As a matter of interest, he did not give approval for Roxby Downs. He is so concerned about it! So let us get to where the confusion is. What sort of policy was it that said: 'I am not too clear whether I will give you approval but I will let you explore and develop these mines'? We had no doubt about the two existing mines and we still have no doubt about them; they are continuing to mine. But does it not seem incredible that, when the two existing mines have not sold their production, the previous Government allowed another four mines to seek contracts? I do not know what that was going to do for the financial stability of the existing mines. Then there were another five or six mines lined up, all apparently saying: 'We will be all right too.' But the biggest mine, Roxby Downs, contains 1.2 million tonnes whereas the market for uranium in the next ten years is less than that figure. Yet the right honourable member opposite had already given approval- Mr Anthony —It will not be before the 1990s that Roxby Downs comes into production. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Let us look at what the right honourable member opposite did. If ever we saw a hotchpotch confusion of policy, it is this one. There are two existing mines whose production cannot be sold, yet the right honourable member says: 'There is dreadful trouble'. Of course, the trouble is the problems of the uranium industry in the world. Following the Three Mile Island disaster there has been a real downturn in the market for uranium. Those whom the right honourable member had authorised to go into the market place to look for contracts could not get any. That is virtually the position. I want to tell the House how incompetent his administration was, as shown by some of the complaints coming to me now. They are coming on this basis: 'Well, Mr Anthony said it would be all right if I executed such a contract'. There is no record in the Department of the right honourable member having said that it was all right. I refer to his administration and to the reason for the confusion. This is what Mr Grey of Pancontinental said: 'I want to make it very clear that I got approval for a contract from Mr Anthony. I was informed by Mr Anthony during a telephone conversation with him that if the contract could be renegotiated it would meet his requirements'. That was a telephone conversation. The Department has told me that it has no record of approval having been given. I invite that right honourable member to consider the confusion and the problem that the Leader of the Opposition has created for Pancontinental, to consider how much money it has spent in exploration. Mr Anthony —What are you going to do about it? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I would not do what the Leader of the National Party did about it. I would not have a telephone conversation with the man. He said this: 'I sent you a contract in December 1982 and I sent you further evidence of it later '. I have a report from my Department saying: 'Look, as far as we are concerned, yes, they were sent, but we gave no response'. Where is the efficiency? Where is the confusion? The Leader of the National Party should have a yarn with Mr Grey of Pancontinental about where he sees his confusion lying because he never got approval to a contract from the Leader of the National Party. Yeelirrie is another one to which the Leader of the National Party gave approval. There were no contracts for that, but again they came and said: 'Let us make it very clear, Mr Anthony said it would be all right for us to negotiate these matters and we virtually had approval from him'. They said that in a long telex to me, but no approval was given. Let us put it on the record: It is a question of what he really meant to do. He was anxious to get as many mines as possible developed in Australia, but for what purposes? The purposes had nothing to do with the stability of the uranium industry, nothing to do with advantage to Australia. Two of the mines were completely foreign owned. Koongarra was 100 per cent owned by the Canadians and Ben Lomond was 100 per cent owned by the French. So where was the Australian interest and value to Australia in owning a fuel resource that we have to monitor carefully? Mr Hodgman —Are you for or against uranium mining? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Is it any wonder that we have to say: 'Let's have another look at this policy. Let's look at it from the point of view of what should be done on development'. There are very serious concerns, not only in Australia but throughout the world, about what could happen if there were not adequate protection of the uranium cycle. It has always interested me, on looking at the safeguards policy announced by the previous Government-I must admit, that it was announced by the then Minister for Foreign Affairs-to find a watering down of the safeguards. Every time we had a debate on this matter we found that consent for reprocessing was automatically given. It was given away in advance. We found that there was no real Australian policy on high level waste disposal. I invite the right honourable gentleman who proposed this matter of public importance to stand up and say that he would accept high level waste disposal in his electorate of Richmond. If he were to do that, if it were suggested that he had said that it would be all right to have high level waste disposed of within the electorate of Richmond, he would be run out of office by his own people. He would not last three minutes. What is going to happen to the high level waste? At present we have the problem of Japan considering dumping waste in the Pacific Ocean. On one occasion consent was given in advance, to France in particular, to enrich uranium to a level above 20 per cent, which is well up towards weapons grade capacity. Why would anyone want to give such consent in advance? We found also that consent was given to Finland. Mr Anthony —That is not right- Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is right. I will refer the honourable member to the relevant section in Hansard later. Mr Anthony —You pick it out. That is quite wrong. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —We will have a yarn later. I would not make the statement without knowing that it was right. With the sale to Finland it was understood, it was accepted, that the enrichment would take place in the Soviet Union. We do not regard any of these matters as indicating that a satisfactory method of handling safeguards proposals has been adopted. I go over them again: Consent was given in advance. There was no satisfactory concept of high level waste disposal. It was indicated that enrichment or reprocessing could certainly take place in countries with which we really do not have a close affinity. I make it very clear- Mr Anthony —Is that France? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, the Soviet Union. The right honourable member must be deaf. I have just made the point. Mr Anthony —There is no reprocessing in the Soviet Union. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am talking about enrichment in the Soviet Union. Mr Anthony —You said reprocessing, so be correct in what you are saying. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It can be reprocessed. I make it clear that we would not be able to identify the Australian uranium once it went to the Soviet Union. We would have no knowledge of what happened to it because we would have lost physical possession of it. Mr Hodgman —Are you in favour of it or not? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —The honourable member for Denison has now made that interjection six times. I think he has made his point. I ask him to cease interjecting. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —We are debating today what went wrong with the previous Government's policy. The two existing mines have not yet been able to sell their product. The previous Government's policy allowed another four mines to enter the market place-with another five mines following them, the biggest mine, of course, being Roxby Downs-with a proliferation of uranium at the basic natural level. If the previous Government had really been interested in developing the industry for Australia, it would have looked at safeguards for the nation in terms of how the uranium was mined; safeguards in respect of what would happen to it when it was exported overseas; a guarantee that it would not be used in respect of weapons; and a guarantee that high level waste disposal would at least have been developed using satisfactory technology. But the previous Government did none of those things. I can understand why it did not do so. I make the point that the uranium policy was left to the National Party of Australia. The Liberal Party had no input. The problem we now find in Australia is how best to grapple with this industry that has been allowed to develop in a slipshod manner. People feel that they are entitled to have contracts when in fact they have been given no approval. I made it very clear to all of them on 17 March that I withdrew all of their determinations. I invited all of them to re-apply, and some of them did so. I reissued rights to remain in the market place to the two existing mines. So there is plenty of consistency about our policy. At present those existing mines state that they have about 100,000 tonnes of uranium which is still not sold. Mr Anthony —Which ones? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —From Ranger-- Mr Anthony —It is not even that size. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Does the right honourable member say that the uncommitted amount is not of that size? Ranger has 138,706 tonnes. Mr Anthony —You said uncommitted. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The uncommitted amount is 92,150 tonnes. This information was supplied by a department which the right honourable member used to administer. Mr Anthony —Okay. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The right honourable member says 'okay'. It is about time that he made some admission. Queensland Mines has an uncommitted amount of 4,000 tonnes. That is a total amount of 100,000 tonnes of uncommitted uranium from existing mines. The honourable member talked about confusion! He gave the other producers the right to enter the market place. They would have supplied almost two million tonnes; if they ever get it out of the ground. What did that policy do for the market? It certainly suited the multinationals around the world to believe that there was a proliferation of uranium and that they could get it at any old price. What was the right honourable member doing to get the best value for our uranium? The right honourable member talked about confusion. Did he give consent to Pancontinental Mining Ltd and Yeelirrie? The answer is that he did not. Mr Anthony —I gave a determination, you know that. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The right honourable member gave consent over the telephone; that shows the amount of representation. He talked about administration and confusion. Those companies were allowed to spend substantial sums of money on his verbal advice. We want to make it clear to the nation that we are concerned about the uranium cycle. We are not satisfied that our uranium cannot be diverted into weapons. We are not satisfied that sufficient technology has been developed for the disposal of high level waste. We are not satisfied to find that consent in advance was automatically deemed to have been given to reprocessing simply because the uranium had been sold. We are not satisfied to have a safeguards regime which indicates that we will be bound by determination or arbitration by somebody else . This issue is very serious to the Australian people. There are divisions amongst all sections of the Australian community about whether we should be mining uranium. A strong body of opinion says that we should not. The facts of life, when the right honourable member talked about confusion and uncertainty, are that they were his policies. The only thing that we can say is this: We have given a clear indication that existing contracts will be able to continue. But we will certainly have a good look at the whole uranium cycle. We will look at whether we can guarantee that if it must be used-maybe it does not have to be used-it will not be used to the detriment of mankind or to create more nuclear weapons or to pollute the environment. We will guarantee to Australia that we will own and control our resources. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable gentleman's time has expired. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(3.35) —If the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Anthony) wanted any justification for speaking to this question, he received it from the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen), who in the latter part of his speech, said: 'We want to make it clear to the nation' . I put to him the question that was asked by way of interjection: Is he in favour or not in favour of mining Australian uranium? That is the question that he avoided for 15 minutes of the speech that he has just given to this House. He simply refused to answer that question. Is that the way to make a policy clear to the nation? Of course, he has retreated to the question of safeguards and the question of the economic value of the uranium in the ground in Australia. He cannot avoid the fact that the Australian Labor Party follows a dishonest attitude about this matter. It is dishonest from the very beginning, as shown in the policy which was written as recently as 1982. It deliberately mixes the question of the peaceful use of uranium for power with that of the use of uranium for atomic weapons. Paragraph 56 of the Labor Party platform states: We have remained steadfast in our opposition to the growing propensity for reliance upon the nuclear fuel cycle as a source of energy and for other commercial and military applications. That statement mixes in one sentence those two matters which are completely separate in their application. I submit to the House that that was done deliberately to confuse by the left wing of the Labor Party which has control of the organisation at that level. I support the matter of public importance raised by the Leader of the National Party of Australia because I am deeply concerned at the effect of Labor's policy on the economy and I am deeply concerned about our stance among international trading nations. I am particularly concerned as a representative from South Australia. I do not want to address this question as a parochial one, but I must say to the House-as the House already knows-that South Australia has the promise of being the largest uranium producer in Australia, and probably the largest single uranium producer in the world. Therefore, it is not parochial to raise it in the context of the absence of a policy of any nature as illustrated by the remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister and by the deliberate and dishonest confusion of this question which is promoted by the Labor Party in its organisation and in the community. We know that the left wing of the Labor Party in Victoria is again becoming very prominent. We know the problems that existed for that Party during the early 1970s, the action that was taken and the apparent subdued position in which the left wing was put on the road to government by the Labor Party. But it has flared up during the last few weeks and months to a degree where it can make the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) reverse a publicly held position on uranium and to say, as he has said in the last day or two, that the position will now be put off for a month. One further month will be added to very important commercial decisions that must be taken by those involved in the uranium industry. As I said, it is an illustration of the power of the Left on this question. The Deputy Prime Minister is unable to say in the House today that he is in favour of mining because of his Party's platform, which states: understanding the difficulties which could be encountered in the implementation of that commitment our minimum position would be a total unequivocal commitment to phase out Australia's involvement in the uranium industry and that certain conditions as outlined will and must be applied to those mines existing in production as of July 1982; and as an ALP government we give total commitment to preventing any new mines from being developed during our period of office. That is why the Deputy Prime Minister cannot answer the simple question today. His Party has bound him to that decision, and in trying to interpret it in some other way, the leadership has been pulled in gear. The sacking of the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) from the Ministry has exaggerated and exacerbated that question for the Australian Labor Party as the Left and the Right have divided on a personality factor as well as on the question of uranium . The result is disastrous for this country. We know of the position of Mr Camilleri in Victoria, for instance, in relation to the question of fighting uranium mining. We know of the telegram that was recently sent-early this month I think-by the Victorian ALP's anti-uranium committee to the Prime Minister: It is vital that the Federal Government stand by the major commitments contained in its policy. That is what the Government is being told. That is why it says we cannot have a policy or even consider a policy for another month-because the Party is festering again in the anti-uranium left wing sections. In South Australia, of course we have a continuing fight. Mr Peter Duncan, the member in this House for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott) and Senator Bolkus in the Senate are diametrically opposed to uranium mining and did their damnedest to stop the approval of Roxby Downs by a Liberal government in South Australia. They fought it every inch of the way and gave support later only when the electoral position was such that Labor would never have gained office if it had not adopted the policy of uranium mining at Roxby Downs. But now that Labor is in government in South Australia, a great shadow hangs over the largest potential mine in this country-a shadow that is there because the Left is working in the State Labor Party in South Australia as well as here. It imprisoned the Deputy Prime Minister in the non-statement he made this afternoon. Mr Anthony —Uranium is grounded but he lets the two mines continue. Mr STEELE HALL —Well, of course in South Australia there is the peculiar technical perception of the Labor Party that uranium from the Beverley and Honeymoon mines will hurt us; that if one digs it up and sells it it might be made into something harmful or used for some bad purpose. But the current position is that if one digs it up out of Roxby it is harmless. That is a peculiar technical assessment. I would not think that the Minsiter for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) in the present Government would approve that sort of assessment. In fact, the Minsiter for Science and Technology would not approve the current perception or the dishonest statement in Labor's policy lumping peaceful and- Mr Anthony —Safeguards are no good but they continue to sell it. Mr STEELE HALL —Of course. Labor's policy is shot through with the problem of the Left and the Right. There is a lot one could say about this. One could talk of the increasing growth of use of uranium in the world which is a fact of life. One could talk of the warning which has been given by the European Economic Community to Australia about the banning of uranium sales to France. One can mention the statements of the Managing Director of Western Mining Corporation Holdings Ltd, Mr Morgan, which point to the futility of Australia's trying to govern the uranium policies of other countries by withholding sales here when they can get uranium from countries such as Argentina or some other country that does not have as stable a government as that in Australia, despite the Labor Government here. One has to ask the reason why so many of the Labor Party are against uranium mining, and why they adopt a knowingly deceptive position. They are not as simple as all that. They know that they are deliberately mixing the two uses of uranium. They know that we only sell it to countries with which we have concluded safeguard agreements. They know that we cannot really stop by our policies the development of French testing or any other country's determination to proceed with atomic weapons. They are pursuing through this medium the old, left wing, socialist aim. It is an attack on the capitalist nations of the world . If one examines it at the bottom line it is an attack on the Western alliance and on the countries which follow a basic capitalist view. Mr Hayden —Oh, come on. Mr STEELE HALL —The Minister for Foreign Affairs can examine the main protesters , examine the names and the positions that carry those policies. He will find that almost without fail those same people who carry an anti-American policy carry an anti-uranium policy. It is a simple fact of life-and it is available for any study in the literature which is written about this matter. The Labor Party does not like it, especially the more right wing honourable members in relation to the Left and Right argument on this question. I give credit to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs- Mr Chynoweth —I am not on your left. Mr STEELE HALL —They are not of the Left. Honourable members opposite do not like that truth being quoted to them. But it works in every examination of the question. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory)(3.45) —We have heard the ramblings and ravings of the National-Liberal Party representatives on the other side. We have heard of the newfound care and concern that the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Anthony) has for Aborigines, a care and concern that is of only recent finding, I might add. This debate is a great example of the old saying, 'the best means of defence is attack'. The terms of the matter of public importance read: The disastrous effects of the Government's confusion and inconsistency on the uranium industry. We have heard two speakers from the other side. We have not yet heard one iota of evidence about any disastrous effect on the industry. Let us look at the industry. If one looks at the Olympic Dam project one finds that the feasibility study will not be completed until the end of next year and even if production were to proceed immediately after that it would not be ready until the early or mid-1990s. So, where is the disastrous effect on that particular deposit? If one looks at Ranger and Nabarlek one finds that they are continuing to produce uranium. If anything, they would benefit if we stopped further mines being developed because they would not have other competitors in a poor market. Narbarlek has contracts which will take it through to 1988. Ranger has contracts which will take it through to 1996. So where is the disastrous effect on those two deposits? Let us look at Jabiluka. The Jabiluka deposit cannot start until Pancontinental Mining Ltd gets some contracts. The Leader of the National Party can go on rambling and raving as he has here this afternoon but the fact is that Pancontinental was negotiating for some 12 to 18 months before the Labor Party got into government. It could get only one contract, a small contract with the British Central Electricity Generating Board. What happened to that contract? The Leader of the National Party refused to allow the company to export under that contract-and he knows that-because it did not comply with the then Government's floor price policy. The fact is that Pancontinental cannot get any contracts because the world market for uranium is depressed. Are the National Party and the Liberal Party blaming us for the disastrous effects of free market forces? Is that what they are saying? Are they saying that because free market forces have applied, and because Pancontinental cannot get any contracts and cannot develop the deposits, we are in some way at fault? Let us look at the Ben Lomond mine in Queensland. The Total group of companies decided in June this year not to proceed with that development. Why? Because of the state of the world market for uranium. Again, free market forces have stopped that development. So the speakers for the other side have shown no evidence of there being any disastrous effect on the uranium industry. Indeed, the contrary is the case if one looks at the uranium industry as it is at present. We now come to the question of confusion and inconsistency. Uranium is a very special mineral. As other speakers have said this afternoon, it has the potential to do immense environmental damage. It can be turned into plutonium and used to blow up the whole world. Indeed, we have enough nuclear arms at present to do that many times over. Our policy on the nuclear industry deals with all these sorts of questions in quite some detail. It says: For example, any contract with the French government could only be contemplated subject to that government ceasing all nuclear testing programmes in the Pacific . It says: For example any contract with the Japanese could only be contemplated subject to them withdrawing from their intention to dump waste material in the Pacific. It says: For example any contract with the Finns would be subject to our being satisfied beyond all doubt that the supply of uranium was not being deflected into the nuclear fuel cycle and nuclear arms programme of the USSR. It says: For example any contract with Great Britain would be subject to our being satisfied beyond all doubt that the supply of uranium was not being used to assist in developing nuclear armaments. So it goes on. It is a detailed policy on this very special and important mineral and industry. It is very important that a national government, and a national political party , has a policy dealing with all these important matters. So I went to look for the policy of the National Party of Australia and of the Liberal Party of Australia on this subject. Looking for the Liberal Party's policy took me quite some time. I have concluded that it does not have one. The written policy document of the Liberal Party does not mention the word 'uranium' once. The National Party is just a little better. It devotes a whole two lines to this very important question. The Labor Party's policy goes on for three and a half pages and deals with all the important matters that have been raised this afternoon. The National Party's two lines go as follows: Development of Australia's uranium reserves to meet world demand, subject to high standards of safety and peaceful use in accordance with international obligations. I should like to consider two aspects of that very lengthy policy on this important issue. Let us look at world demand. We have already heard from the Leader of the National Party that the uranium market throughout the world is depressed and that, at the very earliest, it will start coming out of that state of depression in 1988-most commentators say that it will be in the early 1990s- and that it will reach a stage at which it is a bullish market in the mid-1990s. So we are talking of some eight years to 13 years away. The world market was the subject of comment by the Uranium Institute, which published a document called ' The Uranium Equation' in 1981. At the end of that document it said: To summarise, the present study endorses the conclusions reached in the Committee's February 1979 report, to the extent that the changes which have affected the market outlook during the past two years will not lead to a supply shortfall during the 1980s. Indeed, the present problem is one of excess supply. That is the problem. There is no world demand for uranium at present. So we have the Leader of the National Party telling us that we should go ahead and develop all these mines. That conflicts with his own policy. His policy states that he will develop uranium to meet world demand. Mr Anthony —That is right. Mr REEVES —Where is the world demand? Mr Anthony —The spot prices have come up. Haven't you seen that? Mr REEVES —That is the confusion. That is the inconsistency. Let me point to another aspect of confusion and inconsistency in this policy. We must remember that the Liberal Party has no policy on uranium at all, so we can deal only with the National Party, because that is the only opposition party that has some policy. The National Party talks about international obligations in that two- line policy on this very important industry. In another part of the policy it talks of its support for the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. During its term in Government it allowed some 2,400 tonnes of uranium to be committed in exports to France. Its members know as well as I do, and as well as everyone on the Government side of the House, that France is not a signatory to the Non- Proliferation Treaty. What is consistent about that? The National Party has a policy saying that it will meet international obligations, that it supports the Treaty, and yet it sends uranium to France while France is testing in our own region. How inconsistent and confusing can one get? This afternoon here are members of the National Party criticising the Labor Government for having a policy which spells out in some detail all of these different aspects and our approach to each of the different aspects of this important and controversial issue. Mr Goodluck —First the dam, and now the uranium. There will be no fuel left soon ; nothing. Mr REEVES —As with the sex discrimination legislation-I can hear the honourable member for Franklin squawking yet again-and as with the wages policy, we are finding yet again that the confusion and inconsistency exists on the Opposition benches. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The discussion is concluded. Debate resumed from 14 September, on motion by Mr Willis: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava)(3.55) —I should like to refer to the second reading speech on the Salaries and Wages Pause Act Repeal Bill by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), and in particular, to his statement that the Government submitted strongly to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission: that now was an appropriate time to end the wages pause and to introduce a system of centralised wage fixing based on full, six-monthly cost of living adjustments. He went on to say that such a system was argued by the Government as being: fully suited to the needs of our times and is clearly in the best longer term interests of Australia. It protects the real incomes of wage and salary earners. The Government has placed before us no evidence upon which it believes that now is the time to end the wages pause and that now is the time to protect real incomes when only a few months ago in this chamber we were all told, first by the Premier of New South Wales and then by others, that the only issue facing the National Economic Summit Conference was jobs, jobs, jobs; and that still, in the opinion of most people, is the issue facing Australia today. But the Minister said, on behalf of the Government, when introducing this measure, that this is the appropriate time to break the wages pause. So, the Bill goes on to provide that the legislation introduced by the previous Government, when it began the process of implementing the wages pause, should be repealed. I ask the Minister: What has happened to the state of the economy since the wages pause was introduced and since the Summit which justifies the Government's belief that a wage increase is now justified and what are the consequences of that policy for employment? I remind the House of what the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission said in its judgment of 23 December last year. I quote from portions of the text of the President. He said: The Commission is faced with an unprecedented situation. Firstly, Australia is experiencing the worst economic recession since the 1930s . Secondly, all eight Governments agree that a wages pause is necessary on economic grounds. Thirdly, all eight Governments agree that action should be taken to freeze public sector wage and salary increases for a period of at least six months. The text goes on to examine the other submissions put to the Commission, and the President then continues about the state of the economy: Central to the case for a pause was the state of the Australian economy. Three main developments have affected the economy adversely-a deep and prolonged world recession, a serious drought and a substantial increase in domestic labour costs . The world recession has resulted in a collapse in the demand and prices of our main mineral exports and has halted the resources boom. It has also produced a more protectionist international trade environment creating potential difficulties for many of our exports and our import competing industries. The drought together with the rise in farm costs is expected to nearly halve the net value of rural production during the current year. The sharp increase in labour costs has resulted from general increases in pay and reductions in hours since the end of indexation flowing particularly from the metal industry agreement of December 1981. Any one of these three developments without the others might have been tolerable. But in combination they have produced the most serious economic crisis since the depression of the 1930s. We know that people say that the world recession is starting to ease; but every second day reports fluctuate as to the extent of the easing of that recession. Indeed, the forecasts are most conflicting regarding the economies of the United States of America, Japan and European countries and especially the economies of the United States and Japan which have a very big impact on our own. It appears that there will be a series of ups and downs in those economies with each down perhaps being a bit less than the one before. But the fact is that it will not be an even recovery and we certainly will not get the benefits of it for some time. We know that the drought has ended and that certainly has eased some of the pressures that were upon us. But some of the effects of that drought and of the bushfires in terms of the costs of raw materials and other items will still be felt through our economy for some time. The purpose of the pause, as the Commission has indicated very strongly and clearly in its judgment, was to try to ease that economic situation for the purpose of reducing our rate of inflation and unemployment. The Government campaigned in March on the basis of creating new jobs. We saw the unemployment figures the other day and they indicate that in the Government's period in office it has created in the order of 100 new jobs. Yet the Government has gone back to the Arbitration Commission urging that this wage pause not be extended but, indeed, prematurely ended. One has to admit that by the time the Commission 's judgment appears the pause will probably have been prematurely ended by about eight weeks when compared with what the Government sought. It is the view of the Opposition that facing the Australian people at the moment is a choice-wage increases for those with a job or a further tightening of the belts, a further real reduction in wages, in order that those who do not have a job have a chance to get one. We believe that the Australian public would continue to subscribe to a wages pause for a little longer if, in fact, jobs were seen to have been created at the end of that time. As it is, we know that when gallup polls have surveyed the opinions of the public the results have shown that people have supported the wages pause just as they have supported the other actions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Commission, at a further point of its judgment when it was looking at the economic consequences of the pause, said: In the last 12 months- That is really the whole of the last calendar year 1982- Australia has experienced a substantial increase in wages and real unit labour costs at a time when there has been a marked slowing down of wage increases and inflation in our main trading partners. With the economy in recession and a further decline predicted we do not believe that Australia can now afford another round of wage increases. The effect on inflation, unemployment and business confidence could be serious indeed. We conclude, therefore, that the circumstances warrant a pause from further general increases in labour costs. A little further on the Commission indicated why it was prepared to review the matter in six months. It said: In the current changing economic climate it is more difficult than usual to make economic judgments bearing on a substantial period ahead. The world economic situation could change significantly in less than a year's time. I put it to the House that the world economic situation has not changed significantly in that time. On the contrary, whilst it may be that the world recession has bottomed out and it may even be that the Australian economy, thanks very much to the wages pause and the ending of the drought, has begun to bottom out, a premature increase in wages would now only aggravate that situation and throw away the benefits of the pause. While on that subject I say that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) indicated to the House at one stage that he thought that there should be some increase of only 3 to 4 per cent in this calendar year but that next year it might be possible to return to a situation of full indexation. Of course, he hoped that by that time his Government's policies plus the world economic recovery would have brought about a situation in which inflation was running at a manageable level of 5 or 6 per cent. I refer to the Hansard of 10 May at page 344 where the Prime Minister, in answer to a dorothy dix question-a question from one of his colleagues which he knew of and welcomed-said: We believe that in this context there is room for only minimal wage increases before the end of 1983, and that is the position that we will be very clearly putting to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission . . . I say further in that respect that on that basis there would be room for a return to indexation in 1984. One has to ask what it is about the economy that has changed since the National Economic Summit Conference and since the Prime Minister said in this House in May that he thought a modest increase, a minimal wage increase, would be justified before the end of 1983. Why is he now saying that there should be, in effect, full indexation from the March quarter of this year? As we know, the March quarter commences on 1 January. One can consider that matter in a very realistic and accurate statistical sense. The wage pause was introduced on 23 December and it will be lifted, in effect, from 1 January because that is when the March quarter commences. On the Government's submission to the Arbitration Commission, that is the day on which full indexation of wages ought to start. We know of no economic justification to support that. The only consequence of that position can be that those in a job will get an increase in wages and those not in a job will have less prospect of getting a job that they might otherwise have had. The Opposition certainly supports the objectives of the Summit when it said : . . . that it is a legitimate expectation that the income of the employed shall be increased in real terms through time in line with productivity. But in our submission there is a very big difference between maintaining real wages and increasing real wages 'through time in line with productivity'. The Government is committed to maintaining real wages willy-nilly regardless of what that does to inflation, interest rates and unemployment, whereas the Opposition is committed to increasing real wages in line with productivity improvement while, at the same time, hoping to improve the prospects of employment for those who are now outside a job. I find merit in the view of the Confederation of Australian Industry. At the conference convened by Sir John Moore after the Summit the Confederation said: . . . the centralised system should be based upon making a periodic assessment of the national economy in order to determine its capacity to pay higher wage increases without adverse consequences. While such an investigation necessarily involves an examination of price movements, they should not be at the heart of the system. That is a very major point of difference between the employers, and the unions and the Government. The unions and the Government formed their prices and incomes accord. The employers were not privy to that, were not part of that, and neither at the Summit nor elsewhere have they subscribed to the indexation of wages on the basis of movements in the consumer price index. There are many good reasons why they do not. Prices of themselves do not indicate a capacity to pay wages. Prices rise for many reasons. Some of them, indeed, stem from wage increases and some from import prices which can depend upon costs in other countries-world commodity prices. Price rises can rest on various demand factors including those related to imports and certainly they can be the result of government charges as well. State and Federal government Budgets are currently imposing charges on industries which simply cannot be absorbed into their cost structure any more. The natural tendency of industries when they are competing in a recessed economy is to absorb their cost increases as much as they can. They do that by shedding labour as much as they can rather than putting up their prices and being uncompetitive. But they reach a point where they cannot shed any more labour and they have no option but to put up their prices. That does not indicate a capacity to pay higher wages. It indicates only that in order to survive they must increase their prices. Very rarely in our experience as a country have profit margins been of such an order that they really had a capacity to pay wages of the sort claimed by the trade union movement. We have the difficulty that, while the Government gained the agreement of the organised employers to a return to a centralised system, it did not gain their agreement to indexation of wages under that system. The position of the employers has always been that wages ought to be increased in line with productivity improvement, and that is the Opposition's position on any sound economic basis. It has to be acknowledged that national productivity improvement alone can justify increases through any national wage case mechanism without a further worsening of inflation and a further worsening of our industry's capacity to employ people. In the Government's view, so it seems, the Commission should look at only one economic indicator, that is, the movement in the consumer price index, and it should automatically adjust all wages by the same percentage. Never mind about movements in output, consumption, investment, exports, imports, international competitiveness, employment, unemployment, labour costs, interest rates or productivity improvement. The Government tells the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission: 'Forget about all the other domestic factors and conditions in the rest of the world. Simply go ahead and be a rubber stamp. Increase wages across the board, automatically, every six months in the light of movements in the consumer price index'. One of the problems which the Government faces is that of educating employees, educating members and officials of the labour movement. This is the difficulty. In the previous period of indexation it created the expectation that wages would be fully adjusted for movements in prices. The indexation system implied that regardless of the state of the economy there was some entitlement to full adjustment of wages for movements in prices. Whenever there was a decision granting less than full indexation the unions took the attitude that they had been short changed. That is the situation which the Government has created for itself. To a large measure the Prime Minister, when he was President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, helped to create an expectation that makes it industrially unrealistic, in the Government's assessment, to do other than grant a wage increase now even though the economic rationalists in the Government, including the Prime Minister, know that that will harm our prospects of economic recovery and make much harder the attainment by the Government of its objectives of creating 500,000 new jobs in the life of this Parliament. In any rational world there is no way that we would return to any form of quasi- automatic adjustment of wages for prices. That is the bind in which the Government has got itself and, sadly, the people of Australia. While many people wrongly equate the centralised system with indexation, the two are quite distinct. There is no way, in our submission, that indexation should be contemplated by whatever means it is to be introduced. Also , I do not believe that the statutory obligations of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission would enable it, on any more than one or two occasions, to comply with the Government's requests. What the Government does is to put the Commission into an extremely difficult position. It will be accused of formulating its own economic policies contrary to those of the Government if it does not heed the Government's wishes. At the same time it has a statutory obligation to consider the economic consequences of its decisions, especially regarding unemployment. It behoves the Government to bring that information before the Commission. The Government speaks with several voices on this issue. Recently, at the National Press Club the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said that inflation is the cruellest, the most indiscriminate tax of all. At present the Government is advocating, through the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, a further biting of taxation, taxation by inflation. There is no way that indexation is going to improve the real economic position of the people who have received it. It is far more likely to make employees worse off because an economic system can distribute only what it makes, what it produces. At the moment it would be a false increase, a money wage increase, to index merely because there have been price increases when there is no profitability and no capacity to pay those wages. Productivity is the only means whereby we can increase real wages. On that basis we believe that the Government has an obligation to use its much vaunted special relationship with the trade union movement to try to educate the leaders and members of that movement to understand the importance of productivity improvement. In order to expose still further the absurdity of the Government's position I refer the House to a document which was produced by the Legislative Research Service of the Department of the Parliamentary Library. It is Current Issues Brief No. 7 1983 and it is entitled 'The CPI and Wage Indexation'. I strongly commend it to the House because it shows the folly of indexing wages in accordance with the consumer price index. Australia has persisted for far too long with the myth that somehow or other the CPI measures the real cost of living. It does not purport to do that. Whatever the pros and cons of the regular cost of living adjustments, it is absurd to increase wages and salaries in line with an index that takes no account of increased government services to the community. It is tantamount to paying wage earners extra to compensate them for the extra services provided by the Government. If the Government is going to move its taxation mix more towards indirect taxes it has no option but to exclude indirect taxation from the CPI basket. This is made all the more urgent by the decision of the Government to index excise duty twice yearly. The alternative is that, through the Government's commitment to full wage indexation , Australia will be condemned to a return to the wage-price spiral, with even more disastrous consequences for inflation and unemployment. This is so at a time when other countries have not only reduced their real wages but also, in some cases, have increased their hours of work. The absurdity of the current position is exposed by the increase in petrol excise. This increase will add substantially to the costs of many employers and will reduce their ability to pay wages at the current levels. To increase wage levels as a result of this very same increase is not only incongruous but also will have a very serious and adverse effect on employers. I ask the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, if he intends to reply in this debate, to comment on that matter and on why it is that the Government relies upon the consumer price index, which is a basket of goods that are weighted in accordance with what some people purchase but which is not, on any sound analysis, a guide to the cost of living for the purpose of even taking account of price increases, let alone doing so automatically. The Prime Minister says that his Government is clearly going to move a little along the indirect tax line and has now indexed excise duties. Yet in an interview on 26 August in the Age, he stated in relation to his Government: . . . won't ask the Arbitration Commission to discount national wage rises for the impact of indirect tax increases. One gets the impression that the Treasurer is flirting with the idea of moving to a broad indirect tax base. If that is not to be discounted, not only will there be some inflationary impact from the move to indirect taxes but also it will be compounded by wage indexation in accordance with the CPI. If ever there was double discounting that is it. It is guaranteed to worsen the state of our economy. Before concluding my remarks in this debate, I come back to the economy. The most recent reports from several of our banks, including the Westpac Banking Corporation, state that there are ominous signs that the agreement between the Government and the unions is fraying at the edges and that the whole rationale of the Budget is very shaky and very risky indeed. In those circumstances I believe that the Government ought to go back to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and obtain, more literally than it has so far done, the signature on the dotted line of the unions which are now saying to the ACTU: 'Pay up or else. ' The President of the ACTU, in the Age on Monday this week, is reported to have said that the rebel unions should get a wage case rise. That flies in the face of what the Secretary of the ACTU said last week. Mr Deputy Speaker, while the Opposition does not oppose this Bill it wishes to move an amendment to the motion, without denying a second reading, because of its concern about the state of the economy. Before moving that amendment I remind the House that the other side of the previous Government's wage pause program was the setting up of a wage pause job creation program with the moneys saved from the public sector which otherwise would have gone on in estimated wage increases. It will be recalled that we saved $300m from appropriations, and we appropriated those funds to special employment-related programs which covered public housing and an array of other matters to assist unemployed youth and older workers-males and females-and a variety of people who were seen to be disadvantaged in getting employment. It is a sad fact that the State governments were not pulling their weight as well as they might have done in carrying out those guidelines and in using that money effectively. We now find that the wages pause is to be repealed. Many of the State governments have not helped the Federal Government to achieve the result it sought. In fact the Federal Government has now introduced a very similar program which probably has the same dismal prospect of success. While it talks of job creation programs it will find that it will be unable to carry out those programs effectively because of a lack of imagination and capacity within the States. At the same time it adopts a course of action designed to worsen inflation and unemployment. Without opposing the Bill, the Opposition moves: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that- (1) wage increases ought to be granted in accordance with the capacity of Australian industry to pay those wages; (2) price increases of themselves do not indicate that capacity; (3) wages ought not to be automatically indexed following movements in the consumer price index; and (4) in view of the continuing economic recession, the forecasts made at the National Economic Summit and recent analyses of the economy, the Government should have used its self-proclaimed special relationship with the trade union movement to have the wage pause extended in the interests of economic recovery and job creation and the Government should be condemned for its failure to do so '. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) -Is the amendment seconded? Mr Braithwaite —I second the amendment. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(4.23) —I listened with interest when the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) spoke for 27 minutes to try to determine exactly what the position of the Opposition was to be on a wages policy. It was only at the end of his speech that he came out with a statement in the form of an amendment, from which I am now trying to get some sort of sense. That is difficult because the Opposition has no firm policy on wages. Instead it has come up with a statement which basically says nothing. It states that the wage pause should be extended in the interests of economic recovery but it does not state for how long it should be extended, for what purpose it should be extended and what the economic results will be. It also does not give a clear statement of whether the Opposition supports a centralised wage fixing system. After all, we know that the shadow Minister for Industrial Relations, the honourable member for Balaclava, has very different views from those of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). What in fact is the Opposition's policy? If in fact the Opposition is to present criticisms of government policy, we will not mind, but we would like to see what it would put in its place. For 27 minutes the Opposition criticised our policy, but at no point did the members say what exactly they propose as an alternative. That shows the quality of the Opposition that exists in this country. We have before us a simple piece of legislation to repeal the provisions of the Salaries and Wages Pause Act which implemented a wage pause on all public sector salaries for 12 months. This legislation applied solely to Commonwealth public servants-68 per cent of the work force in the electorate I represent. Public servants have forgone salary increases, inceases which would be of great assistance in keeping up with the rising cost of living. For the year ended June 1983 there was an increase of 11.1 per cent in the cost of living in the Australian Capital Territory alone. It is important that honourable members realise that the large majority of public servants affected by this legislation earn between $12,000 and $14,000 per annum. More than half of all public servants employed under the Public Service Act are Fourth Division officers, and added to these are the high numbers of blue collar workers. A fettler, for example, with the Australian National Railways, receives gross pay of $243 per week which gives a take home pay of $190 a week. These are the people who have been affected for 12 months by this wage pause legislation. The wage pause was a gimmick. It was introduced by the previous Government in a last desperate attempt to revive the economy and save its skin at an election. It was a short sighted approach which obviously could not last. If there had been no election what would the previous Government have done with the wage freeze? Would it have independently applied it in regard to Commonwealth public servants? The reality is that the Opposition had no wages policy when in government and it still has none. There are differences of view in the Opposition. That is reasonable to expect, but we would like honourable members in the Opposition to come out with some explanation to the Australian electorate of exactly what they propose. They mouth criticisms of the Government's prices and incomes accord but they have no alternative to present. The Opposition, I presume, is now arguing for an extension of the wage pause, but for how long? This is totally unrealistic. The first thing I think a politician has to do is to realise that politics is the art of the possible. It is not possible to sustain this wage pause any longer because sectional wage claims would undoubtedly occur. Failure to repeal the Act would also grossly disadvantage government employees. It will also be inequitable. The passing on of a national wage case increase would therefore be delayed. The repeal of this legislation is ensuring that any decision of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission will apply equally to Australian Government employees as to employees in the private sector. Surely, even members of the Opposition would admit that that is fair and reasonable. The Government established an historic accord with the union movement to form the basis of a genuine and workable prices and incomes policy. The thrust of the policy is based on the premise that unemployment and inflation must be tackled simultaneously if we are to ensure that living standards are no longer eroded by inflation. The purpose of the prices and incomes policy, so well appreciated by the electorate at large, as demonstrated at the last Federal election, is to ensure that the benefits of recovery and of growth are not wasted by inflation through another bout of the wage-price spiral or the erosion of our international competitiveness. The long term goal for Australia, which the previous Government failed to recognise, must be the restoration of genuine full employment and the maintenance of real standards of living. These goals obviously cannot be achieved overnight. They will be achieved only by a concerted and united effort by all participants in the national economy and that is what we are witnessing today. We can see this process already under way. There was, first, the prices and incomes accord with the union movement; secondly, the May economic summit meeting; and, third, reconfirmation of the meeting's decisions as late as last week by the recent Australian Council of Trade Unions Congress. The Congress demonstrated that the union movement supports the Government's economic strategy and has taken a responsible national approach to solving the economic problems facing us, unlike the members of the Opposition. The prices and incomes accord was reaffirmed. One union which attempted to move outside the guidelines-the Food Preservers Union of Australia-was left in no doubt about the whole union movement's attitude to its actions. The record indicates that there has been a 99 per cent adherence to the accord. There is no doubt that the union movement as a whole appreciates the necessity of ensuring that the basic principles of the accord should remain intact and that the future lies in collective action for the collective welfare rather than allowing any particular union to go off by itself following a different course of action. I listened with interest last Friday to a wind-up report on the program The World Today of the Australian Council of Trade Unions Congress. I would just like to quote to honourable members some of the aspects of that debate just to show how supportive the union movement is of the wages accord. This debate involved several industrial writers for the various newspapers. Paul Ellercamp, the labour writer for the Australian, said, in answer to a question about the main achievement of the ACTU Congress: I think mainly the unanimity on wages. We saw yesterday a very stimulating debate on wages policy and the interesting thing is that we had assurances all across the political spectrum from the Right through the moderates to the extreme Left that they are united on wages policy and wage restraint behind an indexation system if the Arbitration Commission hands it down. Peter Stevens, chief industrial writer for the Melbourne Age, when asked about that comment, concluded that the great achievement of the Congress was the mood. He said that the mood certainly had had a great influence and that it reflected the unanimity of the union movement behind the Labor Government. He said that that had been clearly illustrated and he went on: It's always easy to say that we've heard it all before but you haven't heard any of this forum before. And that's what is significant . . . That is what was significant last week at the ACTU Congress. It is a great credit to members of the union movement. It is also a great credit to this Government that we have acted hand in hand with the union movement. The people of Australia will benefit from this system. In conclusion, if this Bill were not repealed there would be a serious breach of the accord as it applies to Australian Government employment. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why public sector employees should be expected to continue to bear this burden. It is government policy to ensure that Australian Government employees are placed on an equal footing with private sector employees and State government employees. It is essential that the wage guidelines established by the Government in the prices and incomes accord should apply to all wage earners. It would be unfair to wage earners, both in the public and private sectors, to delay the passing on of any national wage increase. Unless the guidelines apply to all, adherence to the centralised wage determination system would be placed in jeopardy and we would be back in the no- man's land in which the Opposition is still floundering. The success of the Government's wages policy is dependent upon an equitable application of the guidelines to all wage earners. This Bill ensures that public sector employees are not disadvantaged. For that reason I commend the Bill to the House. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(4.35) —The National Economic Summit Conference considered three particular scenarios: Projections of the Australian employment environment , the inflation environment and the wage earning environment for the next four years. The three different proposals considered by that Conference included an examination of what would be a suitable level of wages growth for the forthcoming four years. One prospect was for a 10 per cent increase over the four years. According to economists that 10 per cent increase would produce an average unemployment rate of 8.7 per cent and an annual inflation rate of 3.6 per cent. Delegates to the Economic Summit were told that a 20 per cent increase in wages over a four-year period would produce a 9.7 per cent average unemployment rate and an annual inflation rate of about 3.6 per cent. The third consideration of the Summit was a prospect of growth in wages of 57.9 per cent over the four-year period which would produce an average unemployment rate of 13 .2 per cent and an annual inflation rate of 14 per cent. I think the consideration of those three factors by the Economic Summit clearly indicates the concern that was present in that forum to deal with factors of inflation and unemployment. A close consideration will also indicate that a low growth in wages produces lower unemployment and lower inflation. Those were the matters being considered by the Conference. An examination of significant reports indicates that Australian industry and Australian employers are most concerned about labour shedding and the prospects for employment in their various industries. Australia is seeing the development of a new elite-an employed elite, a separation of the haves and the have nots, those who have jobs and those who do not have jobs. The new elite, those with jobs, seem to feel that, if their standard of living increases, they, as an increasingly smaller percentage of the community, become more elite. There seems to be a lack of concern for the have nots-those without jobs. At the best summary from surveys that are available to me the outlook is gloomy. The Government must accept that fact. If one refers to the survey conducted by the Metal Trades Industry Association of Australia and the Commonwealth Bank, one sees that, in the companies surveyed , total employment declined by 17 per cent in the year ending May 1983. There were projections of further declines during the rest of the year until December. Total sales of the companies that were surveyed by the Metal Trades Industry Association and the Commonwealth Bank indicated that those sales were down by 6. 8 per cent and that the outlook for exports was very gloomy. Despite some comments by Ministers who want to talk up factors within the economy, the industries that are involved in employing people are projecting gloomy futures. A survey conducted in August by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and the National Australia Bank indicates: Respondents are anticipating some build-up in both labour and overhead cost pressures during the September quarter; the former expectation no doubt reflecting the possibility of a national wage adjustment late in the quarter. No doubt this reflects also the process affecting the competitiveness of Australian industry-the capacity to earn and the capacity to employ. A survey was conducted also by the Australian Industries Development Association which endorses completely the two previous surveys about which I have spoken. In fact, the gloomy comments by AIDA would lead one to believe that the current Government is not dealing with realism but in fact prefers assurances given at national conferences, assurances which the parties that made them cannot be made to keep and which are not binding on the union movement. If one compares the hourly earning rates in the manufacturing industries in trying to assess the increase in hourly rates in Australia compared with other countries, only France under Mitterrand comes anywhere near the Australian increase in the last 12 months. Mr Goodluck —A socialist government. Mr CADMAN —A socialist government and a government that is failing badly to meet the demands and the challenges of Australia's declining economy. Countries such as Canada, the United States of America, Japan, Germany and the United Kingdom have hourly increases in wages that are half those of Australia. Wages in Australia have increased by 13.9 per cent-a big increase in real wages. Government members are not justified in saying that people must maintain their standard of living. On average, Australian people have more than maintained their living standards if we look at the cost of living and the average cost of their wages and salary increases. There has been a real increase in wages over the last four or five years. One has only to refer to tables produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics on the real average of ordinary earnings for full time adult males to see that for half years, full years or quarter years- whatever assessment one wants to use-over the last two years there has been a real increase in wages and salaries of 4 per cent to 5 per cent per half year on average. Those are massive increases. No one can really say that the capacity of people to pay their way has declined , if one looks at the facts. It might be polemic or politic for leaders of the unions to say that there has been a decline, but that is not factual. One has only to look at the comments of and prospects for industries which are major employers to see that a declining proportion of Australian people are getting more and more wages to the disadvantage of their fellows. Those who have lost employment or been sacked or retrenched by Australian industry are the sufferers of a rather selfish attitude created for political reasons by union leaders who must ensure the continuation of their salaries-salaries which, by the way, are met by members of their unions who are employed. At the moment that process is expanding and continuing. To see that one has only to look at the decisions granted in the oil industry and the pending decisions in the building industry and the food preservation industry. Now the shop assistants are claiming an additional increase outside indexation. It seems to me that this year will finish with full indexation for the whole working period for the whole of the Australian community, but some select areas will have increases far above indexation. Those moves are in the pipeline. It is indisputable that many unions and many sections of the Australian community will have a very large increase in real wages. I refer the House to last Friday's Australian Financial Review which reported a case being heard in Victoria before Commissioner Graham Walker in which chemical workers in the petroleum industry are seeking a $40 a week wage claim with a further flow-on to the Electrical Trades Union of $14.80 a week to $19.90 a week following a building industry decision which has not even yet been finalised. So the electrical trades are presupposing a decision in the building industry, as is the Federated Storemen and Packers Union. A large number of unions are queuing for these additional payments outside indexation. The prospect of this creating further unemployment is frightening. The increase in real wages in Australia in the full year will be very substantial. To appreciate this one has only to read of specific examples of the difficulties facing employees in various companies and to look at company histories. I now present to the House the history of two companies. Company A is a major manufacturer in the area of high technology and capital equipment. The erosion of the company's competitive position, even in respect of existing business, has had an adverse effect. For instance, the change to the metal trades award at the end of 1981 forced the company to revise upwards a tender for a significant United States contract. The nexus between wage and on-cost factors and volume losses is thus quite definite. The initial bid was estimated to be competitive and within the negotiating parameters of the United States customer but the revised tender was unacceptable, even as a basis for negotiation. That company informed its employees that this stage had been reached: . . . unless we can slow down or stop this continued rise in our costs over those of our competitors, we will find it difficult to avoid further serious reductions in our activities. Of course, that would involve a reduction in staff. Company B is a major mineral producer. The company's view is that, in the face of the adverse trends in its international markets, the wages freeze from the middle of last year was a major factor in keeping returns from its mining operation at near break-even point and thereby preventing mine closures and the retrenchment of its labour force. The company remains vulnerable to a change in wage rates. A 4 per cent increase in wages, for instance, would effectively wipe out the company's 1981-82 profits and the company would then be forced to start retrenchments. I could run through the histories of four or five additional large employers, many of which have laid off thousands of employees basically because they have not been able to maintain their competitive status in the Australian community. I think there needs to be a great deal of rethinking in the wages area. For the Government to move early to undo the wages freeze and to back-write all the benefits of that wages freeze so that there will have been a four day wage freeze in this nation will mean that the first-half rise for the calendar year 1983 will be granted three months late. In January there will be an immediate granting of indexation which will provide for the calendar year complete indexation plus additional margins for those industries now active with claims. I believe that this process has not been tackled by the Government. It is taking the soft option and not treating the unions properly by having them understand the damage that can be done by small militant groups who are not bound by the accord or by the Summit, nor consider themselves bound by it. They say that the leaders of their unions have done a deal in an environment to which they were not party and, therefore, they will not co-operate in those decisions nor refrain from seeking additional claims for their members. If this nation is to recover from the current economic crisis we must be competitive and we must not have an elite work force that is a gradually decreasing proportion of those employed. We must be able as a nation to say that we can moderate claims to realistic levels and not the exceptional levels that we have seen over the last two or three years. This is the only way in which there will be hope for employment and prospects for the nation to compete and expand. The Government is on the wrong track on this issue. It is starting to go exactly the wrong direction and the ramifications will be most serious in every way. Mr SAUNDERSON(Deakin)(4.48) —I support the Salaries and Wages Pause Act Repeal Bill. It is part of our comprehensive prices and incomes policy, which the Opposition has yet to come to grips with. I will summarise our policy again. It is comprehensive and can be seen to be so as one lists the stages we have gone through. The accord which came out of the National Economic Summit Conference comprises an agreement between employees, unions and governments. Of course, it did not have any agreement from the Opposition which only wants to knock. Then we have the national wage case in which we have argued for the automatic introduction of indexation at six-monthly periods. This Bill simply ensures that Commonwealth employees and people who rely on government remuneration tribunals for their increases will get them. That is something the Opposition seems to have forgotten. It is very keen on knocking unions, unions officials and people demanding excessive wage increases. It seems to forget that the wage pause it introduced when in government also affected such people as chemists and the fees of government employees who are hired as private consultants in the health area. This Bill simply restores the situation so that these people will all be treated in the same way as other people who come under the jurisdiction of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. As we know, the case for the reintroduction of indexation has been finalised. We expect a decision shortly. This Bill will ensure that everybody will be able to receive any benefits that flow from that hearing. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), showed a lack of knowledge of this Bill and what it means, as well as of what our case has been before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. He simply indicated that he thought that, because people would get an increase now, when January came around they would automatically get another increase. Obviously he did not read the second reading speech of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and has not studied the case we have argued before the arbitration court. What we have indicated is that the cases will be heard six monthly, so the next increase will not arrive until March. Honourable members opposite have made a lot of play of the impact of wages on prices. I suggest that we look at history since 1975, during their period in office, and at the relationship of wages to inflation, as well as at what has happened with employment. We can see that it is very hard for them to mount any case in support of there being a relationship between wage increases and unemployment and inflation. Between 1975 and 1981 was the period when we saw the previous Government arguing before the arbitration court either that there should not be any increase at all due to a rise in the consumer price index or that it should be less than the full increase in the CPI. In fact, of the 18 decisions of the Commission 12 gave less than the CPI increase. What happened during that period? Did inflation go down? No, it went up. Did unemployment go down? No, it went up. In both cases the result was the exact opposite of what the Government was arguing would be the situation. Mr Porter —What did wages do? Mr SAUNDERSON —During that period wages were depressed because, as I said, 12 of the 18 decisions gave workers less than the CPI increase and wage increases fell behind the inflation rate increases. In fact, inflation was getting away. It was inevitable that, as a result of that situation, indexation would be broken down. Indexation, the one factor that would have ensured a stable situation on the industrial scene, the previous Government set about to destroy. Once indexation was abandoned because it had become unworkable due to the interference of the previous Government in the arbitration court, due to its arguing for paying less than was equitable, we saw a period of confusion. The then Government, because it had no alternative to indexation, simply said: 'Let's leave it to market forces'. We saw wages moving rapidly because people, with no clear guidelines on how to operate, were going out on their own and getting increases. During that period there was a great deal of confusion. The Opposition has yet to get together a policy on this. The shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations talked about what he saw as a policy for the Opposition. One can only wonder whether it is the policy of the Opposition, the policy of the spokesperson for industrial relations or what. We have not yet had a definitive view from the Opposition. The objective of this Bill and our policies is simply to bring about a situation whereby we can bring disadvantaged people into line with everybody else. The Opposition is trying to move amendments and to talk about the relationship of wages and inflation, but it is not bringing forward any argument to prove that relationship. What was really behind the Opposition's wages pause? Did it represent the development of a strategy which was going to bring about the recovery of Australia? When the wages pause legislation was introduced in December 1982 what was the situation in relation to Commonwealth employees? If we look at history we find that the vast majority of Commonwealth employees had received wage rises during the six months prior to the introducton of the wages pause. Who was caught up then? As I said before, the people who were before the tribunals were people such as chemists, doctors who were private consultants and Defence Force personnel who had been waiting two years for wage increases because the then Government had been procrastinating and not providing that to which they were entitled. They are the ones who were caught up, not the vast majority of public servants who had received wage increases. What was the situation then with the economy? It was disastrous. Inflation was still running high and unemployment was becoming excessive. Was there a demand for increased wages outside the Public Service? No, there was not. In fact, in the period just prior to the introduction of the wages pause trade unions and employees were not going for wage increases. The wages pause was simply an exercise by the then Government to try to show that it had some developed policy . It grabbed together things which it believed it could hang its hat on and say 'Here is a policy', knowing full well that there was no real demand for increased wages and it was unlikely that there would be any major push for increased wages because of the downturn in the economy. It thought that this would be something it could sell, so it embarked upon promoting it. It said that it was imposing a wages freeze on public servants, knowing full well that they had received their increases and would not be asking for increases during the period in which the wages pause was operating. It was typical of that Government . It had simply missed the boat in terms of what it said it was going to achieve . The pause has gone for a period of 12 months. If we look at the industrial scene we see that most people have not had an increase for well over 12 months. Many have not had an increase for two years or more. Have we found any improvement, as forecast by the previous Government? It said that if we had this wages pause it would cure everything. Has that happened? No, it has not. What has happened since March this year is that that Government was thrown out of office because people saw that what they had was a totally incompetent group of people who were incapable of developing a wages policy and a united front of employers, employees and government bodies which would enable Australians to pull together. It was thrown out of office. The Labor Party was put into office and since March this year we have seen a renewed confidence in employers, employees and the Australian public in general. As I said before, what we are really seeing is the development of our policy bringing together all aspects in the wages area and moving forward in achieving the objectives of our policy and what we were elected to do. I support the Bill. I believe that Opposition members have condemned their own amendment with their lack of real insight into what they are speaking about. Mr PORTER(Barker)(4.58) —In looking at the repeal of the wages pause legislation by way of this Salaries and Wages Pause Act Repeal Bill, I think it is worth looking at some of the objectives of the wages pause. Firstly, there was the objective to slow the huge blowout in wage increases which occurred late in 1981 and throughout 1982. Also, one of the objectives was to restore the viability of the private sector which, according to the Budget just brought down by the Government, suffered a 17 per cent fall in profits in calendar year 1982. Another objective was to restore our international competitiveness, where our labour costs and our inflation rate were running at rates far in advance of those of our overseas trading partners. Fourthly, we had the objective of restoring the prospect of creating new job opportunites. There is no doubt that the wages pause was welcomed by the Australian people. The Government admits this. It admits the success of the wages pause program. At page 25 of Budget Paper No. 1 referring to the period between January and June 1983, it states: . . . the 'wages pause' was effective during this period. This Bill will repeal that program. In so doing, I believe we must look to see what the Government has done, is doing and has predicted for the future. It has abandoned the wages pause. I believe that two areas need to be considered-the alternative program, the prices and incomes accord, and the impact of the Budget and its effect on jobs. I refer firstly to the prices and incomes accord. The Government has argued for indexation through half-yearly wage increases in line with the consumer price index. A decision from the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is likely within the next couple of weeks in relation to the Government's proposal for a catch-up for the period covered by the wages pause. The likely effect of the Government's case is for a 4 per cent to 4.3 per cent increase for the half year covered by the wages pause. Early next year the Government will argue for another round of wage increases for the latter half of 1983. So, in effect, the wages pause lasted from 23 December to 31 December-a period of 8 days. The wages pause has been abandoned. Indexation has been proposed at a time when the Budget , at page 47 of Budget Paper No. 1-the Government's document-states: . . . wage and price increases during 1982-83 were more than double those of our major trading partners . . . Those are the Government's words, not my words. So the Government is repealing the wages pause, with the objectives to which I referred. Those objectives were to slow the huge blow-out in wage increases, to restore the viability of the private sector, to restore our international competitiveness, and to restore the prospect of creating new job opportunities in Australia. We abandon the wages pause at a time when the Government says that wage and price increases for the financial year just completed were more than double those of our major trading partners. The Government has blown the lot. The hard-earned gains to ensure economic recovery have been dissipated in one fell swoop. Our international competitiveness will be further eroded and more jobs will be lost. This is hardly consistent with a government which pretends to be concerned about jobs. Mr Burr —They are not. Mr PORTER —The honourable member for Wilmot is right. This Budget is a big- spending Budget. It has all the hallmarks of a socialist Budget which fails to address the real economic problems of high unemployment and high inflation. It is a big-spending Budget. But where was the spending? Was it in areas which will assist economic recovery and long term job opportunities? Mr Hodgman —No. Mr PORTER —The honourable member for Denison says 'No'. He is right. In fact, the opposite is the case. I refer to the three areas in which there were the greatest increases in spending. The first area is health. Mr Burr —Medicare. Mr PORTER —Medicare, as the honourable member for Wilmot rightly says. The increase in spending under the Health portfolio to introduce socialist Medicare is 25 per cent. Will it create jobs? No, it will cost 2,500 jobs. Mr Burr —How many jobs? Mr PORTER —Some 2,500 jobs will be lost as a result of the introduction of Medicare. There is no benefit to the private sector. Another area with a large increase is housing. That will create some jobs. It is doubtful whether they will be permanent jobs. The other large increase in this Budget-a 22 per cent increase-is to service the debts of this Government, public debt interest, the third biggest increase in expenditure under this Budget. So we have three areas of increased spending. One will cost jobs and the funding of public debt interest is certainly likely to reduce job opportunities in the private sector. In this expansionary Budget not all sectors had an increase in funds. Some sectors suffered a cut in funds. Honourable members might ask which sectors suffered cuts. The sector that lost around 10 per cent of the funds allocated was the agricultural and pastoral industry sector. Great socialist philosophy! Take away funds from the sector that is actually maintaining jobs and exporting goods in fact is creating jobs for this country. It has suffered a 10 per cent decline. The transport and communications area-infrastructure for the private sector-has suffered a cut in funds of 3.1 per cent. If the Government really cared about jobs it would want to help industry and development, but instead this area has suffered a cut in funds of 0.5 per cent. Clearly, the Budget strategy does not look to assist the private sector, the sector which provides jobs for three out of four people employed in Australia. Instead, the Government has pumped money into the public sector. That would not be so bad if the money were to be used to reduce costs for Australian industry through spending on infrastructure, such as better transport and communications, increasing the incentive for our entrepreneurs to go into the market and expand or start new industries and so create new and permanent jobs. It is clear that the only way to achieve real and sustained growth in employment is to get the economy right so that the private sector can start to grow again, but the underlying trends in this Budget are to the contrary. Budget Paper No. 1, at page 65, refers to 'a further marketed fall in private business fixed investment '. That is the prospect for this year, and that prospect is likely to be achieved. The Australian Federation of Construction Contractors, in a pamphlet put out in August of this year after the Budget was presented, agreed with the Budget forecast of a fall in business investment. It said that over 24,000 construction jobs are expected to be lost over the next 12 months. Not only will there be a fall in private fixed investment; there will also be a fall in that sector of employment. What does the Budget say about employment? It says that there will be 'an edging up in the rate of unemployment'. This Government keeps telling us that it is concerned about employment, at a time when it is scrapping the wages pause program, one of the main objectives of which was to ensure that jobs were maintained and new jobs created. This Government scraps it. The Government's answer to unemployment is not to opt through the Budget for policies which will assist in correcting the imbalances in our economy and improve prospects for the private sector to increase employment. Instead, it has opted for short term palliatives. It has undertaken a job creation project, the CEP, the Commonwealth employment program. Some $300m will be allocated for short term, make work programs. These programs will not lead to a job at the end of the project. They will not assist the private sector by reducing internal costs in this country; rather, they are short term palliatives. This Government has abandoned medium to long term economic planning. Mr Burr —It has sold out to the unions. Mr PORTER —It has sold out. This Budget shows clearly the short-sighted approach of the Government. As I have said, instead of these short term employment creation programs we had programs with some long term goals. If this Government had some long term goals one might appraise its approach a little differently. Let me just refer to the previous Government's programs which were announced last year. They were projects which would create employment but at the same time would greatly assist Australia in the long term. This Government has scrapped those programs. What were they? Let me refer to the water resources program. Under that program the previous Government was to spend money to create jobs whilst at the same time improving the long term viability of our primary industries and helping to ensure that people such as those who come from my State of South Australia had greater prospects of receiving good quality water, especially during periods of drought, for both our domestic and industry consumption. But that was not the only project the Government abandoned. It also abandoned the project which was to link Darwin to the Adelaide-Alice Springs railway. That project has been indefinitely deferred by this Government. It would have greatly assisted the development of the Northern Territory. It would have helped the manufacturing and primary industries in the rest of Australia, and in particular South Australia, by reducing transport costs to our north. It would have provided a valuable defence link to our north. As many Labor members have already pointed out to their Government, it would have created many jobs, not only on the construction of the rail link itself but also in the downline construction-the making of sleepers in South Australia and so on. Instead, I reiterate: This Government has gone for short term, make work schemes reflecting its total lack of vision and its bias against the private sector of our economy. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(5.12) —This Bill brings to an end one of the key elements in the former Government's belated attempt to introduce an incomes policy-the wage and salary pause. This legislation deals with only one part of this pause, the freeze on wages and salaries of Commonwealth employees. Its main effect is to repeal the Salaries and Wages Pause Act 1982 which froze awards and determinations in this sector. The question of an approach to income is something that is clearly a source of tension within the Opposition. The remnant of the 'dries'-those who managed to survive the wrath of the electorate on 5 March-continue to favour a decentralised market-oriented approach to wages policy. This undoubtedly is the position of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). Others, including the Opposition's spokesperson on employment and industrial relations, the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee), apparently favour some kind of centralised wage fixing system, albeit one that is thoroughly inequitable viewed from the perspective of wage and salary earners . We heard him argue earlier on in this debate that wage movements should be linked solely to productivity movements, which is an utterly untenable suggestion. The former Government inherited the wage indexation system introduced by the Whitlam Government and then proceeded to destroy it by constant insistence on less than full indexation, a position the trade union movement could not tolerate. After this system collapsed in July 1981 we had a period when wage fixation moved toward the decentralised model, the role of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission being essentially to ratify agreements reached at the industry level. Then we had the third phase-the wage and salary pause. As I described it at the outset, this was Malcolm Fraser's belated conversion to a version of an incomes policy. The term 'incomes policy' has been taken to refer to various attempts by governments to directly control or influence prices in the labour market. It can mean anything from direct control of wages and salaries, non-wage incomes and prices through a spectrum of measures by governments to influence these, with 'moral suasion' as the softest version. It contrasts with an approach based on allowing market forces to determine income shares with possibly some attempt to have an influence through macro-economic measures, principally fiscal and monetary policy. Most countries of the Western world, with governments of all ideological persuasions, have tried some kind of incomes policy. But it has become generally accepted that such policies can only possibly operate in other than the very short run given a reasonable element of equity in their construction. This is where the former Government's scheme, which involved a constraint on only one type of income, wages and salaries, was utterly untenable in anything other than the very short run. There was not even a gesture in the direction of controlling non-wage incomes. It is worth noting that even the Nixon administration found it necessary to introduce a wage-price freeze in the early 1970s. Even this arch conservative could not come at a notion as patently inequitable as the Fraser Government's wage pause. The present Government, of course, completely rejects this approach. Its approach to incomes policy is embodied in the accord negotiated earlier this year between the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. This accord envisages a return to centralised wage fixation within the context of a very broad social agreement encompassing prices, salaries and wages , non-wage incomes, taxation policies, the social wage, together with a range of supportive policies in areas such as industrial relations, industry policy, the introduction of planning mechanisms, occupational health and safety and a range of other things. Needless to say, this corresponds much more more closely with successful overseas attempts to construct a workable incomes policy. I would like to make a few remarks on the key premise on which the wage pause was based-the link between real wage levels and unemployment. The former Government and Department of the Treasury repeatedly laid our economic woes on the doorstep of excessive real wage growth. The concomitant of this was that reducing real wages was an essential precondition of economic recovery. The rationale for the wage and salary pause was to effect a redistribution away from wages and towards profit. This was held to be a precondition of recovery in private sector investment spending and, hence, of a recovery in employment. Having adopted this logic, it then became possible for members of the former Government to work themselves into a lather of moral indignation about the callous disregard of the unemployed by employed trade unionists on the ground that 'one person's wage rise is another person's job'. I reject the notion that the high levels of unemployment prevailing since the mid-1970s are a consequence of excessive real wage growth. Furthermore, I do not accept that a real wage reduction is a necessary condition of a sustained economic recovery. The real wage-unemployment link has come to be part of the conventional economic wisdom, to question which is held to fly in the face of common sense. But it is quite untenable to explain the current recession in terms of the wages surge that followed the metal industry agreement in late 1981 . The timing elements are simply wrong. This is spelt out in the INDECS economic survey published in the Australian Financial Review of 14 December 1982: The notion that it is wages developments that have put us in our present predicament is a myth, sustained only by disregarding the evidence on the timing of developments. The economy was clearly heading downwards well before the metals deal, and even before the transport and storemen and packers arrangements . Ironically, the editorial position of the Financial Review has stressed the real wage-unemployment link. This same INDECS survey goes on to explain the current downturn in its early phase as the result of a change in the composition of gross national expenditure such as to produce an increased import share. Again I quote from the same INDECS report: The growth rate in gross national expenditure was the same in the first three quarters of 1981 as it had been in the last three quarters of 1980. The key difference between the two periods was an upsurge in the proportion of this expenditure met by imports. This increased import component was partly a result of a change in composition of national expenditure, with the first three quarters of 1981 seeing spending on housing construction and public sector demand weaken, while investment spending surged, the latter tending to have a higher import component than the former. There was, it is true, also a decline in international competitiveness, but the INDECS survey attributed this mainly to exchange rate movements-the trade weighted exchange rate appreciated 14 per cent from early 1980 to August 1981. Hence the claim that the current recession was caused by real wage growth is ill-founded. But there has been a more general debate in the economic literature about the link between real wages and unemployment. Some of this literature has emphasised that the nature of the link between these economic variables varies according to whether one is looking at the downturn, trough or recovery phases of a recession . An analysis that looks at the period from 1974-75 to 1980 on this basis by Donald Whitehead and Sheila Bonnell appears in a volume entitled 'Incomes Policy in Australia' a collection of papers edited by well-known labour market economist, Keith Hancock, in 1980. In large part, this article was a critique of the position expressed by another academic with an interest in this area, Max Corden. Corden's analysis of the link between real wages and employment provides , according to Whitehead and Bonnell: the most systematic and comprehensive account of the position that underlay the submissions by the former Commonwealth Government to indexation hearings. It is impossible within the time constraint of this speech, Mr Deputy Speaker, to describe fully the analysis in this paper. But one of the main points is that the effect of real wage costs on capital-labour substitution-which is the main mechanism by which real wage growth is alleged to cause higher unemployment-is ambiguous. Again I quote from the paper by Whitehead and Bonnell: In other words, a rise in real wages would have an 'income' effect as well as a 'substitution' effect on investment. The 'income' effect-that is, the fall in company income-would tend to reduce the volume of investment and therefore the adoption of more capital-intensive techniques. The 'substitution' effect- the consequence of the rise in the relative price of labour-would tend to make the investment which did take place more capital-intensive. This is the key sentence: There is no a priori reason for supposing that the second effect would outweigh the first. The conclusion of the paper, in contrast to the view of the former Government, is: In our view, a different interpretation of the downturn and subsequent recession better fits the available evidence. This alternative interpretation places much less emphasis on the rise in the relative price of labour as a cause of unemployment and does not point to the need to reduce real wages as a precondition of recovery. I hope that the aforementioned at least makes clear that there exists a significant academic controversy about the economic rationale for the former Government's wage pause policy. In other words, the glib aphorism that 'one person's wage rise costs someone else's job' is ill-founded. To implement a further real wage cut in present circumstances would be utterly counter-productive. This becomes clear from an examination of the Budget Papers which indicate that, in the previous financial year, the only private component of gross domestic product that held up against the recession was consumption expenditure. Confirmation of this point can be found in Budget Paper No. 10, Table 2. Unless real wages are maintained there is a real danger that this, too, will slump, with obvious adverse consequences. I conclude by commenting on the document presented to the National Economic Summit Conference titled 'Projections of the Australian Economy to 1985-86'. This is the document that outlined the famous three scenarios for the Australian economy, based on different real wage growth outcomes. Taken at face value, these scenarios appear to support the contention that there is a trade-off between real wages and unemployment. It is regrettable and surprising that this document was not subject to much closer scrutiny. It has already set the terms of the debate about the economic options available at the Summit Conference and since. At the time, I found the lack of debate surprising, as I had some awareness that the predictions of any given economic model reflect the assumptions about economic relationships built into the model structure. Hence Keynesian models tend to produce Keynesian predictions of the result of, say, a fiscal stimulus; likewise, monetarist models produce monetarist results. With this in mind, I asked the Parliamentary Library to write a critical appraisal of the Summit projections, and some surprisingly obvious deficiencies in the model framework came to light. Those deficiencies would certainly diminish the supposed advantage in terms of output and employment enjoyed by the low wage growth scenario, and if corrected for, would possibly vary the rankings between the scenarios. It is not possible to go into every point made in the paper that the Parliamentary Library wrote on the projections document. But the most significant single weakness in the model is that the poor output- employment result of the high wage growth scenario is mainly the result of reduced fiscal stimulus consequent on people moving into higher tax brackets and paying a larger proportion of their incomes in tax. That is, the real, as opposed to nominal, tax rates are higher with high wage growth-a case of 'fiscal drag'. The net result is that real household disposable incomes are actually lower under the high wage growth scenario, with the obvious implications for aggregate demand. I seek leave, Mr Deputy Speaker, to have incorporated in Hansard a table showing real wages, salaries and supplements, cash benefits, household income, personal taxes, disposable household income, and consumption, under the three scenarios. The table is derived from Tables 1.6A, 1.6B, and 1.6C of the projections paper. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) -Is leave granted? Mr Hodgman —Yes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Has the table been shown to Mr Speaker or to the Deputy Speaker? Mr BALDWIN —No, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If it falls within the guidelines that Mr Speaker has laid down regarding incorporations it may be incorporated. It is usual to clear it with the Opposition and with the Speaker before incorporation in Hansard. The table read as follows- EC1183/54409 THE SUMMIT PROJECTIONS Growth Rates (%) 1983-84 Pro- Pro- Pro- jection A jection B jection C Real Wages Salaries and Supplements -0.4 4.2 -1.9 Real Cash Benefits 9.5 3.7 10.0 Real Household Income 2.8 3.7 2.3 Real Personal Taxes 1.8 11.7 -0.8 Real Disposable Household Income 2.2 1.2 2.3 Real Consumption 1.1 0.5 1.3 Source: Derived from Tables 1.6A, 1.6B, 1.6C, Projections Paper. Mr BALDWIN —The model supposedly presumes a neutral fiscal policy stance in the three scenarios. Yet it can be argued that the failure to offset the fiscal drag by an adjustment of the tax scale is itself a discretionary, not neutral, policy stance. This failure is justified in the projections document by the claim that the compensating fiscal stimulus 'would undoubtedly not translate into commensurately higher real activity, while it would add further to inflation'. This remains a highly contentious claim in economics. This kind of summary dismissal of a potential policy option is a serious deficiency in the projections paper. Along with a number of other deficiencies, it calls into question the real wage-unemployment trade-off that the three outcomes seem to imply. This Bill is a welcome move away from the thoroughly inequitable approach to income determination of the former Government and I commend the Bill to the House. Mr BURR(Wilmot)(5.28) —We have just heard a diatribe of left wing politics from the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Baldwin) that gives no question as to what line the left wing of the labour movement is intending to follow with the wages policy. The honourable member read every word of his speech, and I think that it raises the question of who wrote the speech for him. The Opposition does not intend to oppose the Salaries and Wages Pause Act Repeal Bill, for one reason, and one reason only: We do not want to see the public servants being left as the scapegoats for what is obviously one of the most blatant political sell-outs that this Parliament has ever witnessed. I should like to explain that the setting for this measure to abandon the wages pause was not made by the Government, was not made in the Australian Labor Party Caucus room and was not made in this Parliament. It was made by the Australian Council of Trade Unions Congress. Very significantly, this legislation is being brought before the House immediately following last week's trade union congress in Melbourne. We need to look at what happened at that Congress and at the follow-up in what is happening now in this Parliament. I remind the House of some of the things that have led to this Bill being brought before the House. We recall that after the National Economic Summit Conference earlier this year, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said that the Government would not tolerate maverick unions going outside the wages system and seeking isolated claims. We commended him for that because we know that there has to be wage restraint in order for there to be economic recovery and job growth in this country. We commended the Prime Minister for that and wished him all the best in controlling those so-called maverick unions. But we need to look at what has happened as a result of that claim by the Prime Minister and at what command the Prime Minister has over the union movement. Let me refer to some of the things that happened last week at the ACTU Congress. Following the Congress, the headline of an article appearing in the edition of the Australian newspaper of Friday, 16 September, read: 'Pay up or else, threatens ACTU'. The article stated: The secretary of the ACTU, Mr Bill Kelty, warned the Arbitration Commission yesterday it would be 'committing industrial suicide' if it rejected union claims for a 4.3 per cent pay rise and wage indexation. What is happening is that the ACTU-not a maverick union, not a single union that is dominated by the left wing-which represents the total union movement of this country, is pointing a gun at the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and saying: 'Pay up or else'. Mr Porter —A loaded gun. Mr BURR —As my colleague from Barker says, the ACTU is pointing a loaded gun at the Arbitration Commission. If that is what the ACTU collectively is prepared to threaten the Arbitration Commission with, the mind boggles at what it is saying to members of the Government and the Australian Labor Party behind the scenes. Mr Cowan —They are running the Government. Mr BURR —My colleague is right; the Government is running scared. That points out, without doubt, that policy within the Government and the ALP is not determined by those members who have been elected to this place and who sit in the Caucus room. Without question, policy is being directed by those faceless men in the union movement. We cannot dispute that, as is evidenced by what happened at the ACTU Congress. I will refer again to what that article stated about Mr Kelty: Mr Kelty made it clear a rejection of the unions' claims would force them outside the conciliation and arbitration system, with all the uncertainties that would involve. Mr Kelty, whom I had always regarded as a moderate trade union leader, is prepared to threaten the Government, the Arbitration Commission and anybody else who is prepared to stand against the union movement. The article further stated: The effect of Mr Kelty's warning was doubled when the hard-left unionist, Mr Laurie Carmichael, the assistant national secretary of the Amalgamated Metals, Foundry and Shipwrights Union, threatened that if the claims were rejected- this is what Mr Carmichael is quoted in the article as stating- we'll bring it out of the employers of this country to look after the interests of all of the workers of this country. Mr Carmichael, that well-noted, pro-Moscow communist, is prepared to go public and say: 'If the Arbitration Commission, the Government and the employers do not play the line and pay up we are prepared to wring it out of them'. Mr Goodluck —Shame. Mr BURR —That is the shame of it, as my colleague from Franklin says. Shame on the left wing of the ACTU. Let me remind honourable members opposite of what Mr Carmichael also said following the ACTU Congress. These are not my words; they are Mr Carmichael's words. He is reported in an article as having said: Those who have the idea that the road to socialism is made of individual wage struggles in half a dozen factories without mobilising all of the workers, centred in the strength of all of the workers of this country, have no bloody idea whatever what it's all about. Mr Hodgman —Is that the same man who gave $50,000 to the ALP campaign fund? Mr BURR —That is the same man, as I am reminded by my colleague from Denison. This same man is known throughout Australia as having pro-Moscow leanings. We know what Mr Carmichael is all about. We see developing a collection of events whereby the ACTU, through its left wing, headed by Mr Carmichael, has said 'Pay up, or we will point the gun at your head' to everybody who is involved in the pay system-the Arbitration Commission, the Government and the employers. The ACTU has the support of the total union movement and not just one maverick union . Obviously earlier this year the Prime Minister was scared of such maverick unions. The ACTU now has the support of the whole trade union movement and, through Mr Kelty, has said: 'Pay up, or we will point the gun at your head'. The Government has come into this House and put forward legislation that abandons the wage freeze which has been the only saving grace in holding any constraint on the wage movements of this country. This whole scenario which is building up is being supported not by just a few left wing maverick unions which concerned the Prime Minister earlier this year. This whole scenario has the active support of the whole of the ALP, the whole of the union movement and the whole of the labour movement. The Government is using this Parliament to put into effect its disastrous left wing policies. What will be the effect of this? What are we talking about? My friend from Sydney obviously does not understand the basics of economics. For instance, he could not understand the link between productivity and wages, as pointed out by the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee). I would have thought that that simple sort of economics was taught in kindergarten but the honourable member for Sydney does not understand that simple economic equation. Obviously there must be a link between productivity and the rewards people get from what they produce. There is an obvious economic link. I am sorry that my friend does not understand that simple piece of economics. If we on this side of the House can help him to understand economics better we will be delighted to try. Another thing the honourable member for Sydney said-- Mr Goodluck —There is no hope for him. Mr BURR —I think my friend from Franklin, is right: There is no hope for him. The other thing the honourable member for Sydney said-he did not seem to understand this-was that one man's pay rise means another man's job. He did not understand that. Mr Goodluck —Frank Crean said that. Mr BURR —As my friend from Franklin says, the former Treasurer in the Whitlam Labor Government, Mr Frank Crean, coined that expression. Mr Crean was quite right in saying that in serious economic circumstances one man's pay rise means that another man loses his job. Mr Crean understood that; he was the Treasurer in a Labor Government. But my friend from Sydney does not understand these simple economic axioms. This legislation does relate to jobs. We are talking about letting the floodgates go on wages. Already we are seeing a $20 a week wage rise flowing through the system. We are now just letting the floodgates go entirely. What will that do for jobs and employment in this country? I refer to another article which appeared in the Australian newspaper. On 8 September the Managing Director of Mitsubishi Motors Australia Ltd, Mr Graham Spurling, predicted that 5,000 to 10,000 jobs would be lost in the motor vehicle industry. My friend from Barker (Mr Porter) earlier cited the number of jobs that would be lost in the building and construction industry. But these things just pass over the heads of honourable members on the opposite side of this House. Mr Hodgman —They are socialists. Mr BURR —They are socialists, as my friend from Denison says. I feel sorry for them but I feel much sorrier for Australia. Yesterday a survey of business prospects was published. It had been conducted by Westpac Banking Corporation in conjunction with the Confederation of Australian Industry. The results of the survey were terribly gloomy in regard to the way inflation and costs in this country were moving and the effect those things would obviously have on employment. This legislation will open the floodgates for wages. It will push up the costs of production. It will force our inflation to a higher level at a time when economies in other Western countries are bringing their inflation rates down. It will leave Australia at a serious disadvantage on world markets. It will mean that more and more jobs will be lost in this country. I recall the Prime Minister going to the election campaign in March. He said: 'What this election is all about is jobs, jobs, jobs'. But what he did not say was that the Labor Party intended to take away jobs, jobs, jobs, not create them. I wish that the Prime Minister, when he went to the election campaign, had made it clear to the Australian people what he meant when he talked about jobs. As I said at the beginning of my speech we, on the Opposition side, do not want to be bloody minded. We realise that the Government is intent on letting the floodgates go on wage increases. What we do not want to do is to be bloody minded in regard to our employees within the Australian Public Service. So we are reluctantly prepared to accept the Bill because we do not want to see public servants victimised. However, I seriously urge the Government to look more closely at its wages policy, to be stronger in its negotiations with the unions and for the sake of Australia, for the sake of the youth of this country and for the sake of jobs in the future, not to capitulate to its masters in the union movement. Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(5.41) —Again we have heard the usual diatribe and garbage from the Opposition, particularly when it comes to discussing workers and the unions. It is typical that the Opposition does not know a thing at all about the workers . All it does is attack the workers. Over the period of the prices accord prices have risen astronomically in supermarkets yet we have not heard a thing about that from the Opposition. It is okay for the workers to retain their wages and so forth but let costs go up in the supermarkets, let the poor old worker, the person at the bottom of the socio-economic scale, carry the brunt of it. It is a typical example of what the Opposition expects us to do. For example, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) said that the average Australian has maintained his living standard. The honourable member should tell the ordinary worker that and he will see how far behind the eight ball he is. The honourable member for Mitchell, typically, knows only one thing-bash the worker, bash the unionist. That is all the Opposition is good for in this House. However, let us get down to something constructive. Now that the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has met to review the wages freeze applied last December and to consider the Australian Council of Trade Unions' national wage claim, the main purpose of the Salaries and Wages Pause Act Repeal Bill is to remove restrictions that the Salaries and Wage Pause Act has applied to other sections of the community. It will enable Commonwealth employees to benefit equally from any decision handed down by the Commission and restore powers to tribunals determining their levels of income. Such bodies will be expected to conform with the Commission's wage fixing principles in future determinations. It will also open the way for renegotiation of levels of Commonwealth contributions to health insurance and pharmaceutical benefits. Repeal of this legislation will in fact sweep the board clear of the debris of a half-planned and hastily applied set of stop-gap measures. If something like it was necessary at the time that was only because of the previous Government's obsession to dismantle all trace of the centralised wage fixing system just as it had obliterated Medibank. This Bill is a very necessary measure at this Stage to forestall the chaos that would be inevitable if the public sector were kept subjected to the full 12 months freeze prescribed by the Fraser Government. Nobody knows of course how long even it would have tried to prolong the wages pause because it was thought up more as a political tactic than an economic one. One of the more charitable comments on it in the responsible media last December was one in the National Times, which said that it was seen as a political expedient for the Flinders by- election and was never expected to go as far as it did. No doubt the wage pause did do a lot to help win that by-election. It was well promoted with a lot of expensive and over-simplified publicity. Television advertisements showing a row of employees with one disappearing from view when his mates got a wage rise and coming back when their wages were frozen, were very effective. They were all the more so because something had been expected of a wage explosion in 1982. But what else could one have expected when the Government had been hacking away at every opportunity at the soundly established structure that awarded arbitrated wage rises in proportion to rises in the cost of living? At the same time the then Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, had, in the build up to the 1980 election, been enthusiastically promoting a dream of almost unlimited prosperity for all, who had the enterprise to get out in the marketplace and take advantage of the minerals boom, which was going to bring a golden era to all citizens of this lucky country. When the minerals boom failed to show up and was finally dismissed as a South Sea Bubble and when the wage indexation system was obviously wrecked, the workers of this country, who are normally a trusting lot, took Mr Fraser at his word and got out into the marketplace with a certain amount of success. The Fraser Government, which had been so much against a centralised system of wage fixing and so much in favour of market based negotiation on an industry basis, suddenly found itself hoist by its own petard. Without a wages policy it could not cope. Workers in the most lucrative industries were making sweetheart deals while others were falling by the wayside . Bargaining power was the order of the day and the economy was generally in a mess for which the marketplace had no answer. In desperation the Government changed horses and resorted to a centralised system of wage restraint, to try to counter the chaos that it had created by destroying the established system of centralised wage fixing. There will be those in the Opposition who claim that the wage pause has been successful. But if there is some element of truth in this it is only by virtue of the fact that the coalition Government was voted out of office by the thoroughly disillusioned Australian people. This allowed the National Economic Summit Conference to be held, to fill the void left by the absence of any workable wages policy. I say 'workable' because, although the previous Government was able to introduce its wage freeze, because of the climate of insecurity and fear of unemployment which it created over seven years , it could not have sustained any kind of uniform adherence to wage restraint without the all-round consultation and consensus that the Summit was able to provide. That historic conference, coming at a time when the Australian economy was at its lowest ebb for 50 years, and after a year when the number of available jobs was not just lagging behind the growth of the work force but was actually shrinking, was both a focal point for the nation's hopes and a turning point. It could not of itself turn the economy around but it did provide the basis by setting the facts clearly before all parties and it achieved what the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) had undertaken to do. It brought Australia together. In relation to the Summit the Age in an editorial at the time stated: . . . auspicious beginning of a long and difficult process to lift Australia from the depth of recession, and of a new style of government involving a measure of consultation and participation not hitherto attempted in this country . One of the most important breakthroughs at the Summit was that of agreement on the part of employers to the principle of a return to centralised wage fixing. Those who had connived with the Fraser Government at the breakdown in indexation in the belief that this would hold wages down had had time to realise that throwing the marketplace open to industry-based bargaining could be a recipe for strife that cost more than it gave. One of the criticisms of the Summit was that it did not determine exactly when and how the wage pause should end. I think the situation now shows it was wise to leave that to be sorted out in the light of future progress. The situation is that the Arbitration Commission, having well advisedly declined the previous Government's pressure for a straight 12 month's freeze and having decided to review the position in June, now holds the key to future industrial sanity in the shape of its response to the ACTU's national wage claim. I sincerely hope that, as the Government strongly submitted that it should, this will signal the end of the wage pause and the start of regular six- monthly full cost of living adjustments. Granted that the wage pause was one way of forestalling industrial chaos stemming from the wrecking of the indexation system, its usefulness depends on it being terminated at the right time and in the right way. There is no possible doubt that any attempt to extend a freeze over twelve months would have severely strained the patience and restraint that has prevailed in the work force over the six months since the National Economic Summit Conference. Now that signs of economic recovery are beginning to appear on the horizon, industrial disruption would be all the more certain. If there were no positive move towards a rational wage system there would be sectional claims to catch up with those who were in the best position when the wage freeze was mounted. No freeze is ever imposed without some section being caught out. With a return to a rational system there would be scope for sorting out any such anomalies in the right way, by discussion, so that the entire work force can share fairly in the rewards of the recovery that this Government's policies will help to bring about. Failure to return to centralised wage fixing now would set the stage for a scramble for the pickings as soon as there was a hint of better times arriving. This is not the only good reason for a full cost of living rise to come out of the current Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission hearing. There is also the matter of purchasing power. No country could be accused of recklessly trying to spend its way out of a recession with a 4.3 per cent wage rise, or whatever it happens to be. Nevertheless, on the national scale that would represent a lot of money going into circulation. Until buyer confidence fully returns, some money will be put away in savings, but not very much. I believe that people will spend money. When they see that the economy is recovering they will make purchases. They have faith in this Government. Such has been the depletion of real wages that the business sector is bound to receive something of a lift, not only from cash in the pocket but also from the assurance of future six-monthly adjustments. Workers as well as industrialists like to plan ahead and adjust their present expenditures in accordance with their expectations of future income. Any such boost to business will come too late for the host of enterprises that have gone to the wall since the recession began to bite. Therein, I think, lies a very good reason why not only wage workers but also employers should welcome this return to better spending power. The previous Government's simplistic rationale was that businesses were not making enough profit only because their wage bills were too high and therefore we had only to cut wages to restore profitability. That theory completely ignored the fact that we are in a time of recession and that in a recession profits always go down. They go down because people do not spend as much money as they do in times of plenty. Overhead fixed costs go up proportionately because they have to be allocated over lesser output. These costs cannot be passed on in a recession because potential customers either lack the confidence to spend or else cannot afford to spend. As a matter of fact that is not the only part of the reasoning behind the wage pause that I thought was suspect. The spectacular rise in average weekly earnings quoted to support the freeze took no account of the fact that in times of high unemployment the lower wage earners-I stress this- are sacked in the greatest numbers or fail to find jobs. An independent assessment at the time put the rise in average weekly earnings at six per cent during 1981-82 and the real award rate rise at only two per cent. This is not intended to prove that there was no upsurge in earnings in 1982, but it casts doubt on whether the upsurge was either as enormous or as widespread as it was said to be. All in all, I believe that the greatest need for a wage pause came from the fact that the work force had been bludgeoned into an every-man-for-himself attitude by the destruction of wage indexation. This threatened to cause industrial anarchy and gross inequalities. I believe that this Government's Summit Conference prevented the pause developing into another kind of disaster. It has now served its purpose. It is time to return to the sanity of a proven wages system and to set about repairing whatever damage has been done, as the recovery allows and without confrontation. Mr KENT(Hotham)(5.55) —I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Salaries and Wages Pause Act Repeal Bill 1983. As the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) explained in his second reading speech, the purpose of the Bill is to repeal the Salaries and Wages Pause Act of 1982, or what is commonly known as the wages freeze. The wages freeze was the product of seven years of conservative mismanagement. For the abysmal state of the current depression we can thank Malcolm Fraser and the men who sat behind him in the last seven years-the Peacocks, the Howards, the Anthonys and a few others-who make the rather crestfallen Opposition in the thirty-third Parliament. That we ever reached the depths of economic ruin is due to the discredited monetarist policies of the discredited and defeated Liberal-National Party coalition. Monetarism, which is espoused by the conservatives, is based on two shaky presumptions. One is that if public spending is curtailed private investment will expand. The other is that strict monetary policies restrain inflation. This is to be achieved through high interest rates, tight credits, curbs on borrowings, and reduced wages. That such restraint may be in conflict with private sector expansion never occurred to the simple minded gentlemen opposite. As Professor Galbraith said: To expand and restrain the economy at the same time is difficult, much like walking uphill and downhill at the same time. Thus we saw the former Treasurer racing around without direction, applying contradictory economic measures and attempting to run down an upward moving escalator until he slipped and pulled our whole economy down with him into the sorry state in which the Hawke Government found it. The honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr) told us a few minutes ago how the trade unions, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the socialists are ruining this country. Let me tell him that the heritage of seven years of Fraser, aided and abetted by those remaining gentlemen opposite, is a deficit of $10 billion, one million Australians out of work, more than two million of our people living below the poverty line, nearly 30 per cent unemployment amongst our young people, a record number of bankruptcies, especially amongst small businesses, and an ever lengthening dole queue. The legacy of the wage freeze is to be repealed by this Bill. Due to the Liberal-National parties mismanagement of the economy for seven years inflation increased by 100 per cent in that period. Savings held in 1975 are worth only half as much in 1983. Of course, the real value of wages and salaries decreased because of the Salaries and Wages Pause Act 1982, which was introduced by the defeated conservative Government and will be repealed by the Bill now before the House. However, whilst I wholeheartedly support the Government's economic program I could not help but notice with considerable alarm the mistake we made until now, namely, the maintenance of the wages freeze introduced by the former Government. It was an outright contradiction to attempt to stimulate demand on the one hand while on the other hand reducing it by cutting the purchasing power of Australian wage and salary workers. In simple words, it made me sad to see my colleagues conned by the bourgeoisie into believing the simplistic idiocy that one man's wage increase is another man 's job. The honourable member for Sydney (Mr Baldwin) very ably dealt with that matter. The position is exactly the contrary. That is, to freeze one man's wage or salary-what in fact amounts to a real wage reduction-reduces his purchasing power and therefore further diminishes an already contracting market for our manufacturers and causes further job losses. What better proof of this have we than our own history? We should only recall the time, fifty years ago, when, in the grip of the Great Depression of the 1930s, the British banker, Sir Otto Niemeyer, came to Australia. He came at the invitation of the Commonwealth Government and advised Australian workers to tighten their belts. Niemeyer's proposals led to the so-called Premiers' plan; a 10 per cent across the board reduction in wages which resulted in a further deepening of the economic crisis. Yet the conservatives never learn. They have only one answer to the depression; to reduce the income of ordinary Australian wage and salary earners. The struggle between profits and wages is the natural symptom of class conflict . Of course, in times of boom and expansion real wages can increase alongside rapid increases in profits. But in times of recession, which is the periodic product of unplanned private enterprise economy, the knee-jerk reaction of the employer class is to shed labour. In other words, employers sack workers and reduce the wages of the remaining work force. To add insult to injury, they blame the employees for the lack of planning, the leaders of industry for the mismanagement of the economy and the inbuilt faults and contradictions of the private enterprise system which runs amok into periodical depressions unless it is controlled and guided by public interest. Members of the Liberal-National Party, together with the media, are keen to promote the fallacy that high wages are causing unemployment. I again remind honourable gentlemen opposite that wage reductions in the Great Depression of the 1930s plunged us into an even deeper crisis and postponed recovery. For this reason, the Salaries and Wages Pause Act Repeal Bill before the House is very important. I would also like to point out that, in times of economic boom or recession, high wage countries have always had higher employment rates than low wage countries. I think honourable gentlemen opposite have enough intelligence to accept this fact without my wasting time giving examples and statistics. It should be obvious, even to them, that countries, such as the Western countries, that have a more even distribution of income have a higher overall level of production and economic activity. An unequally distributed national income acts as a disincentive to production. After all, as I have said before, it is highly unwise to reduce employees' wages and salaries since they, as consumers, represent our domestic market. The reduction of their purchasing power will further reduce demand. When the wage freeze was first advocated as the solution to our economic ills by the former Prime Minister late last year when the former Government wanted to be seen to be doing something it was dismissed by most economists as a gimmick. However, the same economic commentators quickly changed their tune when they were told to do so by the Establishment. The media embarked on a campaign to sell the fallacy of the freeze as our economic panacea. The onslaught of the Establishment-controlled media on the public opinion created such a situation that even some of my colleagues started to believe that the wage freeze would work. Anyone who dared to oppose it was almost accused of incest or sedition. Of course, the wage freeze created a godsend windfall profit to many employers, especially those who still had orders. The less they pay out in wages the more money they can stuff in their private pockets. Does anyone believe that, because of the wage freeze, the extra profits made by a supermarket chain are invested into job creation programs or given to charity for welfare purposes? The owners of the supermarket chains were very shortsighted. While they greedily welcomed the extra profits as a result of the wage freeze they were forgetting that they faced reduced turnover as workers had less to spend. The wage freeze operated for several months yet there was no improvement in the economic activity. As a matter of fact, there was a further fall in production and, consequently, a fall in investment. At best, the level of unemployment will remain static if not rise even higher. The wage freeze has not resulted in creating a single job. It created only a bonanza of windfall profits to all those who sell commodities other than their labour or skills. While wages and salaries were frozen prices of consumer products and food rose rapidly. The consumer price index went up; steel prices rose. That was soon reflected in many products. The cost of motor cars went up and will rise further as a consequence of steel price rises. The workers of this country were ripped off left, right and centre. One should only ask the housewives who know, through their daily shopping, how much more they have to spend now compared with six months ago. Recently I was shopping in a supermarket in my electorate. Amongst other things, I brought a container of harpic, which cost $1.72. When I took it into the bathroom I looked at the price tag on the empty container. I had paid $1.41 for the same product bought two months previously-almost a 30 per cent increase. It is unbelievable! While the capitalist media is preaching wage restraint to wage and salary earners the people in industry and trade are busily increasing their prices and they are changing their price tags almost daily to rip off the workers and rob the housewife. Honourable members opposite have stated often that wage rises have outstripped rises in profits and have created inflation. One needs only to go and shop in a supermarket a couple of times to realise that the contrary is true. After all, since 1904, the only commodity that was subject to price control in this country was the price of labour and skill. Everything else was freely sold and bought bar a few years during the war when some prices were controlled. Last year not only were wages controlled by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission but also they were frozen at last year's level. Yet the promised results-the fall in inflation and more jobs-did not eventuate. The wage freeze, as it was introduced by the former Liberal-National Party Government is being repealed now by the Bill before the House. It will be replaced by the wages and incomes policy of the Hawke Labor Government. I hope that there will be a constant monitoring of prices so that irresponsible price rises will not escape public attention and there will be intervention where necessary. I support the Bill. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(6.07) —I would not want debate on this legislation to conclude without making a very short contribution. In a parliamentary sense this legislation represents the end of the wage freeze and, therefore, the last opportunity to say a few things about it. I think the most distinctive thing about the wage freeze is that, undoubtedly, it will be about the best thing on the economic front that the Hawke Government has going for it in 1983-84. I say that quite deliberately for three reasons: Firstly, there is no doubt at all that we would have faced a higher level of unemployment had it not been for the wage freeze. Nobody should pretend that anybody has a magic solution to our present level of unemployment. I do not pretend that I do or that there is any monopoly of wisdom on that subject on the Opposition side of the House, nor indeed should honourable members opposite imagine that they have any monopoly of wisdom as far as the problem of unemployment in Australia is concerned. I have said before-I say again-that I think it will be many years into the future before our present level of unemployment is significantly lower. I believe that if it had not been for the wage pause, which was an emergency initiative in an emergency situation, our levels of unemployment would have been very much greater. Secondly, undoubtedly the wage pause is making, and will continue to make, a contribution towards reducing our level of inflation. I welcome the fact that the Government feels able to predict a lower level of inflation through 1983-84. I simply draw to the attention of the House the contribution that the wage pause has made and will continue to make to that reduction in the level of inflation. The third point I would like to make to the House is that the Opposition believes very strongly that the Government is returning to full wage indexation way ahead of the time when it is appropriate to do so from an economic point of view. There can be little doubt that full wage indexation will deliver to those Australians fortunate enough to have jobs larger wage increases than would market conditions had we a free market for labour in Australia at present. Any suggestion that a free market for labour in Australia at present would enable the Australian work force to obtain full wage indexation of the type proposed by the Government would be unacceptable to most people. I say only two other things. I believe the wage pause has been a very conspicuous success. As I said a moment ago, it was an emergency initiative for an emergency situation. It drew a wide measure of support from the Australian community. There was good will towards the wage pause right across the spectrum. If I may use that hallowed expression, there was a good deal of consensus across political lines as to the desirability of having a wage pause at the end of last year. It is a pity that the new Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in March of this year did not use his undoubted popularity and authority as a newly elected Prime Minister to obtain from those in the Australian community whom his constituency embraced support for a continuation of the wage pause. I believe he would have made a greater contribution by doing that. He may well rue the day that he did not use his authority to secure that. I believe he could have done so. Had a strong stand been taken by the Prime Minister and the Government in a leadership role, the wage pause could go on until at least the end of the year. Those opposite will say: 'What is another few months?' In our present circumstances another few months could mean a considerable number of jobs. I conclude my remarks by saying that I think the wage pause will be the best thing economically that the Hawke Government has going for it in 1983-84. As one involved in putting it together at a political level at the end of last year, I believe it has been a great success. I believe it was a great success because people of different political views and different economic and philosophical commitments saw the need for an emergency initiative in an emergency situation. That common desire produced what I think was in all the circumstances a highly successful initiative. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(6.13) —I would just like to make a few comments at the end of this debate to pick up a few of the points made by those opposite which I do not think adequately reflect the situation. Firstly, I remind the House what the Salaries and Wages Pause Act Repeal Bill does. It does not of itself end the wage freeze. It simply ensures that the Commonwealth employees will get the benefit of any increase which might flow from the national wage case, a decision which we expect to have in a week or so. Without the repeal of the Salaries and Wages Pause Act they would be denied any wage increase. So clearly it is important to bring in this Bill to repeal the Salaries and Wages Pause Act. I am pleased that the Opposition is supporting this measure. A couple of Opposition speakers said that the wage freeze was limited to a duration of eight days or four days. I need to address myself to that matter because it has come up in questions and previous debates. Their point is that if wages are adjusted now on the basis of price movements for the March and June quarters, in effect there has been no wage pause except that between 23 December , when the wage pause came in, and the end of December, a period of seven or eight days. Of course, that is an absurd proposition which I would have thought was patently nonsensical. It is quite obvious that that could be so only if there were a backdating of any wage increase now given to 1 January this year. Of course, that is not going to happen. The Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission will not backdate the increase. It will simply give an increase which will apply from some time in the near future. Therefore, the proposition that we had a wage pause or wage freeze for only eight days is a patent absurdity. I would like to say something in regard to the argument constantly put by the Opposition, and put by various speakers in this debate, that the accord is falling apart. There is absolutely no evidence of that. Of course, there have been sectional claims but they have been very infrequent. In fact we have had only a few. Those few have become the subject of a fair bit of national publicity and I certainly regret that they have occurred, but they are not in any way evidence that the prices and incomes accord is falling apart. On the contrary, the reality of the situation was demonstrated perfectly at the Australian Council of Trade Unions Congress where there was enormous support for the accord and the wages policy which goes with that accord. That is a centralised wages system. The Food Preservers Union of Australia, whose actions in regard to pursuing a sectional claim have been highlighted in the Press, was severely dealt with-I think that is a reasonable form of expression-by speakers in that debate, including notable speakers from the left wing of the union movement. So I think it is quite clear that overwhelmingly the view of the trade union movement is that it supports the accord and the wages policy which this Government is pursuing. It is not pursuing a policy of trying to have its cake and eat it too by having that policy in addition to pursuing sectional claims. In that regard I remind the House that the Government, in its submission in the national wage case, put to the Commission with regard to there being no extra claims a proposition as to how the Commission might word its guidelines in respect of no extra claims to ensure that, should any union continue to pursue a sectional claim, it would be penalised for so doing. I would like to make a couple of points in regard to the second reading amendment moved by the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee). It seems to deny the relevance of price increases to wage movements. That is an extremely shortsighted and unreal view which seems to say that wage demands should not be related in any way to movements in prices. Of course, they are, simply because the relevance of any wage level is determined by what has happened to prices. If prices increase, real wages fall. Inevitably, therefore, there is some concern about the reduction in real wages; and, of course, there has been a substantial reduction in real wages. This was denied by some speakers in this debate. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of workers have had no wage increase for the last 12 months. My Department has done a survey of the 60 major Federal awards. In those 60 major Federal awards approximately 83 per cent of workers have had no increase in the last 12 months. That is an indication that there has been a very substantial wage freeze for a year or more for many workers, in fact the overwhelming majority of workers. Their real wages have fallen considerably in that time. The decision which will be given in the national wage case, if it follows the recommendations of the Commonwealth, would give some alleviation to those workers but certainly would by no means restore the considerable loss in real wages over that period. It is undeniable and something we have to face that prices and wages are closely related, not just in the sense that wage increases have an effect on prices but also in the sense that price increases have an effect on wage demands . Simply to rail against it, as the Opposition tends to do, will not change that reality. To claim that wages should be related only to productivity and to have no regard to prices is totally unreal. That is the kind of proposition that has been around for many years. If there were no inflation we could all live with that, but it is unreal in a situation in which levels of inflation remain high despite high levels of unemployment. There is no way in which a wages policy would be acceptable or workable if it were just to increase wages in line with productivity. The honourable member who particularly stressed that in the course of this debate is lucky that his wages are not related to his productivity or he would owe the Treasury a fortune. In regard to the continuance of the wage pause to generate economic recovery and job creation, which is part of the amendment to the motion for the second reading of this Bill, I simply say that that is pursuing the Opposition's argument, which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) repeated in winding up the Opposition side of this debate; that is, that if we were to extend the wage pause this would make it much easier for us to have economic recovery and job growth. Let me say firstly that neither the Deputy Leader of the Opposition nor any other speaker on the Opposition side is in a position to lecture us about employment. Last financial year, under their policies, we had a reduction of 124,000 in the number of people employed. I believe that situation will turn around very considerably in the course of this financial year, with a growth of something like 90,000 in employment on our estimates at this stage. That will give us not a complete turnaround but a very substantial turnaround on the trend of last year, and in subsequent years should enable us to make very considerable inroads into unemployment. I believe that is possible with our wages policy because that policy, if adhered to-we believe it will be adhered to-is one which is conducive to economic recovery. It is simply a wages policy which can maintain real wages but not damage economic recovery by ruining our competitiveness or pushing up the inflation rate. In fact, the opposite will occur; we will have a reduction in our inflation rate and an increase in our competitiveness with the pursuit of the Government's wages policy. I simply remind the House of the fact that in this calendar year, 1983, if the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission accepts the Commonwealth's arguments, award wages will increase by about 4 per cent. On the basis of our inflation estimates now for 1983-84, in the calendar year 1984 we will have an increase of about 5 1/2 per cent in award wages, with price increases flowing on into award wages. Those levels of wage increase are far below the levels which have applied in years past. They are certainly conducive to a very considerable reduction in the level of inflation and a considerable improvement in the level of our competitiveness with other countries. This wages policy, which we hope will be adopted by the Commission, is one which will enable us to move to a situation of higher levels of economic growth, higher levels of employment growth and lower levels of inflation, all of which are indeed highly desirable. The Opposition's policy of simply saying that we should extend the pause for as long as possible is just a policy of absolute short-sightedness and a policy which simply cannot be maintained. We cannot simply keep a wage pause on forever, not if we are going to have some economic recovery. Of course, if we were to pursue the Opposition's budgetary policies and have another $1.5 billion in tax increases or expenditure cuts so that we could get the Budget deficit down to $7 billion we would create much more unemployment. That would make it much easier to take the pressure off any wage movements. Of course, we could do that. But if we were to pursue a budgetary policy which was conducive to an expansion of the economy and employment growth we would need policies in relation to wages other than simply a policy of trying to keep a lid on for as long as possible. If we were to do that eventually that lid would blow clean off and we would be right back to where we were in 1981-82, with exactly what happened then-the wages explosion which occurred with the resources boom and the mini-recovery we had at that time. It just blew the lid straight off wages and costs and created the emergency to which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred, as a result of which the previous Government felt impelled to impose the wage freeze. The reason it felt impelled to impose the wage freeze was that an emergency had been created by the very wages policies which it had pursued. I believe that what we need therefore is long term wages policies, policies which are conducive to employment growth. That is basically what this Government is doing; it is pursuing a wages policy of that kind. I commend the Bill to the House. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Macphee's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Hon. Les Johnson) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Baldwin, P. J. Keating, P. J.Beazley, K. C. Kent, L.Beddall, D. P. Keogh, L. J.Bilney, G. N. Kerin, J. C.Blanchard, C. A. Klugman, R. E.Blewett, N. Lindsay, E. J.Bowen, Lionel McHugh, J.Brown, Robert Maher, M. J.Campbell, G. Mayer, H.Charles, D. E. Mildren, J. B.Child, J. Milton, P.Chynoweth, R. L. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Morrison, W. L.Duffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Everingham, D. N. Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Reeves, J. E.Free, R. V. 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. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J.Hurford, C. J. Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N. McGauran, P. J.Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Keith (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. Newman, K. E.Connolly, D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDrummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Groom, R. J. Street, A. A.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C.Howard, J. W. Jacobi, R. Fife, W. C.Jones, Barry Edwards, Harry 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 Willis) read a third time. Sitting suspended from 6.36 to 8 p.m. Debate resumed from 15 September, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(8.00) —The Income Tax (International Agreements) Amendment Bill will be supported by the Opposition. It is an uncontroversial measure which provides parliamentary authority for the entry into a number of double taxation agreements most, if not all, of which were concluded during the period in office of the former Government. The double taxation agreements involved relate to those with Ireland, Italy, Korea, Norway and, importantly, include a revised double taxation agreement with the United States of America. The Bill also provides parliamentary ratification for a limited airlines profits agreement with the Republic of India. The double taxation agreements with Ireland, Italy, Korea and Norway have been drawn up along similar lines to existing double tax agreements with other countries. The revised United States double tax agreement will replace the old agreement which was originally signed in 1953. The old agreement had become outdated following extensive legislative changes in both countries. The new agreement introduces an article providing for source country tax of no more than 10 per cent in respect of interest and royalties. Interest has not been covered by the old agreement. The new agreement also improves the position in respect of the tax treatment of visiting entertainers. The agreement also introduces a new non-discrimination article. While this article will not be given the force of law in Australia, it does express each country's intention that in enacting tax measures it will not treat taxpayers in a less favourable way than it treats its own taxpayers. It also states the principle of calling for consultation between governments of both countries when any taxation measure is considered to be contrary to the principles of the article. Under the airline profits agreement, Australia and India are to exempt from income tax profits derived by air transport by both countries' international airlines. Australia will be able to tax Indian sourced profits derived by Qantas Airways Ltd and India will have the right to tax Australian sourced profits of Air India. The Opposition supports this Bill in full as a continuation of the policy of bringing Australia into double taxation arrangements with countries which have a close association with us. Such agreements eliminate international double taxation by rationalising the taxation rights of the signatories. The agreements also assist in the prevention of fiscal evasion for an exchange of information between the tax administrations of the signatories. I mention two other matters. Firstly, most of those double taxation agreements were negotiated during the time that I was Treasurer. I therefore take this opportunity, as this is the occasion for parliamentary approval of those agreements, to thank the officers of the Australian Taxation Office and the Department of the Treasury for the enormous amount of detailed and at times very tedious and meticulous work which is required in the negotiation of double taxation agreements. It is not a very glamorous task, but it is a very important task. The network of the commercial arrangements between Australia and other countries is very extensive and complex. It is important to the commercial wellbeing of Australian enterprises, and, indeed, the individuals of both Australia and the countries with whom we have very close relations, that we have effective double taxation arrangements. Therefore, I am sure that I speak for the whole House in extending thanks to the officers of the Australian Taxation Office and others who were involved in the very arduous work involved in negotiating the agreements. The second and rather more general thing that I would like to say something about, because we are dealing with the taxation relations between Australia and other countries, is to draw the House's attention to the fact that the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) has recently foreshadowed or, should I say, has recently remarked-I do not know whether he foreshadowed it-that the Government has under consideration the introduction of a foreign tax credit system. That particular line of approach was canvassed by the former Government. In fact, as Treasurer in that former Government I announced in, I think, 1978 that the Government would introduce a foreign tax credit system. There were believed to be anti-avoidance advantages involved in introducing such a system and undoubtedly there still are. We received widespread representations not only from people who were interested in tax avoidance but also from most reputable Australian companies. If anybody on the Opposition side disbelieves me, I point out that just about every company that was represented at the National Economic Summit Conference was amongst those which made representations to us, warning about the introduction of a foreign tax credit system. I do not know what the Government intends to do in this area. I will naturally be interested to see what it decides to do. I hope that we can react in a constructive fashion to what is proposed. I do not deny that a foreign tax credit system would reduce some areas of tax avoidance. But a strong case can also be made that a foreign tax credit system would hamper the legitimate business operations of many Australian companies operating overseas, particularly in the South East Asian area. If we are concerned as a country about thriving, bustling commercial relations between this country and those countries in South East Asia whose goodwill in the future we desire, we should think very carefully before enacting legislation along the lines that were proposed by the former Government. I recognise that there is a strong argument in terms of efficiency of taxation administration. I can remember having very long and intense discussions with the Commissioner of Taxation about this issue. I do not deny for a moment that a very strong case can be made on those grounds for a foreign tax credit system. I am sure the Government will listen very carefully to those arguments. I hope also that before it makes any decision in this area it will listen very carefully to the legitimate, certainly self-interested-there is nothing wrong with legitimate self-interest-protestations of those in the commercial community who believe that their commercial operations, particularly in South East Asian countries, would be affected. I hope in a very constructive way that the Government bears in mind those considerations. But that is beyond the province of this particular legislation. I thank the House and you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me the indulgence to stray into that not entirely disconnected but only tenuously related area. The legislation now before the House will have a speedy passage as far as the Opposition is concerned. I join with the Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) in commending it to the House. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke)(8.8) —It is not often that I second and support the remarks of the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) but this is one such occasion. I believe that the Income Tax (International Agreements) Amendment Bill is very positive. It provides for necessary international co-operation on tax issues, which is very important, not the least reason being, as was referred to by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (the honourable member for Bennelong), the problems that occur from time to time in relation to tax evasion. It seems to me that this approach, this way of dealing with the problem, is very constructive and positive. I imagine that very few people who have any sense of fairness would object to the measures incorporated in this Bill. I will refer to a couple of specific matters. I will keep my remarks short because the Whip has told me that we have a lot of legislation to get through and obviously this is not a matter of great disagreement. Let me say firstly that I am very pleased about the updating of relations with the United States. I might say that when I was in the United States, which is some time ago now, one of the problems experienced by people of Australian background who were in the United States and by people who had dealings with Australia was in regard to tax questions. I am glad to see that they have been updated and re-established. In relation to agreements with Ireland, Italy, Norway and Korea, I say again that I am happy to see that list. I hope that the measures will continue so that more countries can be incorporated into this overall approach. I am particularly happy that the agreement covers dividends, royalties and interest payments because I think this is an area in which there has been some potential for tax evasion in the past. It is an area where the agreement is actually quite reasonable because it means that arrangements are made for taxing in either one country or the other or, in certain cases, withholding tax is taken in one country and credited in the other. They seem to me to be eminently sensible measures. I particularly want to mention Korea, because Korea is a case where there has been talk about foreign corporations especially which are based in Korea and have been engaging in various forms of tax evasion in relation to other countries, including Australia. One of the things I want to investigate further is the question of the exemptions that are available in the case where the Korean Government gives incentives to local industry in the form of tax incentives. I would like to see the Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford ) look into that a bit further. We do not want a situation where the tax incentives given by the Korean Government turn out to be a way of avoiding any tax in this area. I am sure that that matter is a technical problem that can be avoided. The primary way in which this Bill is positive is in the exchange of information between governments on the question of tax arrangements about companies and individuals. I think that is very important because many worries have been expressed about transfer pricing and the tax consequences of it. If co -operation can exist between governments in terms of disclosure of the basis of taxation being paid by companies, especially multinational corporations, I think that would be a very valuable plugging of the gap. With respect to the intriguing question raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on the foreign tax credit system, all I can say about that is that if this sort of legislation proves to be successful then it may be the case that a foreign tax credit system can be avoided. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Dr Blewett) read a third time. Debate resumed from 14 September, on the motion by Mr West: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(8.13) —This small but obnoxious piece of legislation gives effect to a Budget measure already announced by the Hawke socialist Government. Whilst the Opposition will not decline to give the Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill 1983 a second reading, we do feel very strongly that there are undesirable features about this legislation which should be brought to public attention. Accordingly, with respect to this Bill I move the following amendment : That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that- (1) the increased charges will cause personal hardship by preventing a large number of private overseas students from obtaining the benefits of secondary and tertiary education in Australia; and (2) the substantially reduced overseas student intake for 1984 is not in the interests of Australia and its relations with our Asian and Pacific neighbours in that it is elitist, isolationist, selfish and mean'. This legislation increases the maximum rate of charge per prescribed course for overseas students attending secondary and tertiary education institutions in Australia from $2,500 to $2,900. When the maximum rate of charge was fixed back in 1979, $2,500 represented approximately 40 per cent of the average cost of higher education. The increased rate of charge represents today slightly less than 40 per cent of the estimated average cost of tertiary education in 1983. So on the one hand the Hawke socialist Government has increased the cost to overseas students wishing to receive education in Australia, while on the other hand the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West), in his second reading speech on this Bill, announced that the Hawke socialist Government had substantially reduced the size of the intake of overseas students coming into Australia for the purposes of secondary and tertiary education in 1984. In short, to its discredit it has made it much harder for private overseas students to be able to afford secondary and tertiary education in Australia. At the same time it has cut the intake to approximately 3,500 in 1984, being 2,000 for secondary education and 1,500 for tertiary education. In so doing, we believe that the Hawke socialist Government has taken action which can be fairly described as elitist, isolationist, selfish and mean. Whilst it is true to say that the overwhelming majority of overseas students entering either secondary or tertiary education in Australia are either Australian Development Assistance Bureau students or scholarship students, the fact still remains that many many families in many countries of Asia and the Pacific region work very hard to raise the money to give their sons and daughters the opportunity of education in Australia. For many families in countries which are not as wealthy as we are to pay $2,500 involves a very significant sacrifice. That figure has now been increased to $2,900. I believe that all Australians would be proud of the fact that many of the leaders of Asian and pacific nations today received their education in this country, Australia, some years ago. The fact that they have been educated in Australia and have formed ties and friendships with this nation of ours has stood this nation in very good stead in its relations with our neighbours. I mention, for example, the Minister for National Development in Singapore, Mr Teh , a most intelligent and charming man whom I had the honour to meet in Singapore last year. Mr Teh took his degree of Bachelor of Architecture at Sydney University back in the 1950s. By one of those coincidences of fate, a significant number of members of the Fijian Parliament undertook their law degrees at the University of Tasmania in the 1950s and 1960s. It think it is more than significant that the former Leader of the Opposition in Fiji, Mr Siddiq Koya, took his degree of Bachelor of Laws at the University of Tasmania. The current Speaker of the Fijian Parliament, the Deputy Speaker and a significant number of Ministers in the Fijian Government of Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara took their degree in this country. Last year on a brief overseas visit-the only one I was able to take as a Minister under the former Government, because overseas trips under our Government were not handed out with gay abandon-I had the opportunity to visit three Pacific and Asian countries briefly and, I might say, at very modest expense to the taxpayer. During those visits, I found one matter raised repeatedly: Why was it that Australia had brought in this overseas student charge legislation in 1979? Anyone who checks Hansard and anyone who was around in 1979 will know that I, as a backbencher, had very strong views about the principle that we were bringing into legislation when we decided to charge overseas students for the privilege of education in Australia. The Australian Labor Party was unanimous in its opposition to that legislation in 1979. The ALP said that it was disgraceful that we were to charge overseas students for the privilege of being educated in Australia. Running up to the 1980 Federal election campaign you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the most senior and experienced member of your party in this House, and the father of the House, will well recall that your colleagues ran around Australia and at campuses of universities said: 'We shall get rid of this inequitable overseas student charge'. But what do we find? In 1983 not only does the Hawke socialist Government not get rid of the overseas student charge; it has increased it, and increased it substantially. The second matter is one of very great concern. The Minister, in his second reading speech, put forward unconvincing arguments for a reduction in the overseas student intake for 1984. The Minister no doubt read, in the Australian and some other newspapers which published similar articles, that there was overcrowding in certain universities, and that problems were being caused because of the numbers of overseas students in certain faculties. I think, with respect, that the Minister and the Government have given a kneejerk reaction to this and have said that they will slash the number of overseas students coming into Australia without taking into account what this will do to Australia's image. There are many universities and colleges of advanced education in this country and, indeed, many schools and secondary education institutions which would be able to take more overseas students, and would welcome them. My colleague in the Senate, Senator Peter Baume, our shadow Minister for Education, could no doubt give more accurate details of the universities which are in a position to take new students. The University of Tasmania could take more overseas students, and I am informed that the of Flinders University and Deakin University could take more overseas students, as could Macquarie University, and so on. So if it is a problem in one or two universities, why take the action that the Government has taken in shutting the door on a significant number of overseas students who would dearly wish for the opportunity of coming to this country? I have a robust and, I think, forceful debate with the Minister. It never gets personal, However, I thought that there were a few parts of his speech which could have been put better. I refer, for example, to his statement-which I challenge-where he says: The charge on overseas students is therefore required to defray part of the cost of their education. That statement is just not correct. The money from the overseas student charges goes into the coffers of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. It is not then paid out to the educational institutions which look after those students. It is wrong to say to the people of Australia and to our Asian neighbours that we are charging these students a fee, which will now be $2,900 per annum, on the basis that it will defray part of the cost of their education. I put it bluntly to the Minister: If that is the intention of the legislation, I suggest that, to put it on an honourable footing, the Hawke Government should introduce amending legislation to ensure that the money collected is paid through to the educational institutions at which those overseas students are carrying out their courses. Mr West —It goes into general revenue. You know that. Mr HODGMAN —I am sorry. I am just putting it to the Minister that he said in his second reading speech that it is required to defray part of the cost of their education. The fact is that it is not. A little further on in the second reading speech the Minister said: The Government is concerned that as a result Australian students may not have been able to obtain places in the course of their choice at tertiary institutions. That will read very well in Australia, but how does the Minister think that it will be read in Singapore, Jakarta, Bangkok, Manila, Hong Kong and Fiji? It will be read as one of the most selfish and ill-considered statements uttered by a Minister and a government in many years. What the Government is saying, effectively, is that Australian students, in its judgment, may not have been able to obtain places in the course of their choice at tertiary institutions because of overseas students in this country. On the Minister's figures, that proposition is simply untenable. There are 8,000 overseas students in Australia today. Is the Minister telling me that those 8,000 are squeezing out Australians ? I repeat: If there is a problem in a particular university or a particular college of advanced education, why not fix that problem by letting those students go to other institutions where there is not a problem? I repeat-I can tell the House at first hand about this-that the Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the University of Tasmania is most enthusiastic in his belief that Tasmania could take more overseas students in certain faculties. The other matter in the Minister's speech that concerns me is when he says that we shall be limiting the number of private overseas students entering tertiary institutions in Australia to 4,000 in the coming year, 1984, and that this is an increase of 400 over the number for 1983. When one reads a little further, one sees that he says that this, of course, includes 2,500 overseas students who are completing their secondary education in Australia, and this means that the Government must limit the number of overseas students directly entering tertiary institutions in 1984 to 1,500. How does the Government think that the fact that we are prepared to accept a miserable 1,500 will go down with our Asian and Pacific neighbours? What an isolationist attitude for Australia to take. It is selfish, mean and miserable for this Government to tell our Asian and Pacific neighbours that we are prepared, out of the goodness of our hearts, to receive 1 ,500 in 1984 and that we are upping the ante to $2,900. The Minister says that the Government is limiting the number of secondary students to 2,000. But that is not the whole story. I have a case in my parliamentary office in which the head of one of our diplomatic missions in the Pacific has had to write to me to say that a young lady who wished to attend a Catholic non-government school in Hobart to do her matriculation cannot go to that school at all to do her matriculation. If she wants to, she can do a technical course at the Hobart Technical College. She has a cousin attending that Catholic school in Hobart and an uncle, aunt and other relatives who are prepared to put up the fees for her to attend that school. How does the Government explain to them the rationale of a policy which says that that 17- year-old lass cannot matriculate at Mount Carmel College but she can do a technical course at the Hobart Technical College? I am bitterly disappointed, on behalf of the Opposition, by the attitude displayed by the Government in this matter. Firstly, I am disappointed by the Government's utter hypocrisy. This was the party that condemned this legislation as did I, when it was introduced in 1979. Now that the ALP is in power, it is prepared to up the ante. It will be depriving many private overseas students of the opportunity of coming to this country for secondary or tertiary education. The jump from $2,500 to $2,900 is a fortune for some of the families on the low wages that they receive who want to send their son or their daughter into Australia to undertake a secondary or tertiary education course. To accompany that by a cutback is regrettable. More than that, it will convey an impression to our Pacific and Asian neighbours that notwithstanding the rhetoric of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), the young people of these countries are not really welcome in Australia. I have had a long standing association with the Overseas Students Association of the University of Tasmania since its inception in 1956. I continue to be the honorary legal adviser to that Association and I have nothing but the highest regard for the calibre of the young people in it. The young people who come here bring good and they assimilate well. They have been an absolute success in every university. As I have said, many of those who went through our universities in the 1950s are now leaders. I say to the Minister that as a result of the actions of his Government in upping the ante and dropping the quota students who should be coming into this country will not now be coming. I daresay that some of them will finish up in Moscow. Why will that be? It will be because the Soviet Government, which is determined to extend its influence into the Pacific area, as the Minister well knows, will go out of its way to say to young people: 'If you are not wanted in Australia we will certainly have you in Moscow'. The Soviets will do it in a cunning way, whether it be through ballet, music or gymnastics. They will find the way. They will pay these young people their fare and an allowance. For example, what does the Minister think will be the influence of the Soviet Union in an area such as Western Samoa where the Soviet Union is desperately trying to ingratiate itself with that Administration? As a result of an elitist, isolationist, selfish and mean act by the Hawke socialist Government, not only will these young people be lost to our nation and to our institutions to our detriment and to the detriment of their countries but also, I suggest, some of them will now find their way to Moscow. Is that really what the Government intended? I would hope not, but that is what will happen. The Government is putting up the shutters. It is telling these young people that they are not wanted. Shame on the Government. I think the legislation is regrettable in the extreme but, more importantly, it indicates that, in a way, this Government is demonstrating its true colours- isolationist, selfish, mean and miserable. I hope there will be members of the Government with enough courage to acknowledge the veracity, sincerity and force of the Opposition amendment. I hope they will be prepared to cross to our side of the House and do the right thing in voting in favour of our amendment when it is put to a vote later this evening. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! Is the amendment seconded? Mr Millar —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(8.33) —Once again the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) has described one of our measures as another measure from the Hawke socialist Government. I do not know what effect he thinks he is having on his listeners. Socialism exists in many guises and Australians know that. I do not know whether the honourable member for Denison remembers that Australia is the home of democratic socialism and had the world's first socialist government 13 years before there was a communist government and 30 years or more before there was a fascist government which abused the word even further by describing itself as a national socialist government. Whereas he described the Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill as elitist, isolationist, selfish and mean, this Bill is designed to lessen opportunities for the rich because the poor have been going backwards and so that the poor might benefit. Therefore, the Bill gives some attention to democratic socialist principles. The honourable member did not point out in his speech that this Government will allow 400 more overseas students to enter Australian tertiary institutions in 1984 than were allowed by his Government in 1983. This decision was forced on to the Government simply because secondary students numbers had been allowed to get out of hand. Our first duty is to the secondary students who are already in Australia and are coming up to tertiary training level. The previous Government may not have been prepared to take the reins: This Government is. The charges to private overseas students have increased by 15 per cent to a maximum of $2,900 a year. This is a third of the estimated average cost of tertairy education in 1983. It compares with 40 per cent which applied in 1980 under the Government of the honourable member for Denison. Of course, the Government will continue to meet the charges of private students from Papua New Guinea and other developing countries in the South Pacific as well as students sponsored by the Australian Development Assistance Bureau. But the Government is concerned that Australian students may not have been able to obtain places in tertiary institutions. Some have not been able to do the course of their choice and numbers have risen in some areas, as the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) pointed out when introducing the Bill. He said that numbers from Malaysia in 1981 were 1,100 and in 1983, 2,580. The Opposition may not have been prepared to meet that challenge. As usual, as it was with tax reform, it is running scared. This Government is prepared to meet the challenge and to face the complex questions which must be reconciled by any responsible government. First, the Government has a desire to encourage private students to study in Australia while, at the same time, to avoid reducing opportunities for Australian residents and also to avoid increasing huge extra costs to taxpayers where possible. The honourable member for Denison made some excellent points about the need to encourage private students studying in Australia. It has to be admitted that even when those students come from the elite in their country they are often the people who become those with power and influence. However undemocratic and inequitable their economic and social structures are it is important for them to know Australia, as the honourable member for Denison said. It is very handy to have overseas leaders who understand our complex system of government, comprising up to four levels if one includes county councils and regional bodies . They are better able to deal with our Governments in trade and other matters when they are familiar with our anachronistic system of government. It is also important that we make up for deficiencies in some areas of some countries. For instance, Chinese Malays may be excluded by racial quotas from univeristy training in their country. It is important to give our students in Australia a broader view by having overseas students studying with them but also there needs to be caution through realising that there is a looming worry perhaps in some Australian universities with some problems of racism developing. We need to fill some courses-the honourable member for Denison made this point- in which places exceed demand, such as the teacher education field. Some of the people who have come to Australia have become some of our best scientists. So there are good arguments in favour of encouraging private overseas students coming to Australia. There are also sound arguments for not reducing the opportunities for Australian residents. The Government asks: Can we afford to say no to Australian students in high demand courses? Some of the high demand courses which the honourable member for Denison did not mention are medicine, engineering and science. The Government has taken the reins and said no. We have lowered the number of students entering Australia next year, not the number of tertiary students doing courses, so that Australian students will not be displaced from couses of their choice and so that secondary students from other countries can also go into those courses. There are also sound arguments against increasing costs to the Australian taxpayers. In this area again it has to be admitted that private students coming from overseas bring foreign exchange into the country. We also have to face the fact that there is no contribution by students or their parents to the Australian tax system. The reasons for the Government's action need to be looked at from all these points of view. The Government is taking further advice from a committee of review that has been established which will examine in detail the issues relating to the private overseas student program. That committee should report in early 1984. This Bill is consistent with the philosophy of democratic socialism and recognises the need for more opportunity for the less advantaged. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(8.41) —In supporting the amendment which has been moved by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) I would like to concentrate on the Government's proposals to limit the intake of overseas students. If one thinks back to the days following the Second World War one will realise that there was a shift in Australia's perceptions of where she stood in this world and where she lived. There was a realisation, which has increased and , I think, is now widely accepted, that Australia is a country on the peripheries of South East Asia and the west Pacific; it is not an off-shore island of Europe. The geopolitical fact that our future lies in this region finally sank in. Consequently, the closeness of relations with our neighbours, informed and wise understanding by us of them and by them of us and, as a developed country, the assumption of obligations was part and parcel of this realisation. When I refer to the assumption of obligations I speak of such obligations as we accepted with the Colombo Plan which marked our first major realisation of our commitments to this region. Of the obligations which we must assume, and we have assumed as a highly developed country, a major obligation is that of providing facilities for education of our neighbours in South East Asia and in the western Pacific. Education is of fundamental importance to developing countries for the very good reason that without an educated population, without specialists, they cannot progress. The Colombo Plan, other schemes and the provision of private education in this country were means by which people who would become the leaders in their country could be trained. They would be the doctors, the engineers and the builders of the future of their country. Education in another country is a window on another civilisation. Its importance has been understood for centuries. The British understood it well; the French understood it well. It creates a dialogue. It fosters a true understanding of the country in which one is educated and it promotes, in subtle ways, the influence of that country. As well, it predisposes those who come here and who are well treated, as I believe are most people who come to this country for education. It fosters in those a disposition to view Australia favourably and affectionately. It improves our standing and our image and we have become judged to have a deep and abiding concern in our region. I do not think the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) would disagree with the importance of these matters. I doubt whether he would disagree that those effects are the result of our having opened our doors to education from outside and specifically to people within our region-those from the countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations and the western Pacific. Yet we see in the Minister's second reading speech that this Government proposes to impose controls. On that subject he said: In the past few years, particularly in 1983, the numbers of overseas students admitted to Australia increased substantially over those of the previous year. The Government is concerned that as a result Australians students may not have been able to obtain places in the course of their choice at tertiary institutions. Where, one might ask, is the evidence for that? We have an ageing population in this country, as is well known. Even if it be assumed that in some cases Australians did have difficulty in obtaining places in courses of their choice, do we not have an obligation to our region as well as an obligation to our people, and is not a fundamental part of that obligation to ensure that Australia remains the centre for education for foreign students in this part of the world; that they do not go elsewhere but come here, be educated here and be influenced by what they learn here? Those influences should stay with them for the rest of their lives. I say this not only because it is an obligation that we have to them but also it is an obligation, one would think, that, in national self interest, we have to ourselves. Yet we have these controls. The Minister will be aware that, in 1981-82 12,814 privately funded overseas students were at secondary and tertiary institutions, most of them from our immediate region. He complains of the numbers, yet if one looks back one sees that in 1963 we had 11,158 students. We were a very much smaller country in terms of population yet we were able to accommodate that number of students under a Liberal Government. Of course the truth of the matter is that the numbers fluctuate but the obligation persists. It is an obligation, as I have said, which we must discharge in the interests of our region and in our own interests. For example, what will be the reaction elsewhere in our region to the Government's proposals? The honourable member for Denison referred to this. Let me refer to what the Minister had to say about the Malaysians who have been singled out for particular mention. He stated: I might refer to the lack of control exhibited by the former Government which has created the necessity to now curtail new entry to both secondary and tertiary institutions even though the total entering tertiary institutions will be increased by 400. For instance, total secondary new intakes from Malaysia surged from 1,100 in 1981 to 2,580 in 1983. Is that not perfectly terrible? The Minister speaks as though he is talking about the rate of inflation, not something for which we should be glad, not something that we should welcome in this country. He went on to say: If we are to control future intake into tertiary institutions it necessarily follows that we must now control secondary school intakes. Thus, the Malaysians have been restricted to approximately 1,050 new secondary students for 1984, a big reduction on 1983 but nevertheless equivalent to the 1981 total. In 1983 the new intake from Malaysia into secondary schools was 2,508 and it is now proposed that the 1984 figure be reduced to 1,050. The Minister certainly was accurate when he said that it is a big reduction. What reaction, I wonder, does the Malaysian Government have to these proposals? No doubt it would, on the face of things, say that what the Australians do with their education system is a matter for them, but what truly will be their reaction? What truly will be the reaction elsewhere within our region? How are we to be judged? These proposals are short term, ill advised, ignorant and reactionary. They ignore our long term obligations to our region. They overlook the vast benefits conferred on Australian by educating in Australia future leaders and builders of our region. The proposals have within them the potential for immense harm to Australia. Not only will we be judged to be isolationist and elitist but also some may say that in truth these proposals are directed to us because of our colour-because of where we come from. That might be a reaction that one could expect from Malaysia and from other parts of our region. How much damage can that do to us? How much damage can that do to our standing? The long term interests of this country lie in realising that we have obligations to the region which we must discharge. Our long term interests lie in leadership, in generosity and in a willingness to open our door to people from within our region who wish to come here and be educated. It is not in our interests or in the interests of our region to pursue short term restrictive policies controlling student intakes. I hope that this Government will come to realise that matter. I wonder how these proposals sit with the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) and his publicly stated perception that our future lies in this region. Of course, these proposals draw us back from this region and say to those who wish to come here that the door will be closed to large numbers of them and that they can go elsewhere. It is beyond comprehension that any government could think that that kind of policy was in the interests of this country or of this region. Mr DOBIE(Cook)(8.53) —I wish to speak briefly in this debate. We have an arrangement that speeches will be kept to a minimum but I wish to put before the House certain issues that I think are wrong about this legislation and the principles behind it. I think there is a wrong assumption as to why parents and families in the countries in our geographical neighbourhood send their children to Australia for educational purposes. They do not come here because education is free. There is much in the second reading speech of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West), which the honourable member for Eden- Monaro (Mr Snow) quoted, about secondary school education. Everyone in the countries we have in mind is very much aware that when private students come to Australia for secondary education they come in the firm knowledge that they will not receive a cent of subsidy because they are private students from overseas. They pay the same fees as any other student attending that school. If there is a state aid content in that matter it is something, surely, on which we would not put a price. Let us be quite frank and open whcn we turn to tertiary education and talk about people from overseas coming to study in Australia. they do not come to Australia because they get free education. They can get that, as my friend the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) said, from eastern European countries , from the United Kingdom and from most European countries. They do not come here to get free tertiary education. They come to Australia to get good tertiary education and they come because the educational facilities in many disciplines here are excellent, not because they are available and not because they push out Australian students. Honourable members will see that this is the case if they talk to anybody as they travel through Asia. We should forget about Malaysia, Singapore and Hong Kong and talk to people from the smaller countries. What do they see in education in Australia? They see it as a place to train their medical doctors and their dentists. They see it as the place to train their paramedical personnel and the place to send those students who wish to become engineers. It has nothing to do with the capacity of Australian universities not to charge, as was the case until 1979. I do not want to go over the ground that the honourable member for Denison spoke about concerning availability in some tertiary institutions and non- availability in others. I am very much aware of the pressures that exist in my own city-Sydney-at the University of Sydney and the University of New South Wales through many disciplines. We play blind man's bluff if we pretend in this House that there is not a problem at those two large and fine institutions. But there are more than two universities in Australia. More than six or seven other tertiary institutions in Sydney are available to overseas students. We should bear in mind some of the history of this matter. The Minister took great care in his second reading speech to talk of history. Let us go back and see what in fact was done. When I first became a member of parliament in 1966, there were, thanks to the Colombo Plan that had been instituted by the famous Lord Casey, more tertiary students in Australia studying for their primary degrees than there were in the whole of Malaysia. Honourable members may ask: How many places did this stop? Those places came about because Australian aid to those countries changed. We then developed our aid programs so that those Malaysian students who previously had to come to Australia were being trained and educated at their own tertiary educational facilities. That was brought about thanks to Australian aid to teaching and other financial considerations. I am sorry to see that the Minister made such a play on the Malaysian situation . Obviously he has not taken account of the sensitivities of the racial situation in Malaysia. Time does not permit me to dwell on this matter but I recommend that the Minister, when this debate is over, talk with his departmental officers about the allocation of free scholarships from Malaysia on the basis of race and what is desirable. The end result when we consider who has come to Australia, is that one of the groups is virtually compelled to come here as private students only. There is a great sensitivity in this matter and I do not for one moment wish to play politics with it or lead the Minister into playing politics. I merely ask that when he and his departmental officers consider restricting the number of Malaysian secondary students coming to this country, they forget about numbers and situations. They may care to look to see which secondary institutions those Malaysian students have applied to attend. The Minister may be surprised to find that there is a religious reason for many of them applying to many of the schools. It would be well for departmental officers to go through those figures to determine what schools have been in demand by secondary students from overseas. It may come as a surprise to the Minister and his departmental officers-I suspect it does, otherwise they would not have advised the Minister in the way in which they have-to find which schools those students have attended. They are not-I stress those words-the top 30 to which this Government has decided to suspend state aid. They are schools throughout Australia that have had a specific appeal. Again, it is not my job now to name those schools, but the whole of the restriction is based on a false premise about where those secondary students go to school in this country. Secondly, if this Government really believes that it is attacking an elite in these countries in our neighbourhood it should consider some of the tragedies about which some of us who have been in this place for a long time have learnt- failed students going back to their home countries, suicide, disgrace, trauma, things which have not been thought of in this legislation. Has the Government given thought to what happens when an Asian family scrapes and saves to send a student to Australia, with all the expenses involved of air fares, accommodation and sheer living expenses. As to social problems, 15 years ago we had to establish special social workers to attend to their particular social problems. Those people who fail go back to their countries disgraced, not because they have failed but because their families have made financial and social sacrifices the like of which few Australians have had to do. This is not an attack on elite people from foreign countries. This is an attack on families who have ambitions for their children, who do not see the advantages in their countries, who for religious and other social reasons find that they cannot break the social nexus in their own countries, and who see the hopes and ambitions of their children and, therefore, their countries, in sending children to overseas institutions most often at great financial burden and cost. I say with sadness that the Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill makes assumptions which I know to be wrong. From many years of travel in Asia and the Pacific region-not, I may say, in elite, expensive hotels but among the people in those countries-I can assure honourable members that the premise of this legislation is wrong. It is heartless and, I hate to say it, I believe it is elitist. To quote what the two previous speakers from this side, the honourable member for Denison and the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) had to say-they both made excellent speeches-this legislation is isolationist. Mr West —Anyone would think you did not put the charges on in the first place. Mr DOBIE —If the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, who is at the table, had been a member of this House a little longer he would realise that I made speeches in this connection when the former Government was in office. I say with great sadness to him now- Mr West —You were not very effective, were you? Mr DOBIE —I was quite effective. I was more effective than the Minister is being . His Government has made an arbitrary decision and has reduced the number of students who will enter secondary school education. This Government is blinding people by pretending that its concern is with tertiary education when its real concern is to stop students in their early teens from coming to Australia to get the education that their parents want for them. We in Australia should be honoured to realise that people in so many countries see Australia as their hope , not as the future home for their children but as a place where their children can be given opportunities so that they can then go home and make their countries beyond Australia's shores better places for their families. We once had an election campaign thrust at us by the present Labor Government. I throw it back right into the teeth of the present Government. Shame on the Government for this legislation! Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(9.05) —I wish to address myself to only one issue in this legislation, an issue that strikes me as being very significant in our present economic climate. I am really talking about a different issue from that of assisted education, a matter that has been clearly covered by previous speakers in this debate. I quite agree that Australia has a responsibility to provide that type of assistance, just as it provides other forms of foreign aid. The matter I really want to raise-I sincerely hope that the Government will take this as a constructive suggestion-is that I see no reason why Australia is not in the business of exporting education, selling it as a product no different in terms of its value to our economy from any of the other products we market internationally, such as wool, minerals and manufactured goods. We have a clear ability to sell education. It seems to me remarkable that we should restrict the number of students coming here since we have decided that they should pay something for the privilege. Australia has a very high education infrastructure. In fact, we are well aware that the local demands on that infrastructure, if anything, are declining in relative terms. We hear stories, for instance, in the tertiary sector of university people begging their new students not to flunk or drop out of a course prior to a certain date as they must have those numbers up on the board in terms of government subsidies. Of course, if they had cash paying students using their services it might not be so necessary for those same universities to try to hang on to the free students that Australia provides and who have discovered that they are probably not suited to a tertiary education. Nevertheless, I can give the example of having to give assistance to a young Asian who just wanted to come to one of our secondary schools. I was astounded to find that he and his relatives, who were already living in Australia, needed the assistance of a member of parliament to get him to a private school in Australia when they had to pay his way. He had no admission problems. He was not under any suspicion or anything like that. It was just that the Government was paranoid about letting in another person. I take it that these people must come as students. I take it that on many occasions these students, having spent some considerable time here making friends at a rather impressionable age, are sometimes reluctant to leave. That is a separate issue. It is an issue that must be addressed by the relevant authorities. The fact is that if Australia were to treble or quadruple the number of paying students who come to Australia, even if they did not refund 100 per cent of the overall cost and just paid to us in the first instance the direct cost of their education, surely there is a profit in it for Australia. I do not suggest that, at this stage, we go out and build additional school buildings, but in the secondary sector Australia is full of brick buildings that were built to accommodate the baby boom of a particular suburb. Of course, we now find that those buildings are underutilised because the baby boom has moved to the next suburb. It seems that, in general, Australia has yet been unable to accept the fact that it probably needs some new type of system for building schools. All these school buildings could be filled with unemployed teachers to teach people from overseas who want to come to Australia. Recently, when I visited the Australian Maritime College in Tasmania, it was of some interest to me to see the massive infrastructure-the very minimum that could be provided to give the necessary education, according to the advice I got -quite able to handle a largely increased number of students. In fact even some overseas companies, and I think West Germany was mentioned, are prepared to pay cash to assist Pacific Island students to be taught the skills that are available in the maritime industries in Australia. Of course, the scholarship would be provided by a third nation. This seems to me to be easy money. I have no real knowledge in this field, but I wonder what the two famous British universities get out of Australians who go there. I do not think they go there for nothing. I do not know the extent to which the British Government contributes to their education, but I would imagine that in truth the amount of money paid by Australians going there is substantial. In other words, I can see from what I have read that the British and the Americans are strong in the business of selling education to other nations. The price of an air fare, the price of a tonne of wheat or the price of a manufactured item in overseas currency all look the same in our foreign currency reserves. There is good reason for Australia to get into something in which it can meet the competition, even if it has to cut the price somewhat. As I say, the Australian taxpayer has already put substantial amounts of his money into infrastructure which is generally underutilised and which could be used for this purpose. After we have encouraged these people to pay us the money, we should remember that there is no better time than the formative years when a person is gaining an education for us to make friends and create contacts in the nations with which we seek to do business and to have close association. As has been mentioned by some of my colleagues, there are very good reasons internationally for Australia to do this . The present Government has made much of its approach to sunrise or high technology industries. Here we have a form of sunrise industry-the education industry-in place and going. We do not have to compete with low cost markets because at the moment they do not have the product. Given time, of course, they will have the product and then, as we have found in many other areas, we will be too late. I believe the Government has to rethink the policy to put restrictions on the number of students that come here. I am not saying that they should all come for free and I am not opposing too strongly what this group of students will have to pay. I am suggesting that it is quite proper for the Government to allow some people to come at a reduced price, and I support entirely the view of my colleagues who say that there is room for the Government to be generous to a given extent. But once we have reached that figure we should attract and encourage as many students as possible to Australia to be in the business of selling education. As others have said, we certainly have the capacity to do that. That is the situation as I see it. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(9.13) —I did not intend to sum up in this debate but because I believe most of the points raised by the Opposition during this debate were presented outrageously and dishonestly I feel I should take five minutes to refute some of them. The first thing to say is that the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) was absolutely wrong when he said that there was very little squeeze on places in Australian tertiary institutions for Australian students. I am informed by my colleague the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) that this is of particular concern in such areas as architecture, engineering, dentistry and medicine. They are the areas where most of the overseas tertiary new entrants want to go. So the first thing to say is that the honourable member is wrong-there is a squeeze, particularly in certain areas favoured predominantly by overseas students. The second point to make is that we are more generous in terms of actual intake to the tertiary institutions than was the previous Government. Mr Hodgman —That is not true. Mr WEST —Yes, the previous Government allowed 3,600 students into colleges of advanced education and universities this year and we are allowing in 4,000 next year-an increase of 400. It is true that the number of new entrants from overseas will be down. That is as a result of the 2,500-odd already in Australia who we feel have some sort of priority to take their places inside the 4,000 parameter that the Department of Education and Youth Affairs tells this Government we should restrict places to. Of course, if one enters the debate from the angle of saying 'How many can we take?' the answer is 4,000. If there are in Australia 2,500 eligible to enter tertiary education, obviously there is room for 1,500 new entrants. That is where we get the 1,500 figure for new entrants in tertiary institutions. Further, because of the large numbers of secondary students allowed in under the previous government, we have to ask what we will do for the future if we want to retain some measure of control over the situation. Do we want to allow that secondary intake to keep on blowing out so that in the end we will not be able to place them and will have to send them home after they matriculate? Does the Opposition want us to do that? That is where the figure of 3,500 new entrants comes from-2,000 secondary and 1,500 tertiary. Because the shadow Minister gave some emphasis to the Malaysian situation and how the Malaysians might feel, and because I feel I have some insight into that situation having just returned from consultations with the Malaysian Minister for Education, I have certain facts that might interest him. The first thing to say is that we are not being mean with the Malaysians. Over 8,000 Malaysian tertiary and secondary students are now in Australia, over 50 per cent of the total of all overseas students in Australia. Furthermore, there has been very little reduction in the new tertiary intake from Malaysia. So the honourable member is wrong there. In 1981 the figure was 550; in 1982, 550; in 1983, 620; and in 1984, next year, 590. The big reduction in the numbers from Malaysia is in the secondary intake area where the relevant figures were 1981, 1,100; 1982, 1,750; and 1983, 2,580. That is how the numbers rose under the previous Government. I will be bringing the number back to approximately the 1981 figure, as I said in my second reading speech. So we are not attacking Malaysian students. The previous Government allowed a giant blip over two years, and we are bringing the figure back to the norm. Mr Hodgman —This is white Australia in education. Mr WEST —There is no white Australia in education. That is a figment of the honourable member's tormented imagination. So much for the numbers. I might say in conclusion about Malaysia that under this Government the total number of Malaysian students entering tertiary institutions in Australia-that is, the people from within Australia matriculating and the people coming in as new starters-will be up 400 on last year and 600 on 1982. They are the figures that I received in Malaysia recently. There is a great amount of sympathy for our position from the Malaysian Government, although it is disappointed. We will do what we can for it, but it understands that the previous Government let the situation get out of hand. I turn to the charges. From listening to the Opposition anyone would think that it was this Government that instigated charges, not the crowd opposite. It was the previous Government which instigated charges. I am not saying that it was wrong. I simply record the fact that in 1979 the previous Government's maximum charge was equal to 40 per cent of the total cost recovery rate. This 15 per cent increase will simply restore the maximum charge to 34 per cent of the cost recovery rate. So we have not even covered inflation. What is more, charges for students from Papua New Guinea and from the South Pacific and for students under the Australian Development Assistance Bureau program will still be met as before by the Australian Labor Government. We can take the philosophical position that we should run an aid program for private overseas students, as we have for the ADAB students, but I have come to the view that if we are to run such an aid program it should not be a hidden aid program as it is at the moment. The extent of the subsidy, seeing we are getting back 34 per cent of the total, is approximately $50m a year. What it is is a hidden aid subsidy for private overseas students. It may or may not be defensible that we subsidise the overseas students. It is defensible to some degree. But if we are doing that, if we are saying 'Here is $50m to subsidise private overseas students into Australia', surely we are entitled to examine the consequences of that and the measures that may be required to see whether we, the students and the other governments and nations are getting the best value for money. That is really what we are doing. What none of the honourable members opposite mentioned during the whole debate is that we are setting up a review of the whole situation to get at the truth. Professor Goldring will head the review. We will have the results by February in time to decide our position for 1985. It will be serviced by my Department and it will have representatives of the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Education and Youth Affairs and the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, which has the carriage of the intake program. We are holding the review so that we can get to the truth of the matter. I quote selectively from the terms of reference of the review. We want it to examine: (i) the proportion of the cost of training to be borne by the student . . .; (ii) whether priority should be given to students from particular countries; (iii) the basis upon which selection should be made bearing in mind inter alia matters of distributional equity and ways of encouraging overseas students with limited economic means; What that really means is that, if we are going to put out the $50m, should we be examining methods by which we may have a multi-tiered system based upon, perhaps, income? Is it correct that the Australian taxpayer should, on the one hand, be subsidising in many cases-not all, but many cases-the sons and daughters of very rich people from member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations when, on the other hand, many people at the lower end of the economic scale in those countries cannot get into Australia? That is what we want to look at. Is there a case for having full cost recovery for those who can pay but still allowing to come in a lesser number of people who do not pay anything or who pay lower charges than we impose? Is there a case for a multi- tiered system? That is the sort of thing we want to look at. Is there a case for full recovery from those who can well afford to pay and for transferring the subsidy and taking in more ADAB students, more from Papua New Guinea or more from South Pacific countries? They are the sorts of questions that have to be answered. It is for those sorts of reasons that we set up this review. In conclusion, I have not heard anything from the Opposition in this debate tonight that has changed my view that the measures we will adopt to control numbers and to impose a very moderate increase on charges are wrong in any way whatsoever. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Hodgman's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. H. Drummond) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 39 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Johnson, LesBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, R. J.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J.Campbell, G. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J.Child, J. Mayer, H.Chynoweth, R. L. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Morrison, W. L.Duffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Everingham, D. N. Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Reeves, J. E.Free, R. V. 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. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N. MacKellar, M. J. R.Anthony, J. D. McGauran, P. J.Braithwaite, R. A. McVeigh, D. T.Burr, M. A. Millar, P. C.Cadman, A. G. Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Newman, K. E.Cameron, Ian O'Keefe, F. L.Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R.Coleman, W. P. Robinson, IanConnolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Street, A. A.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Tuckey, C. W.Hodgman, W. M. White, P. N. D.Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C.Katter, R. C. Jacobi, R. Fife, W. C.Jones, Barry Edwards, Harry 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 West) read a third time. (Budget Debate) Debate resumed from 15 September, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(9.33) —Some time ago during this Budget debate I was talking about Australia's foreign aid program. Without in any way pre-empting the report of the parliamentary delegation to neighbouring Pacific nations, I commented on some of my observations of those countries and the great merit of our aid program to the nations on our doorstep. Tonight in the few minutes left at my disposal I will elaborate on some of my comments on the malaria problem that the delegation noted and my comments, and conversations and perhaps consultations with a Dr David Parkinson, an Australian specialist whom we met in the Solomon Islands. He explained to me some of the problems and the magnitude of the difficulties that that nation faces in dealing with malaria. Dr Parkinson was particularly concerned that while Australia had given recurrent grants in 1981-82 for the spraying of DDT in less than agricultural quantities to eliminate the anopheles mosquito that transmits malaria, in the last financial year no money was allocated for spraying. In 1981-82 $290,000 was allocated. Last year there was no allocation. Dr Parkinson, from his observations, noted that where spraying had taken place the malaria problem was considerably reduced. The peak of malaria which is at present hitting Papua New Guinea and all the Pacific nations is causing much difficulty and is the single most important disease. Where spraying programs are taking place the incidence of malaria is reduced. Dr Parkinson said to me: 'When you go back to Australia, tell them that the spraying is at a very low dosage and it is having a beneficial effect'. Spraying is one of the few ways of reducing some of the problems from malaria which is endemic in those countries. Another matter I want to mention tonight is the educational problem in some of these countries, particularly in the Solomon Islands. I discussed the educational difficulties with aid officers. They praised our bilateral program but they all stressed the need for vocational training to produce young men and women who can work in the various agricultural pursuits in the Solomon Islands and in the other countries that we visited. Unemployment is one of the big problems. The Solomon Islands, having been a British protectorate, as a tradition of education modelled on the British system. Many young people are tested. If they fail to pass what is called the Hicks test they return to their villages and may only have two or three years of education. I talked to various aid officers privately. They were all of the opinion that there was a great need for further vocational training-trade training-and that this was essential if there was to be any long term planning for job creation programs in those countries. Some members of the delegation visited an interesting adult education centre that was run by Australian Marist Brothers on an island in the western Solomons. It was called Saint Dominic's training centre. At that centre people who were 18 , 19, 20 or older were trained for two years in agricultural pursuits. The Australian Brothers working there explained that they then kept in touch with the former students by visiting their villages throughout the western Solomons. These Australian aid programs are funded by Australian taxpayers and they inspired me and other members of the delegation. I have raised these matters tonight because, as I have said before, we have enormous problems in this country. We have unemployment and the entire spectrum of problems and needs in our society. Every member in the House tonight has problems in his or her electorate. We all want more schools, better hospitals, better roads, better child care facilities and money to be spent in so many different ways. But we have on our doorstep developing nations which need Australia's aid. They trade with Australia and look to Australia as the centre of their world. As the Prime Minister of the Solomon Islands said to us, Australia is the United States of America of the region. Australia must maintain its foreign aid program. It must maintain its contributions to the development of the nations on our doorstep. It must maintain faith with those countries. That is why I have taken the opportunity to raise a few matters that I observed recently in my visit to these adjoining nations. In conclusion, I congratulate the Government on the policy it has adopted of maintaining an extensive and expansive aid program. I congratulate the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). There must have been an enormous temptation to prune aid, to cut the program, to make up for some of the difficulties we face with our unemployment bill and the cost of paying the dole. The cutting of aid would perhaps have been applauded in some quarters. But this temptation was resisted and the Government has pressed on with our bilateral and multilateral aid programs. I believe that the Australian people will be proud of what the Government is doing. The aid we are giving to those countries will help them develop, will help them overcome the public health problems and will do an enormous amount to create goodwill, peace and good government. Mr NEWMAN(Bass)(9.40) —Any comment on this year's Budget must begin by acknowledging and, I suppose, even admiring the skill of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in the work that was put into the Budget, particularly in selling it as a bill of goods to the Australian public. I suppose the admiration of us all must increase when it is realised that this bill of goods is of very dubious quality- a fact that has gradually been exposed by an increasing number of respected commentators, a great number of industrial and commercial organisations and, in recent days, major banking organisations. Mr Aldred —And the stock market. Mr NEWMAN —The stock market too, of course, as my colleague the honourable member for Bruce remarks. The fact is that before the Budget was announced we were well conditioned-that included a gullible Press-to expect a very tough Budget reflecting strong Government fiscal responsibility. In reality, of course , it was a soft Budget, revealing weak Government fiscal responsibility. Despite some of the popular conceptions of this Budget-I suppose they have been backed up in recent weeks by the continued optimistic speeches and comments of the Prime Minister and his Ministers-the fact is that unfortunately in the months ahead this could prove to be a very unfortunate Budget for the Australian economy. If I could say what I believe are the major weaknesses of the Budget, I would summarise them as follows. First of all, there has been a very large increase in Government spending. Four point seven per cent of gross domestic product is now devoted to the Government deficit. That figure is up 7.2 per cent in real terms. That reflects, of course, a mammoth deficit of $8.4 billion. It is remarkable really that if somebody had said to the country a couple of years ago that we would be facing an $8.4 billion deficit and would have that applauded, it would have been unbelievable. To come to a second point, despite the falling interest rates which we are now observing, I believe that there is a bleak prospect for sustained reduction in interest rates. Indeed, as we move into next year I think that there will be every prospect of increased rates as the Government battles to fund that very large deficit. Of course that situation will be made much worse by the competition there will be between State and semi-government authorities to satisfy their borrowing appetites. I do not think we should forget the amounts of money which the Government has allowed those State and semi-government groups to borrow as a result of the Premiers Conference and the Loan Council. A third point is that because of the structural arrangements in the Budget and because of the sheer political pressures that the members of the Government will have to face, the Government is locked into future high spending programs and higher and higher deficits. The fourth point is that there is no prospect for reduced unemployment. I think we are now all aware that the Budget predicts a half per cent increase in unemployment; that is an average of 140,000 extra men and women and boys and girls over the year compared with 1982-83. Mr Goodluck —Hawke should resign. Mr NEWMAN —As my colleague the honourable member for Franklin says, given the promises of this Prime Minister that the Government would be creating 500,000 extra jobs in its term of government, the Prime Minister should resign. I might just add in passing that the job creation schemes, for which I suppose the Government has to be given some credit in trying to reduce the unemployment figure, are bogged down in administrative detail and qualifications. As I speak to the local government councils in my own electorate of Bass, I find that many of them are simply ignoring the schemes because of the high administrative costs , qualifications and conditions that are imposed on the schemes. I think it would have been much better, if the Government had to look for incentives to create employment, if it had gone to the private sector to do it. Another point is that inflation is set to remain somewhere between 8 and 9 per cent. I do not believe that the 7 to 7.5 per cent figure given in the Budget is realistic. Of course, some commentators are predicting that it will exceed this bracket of 8 and 9 per cent. But of course, taking out the Medicare levy of 1 per cent, the real disguised underlying inflation rate is somewhere between 10 and 12 per cent . So whatever the outcome, we are guaranteed to remain severely uncompetitive in international markets. That has to be bad news for our exporting industries. Finally, there is the high risk of the whole plan. It is now widely acknowledged that despite all the other weaknesses which I have just outlined, the strategy of the Budget will stand or fall on the success or otherwise of the wages accord. If ever we want proof of that statement we have only to see the Ministers going out to threaten and cajole the unions that the accord simply has to be kept. That is a sure sign of their worrying concern over the whole fragility of the arrangement. The truth is that the recovery, which is apparent in some sectors-we have heard the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) today trumpeting the success of the housing policy-is extremely vulnerable. It will be halted if labour and other cost pressures increase. If the accord fails that recovery will be destroyed and the trend will be reversed. I have just tried to highlight some of the major weaknesses of the Budget. I would now like to turn to one group in our community which I think has been neglected in the Government's strategy; that is, the young family that is earning around about average weekly earnings. This group has been constantly mentioned by Government members in debates over the last few weeks. In fact, the Prime Minister harangued us in Question Time in one of his typical efforts about the family. Some honourable members-the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths) certainly is one-have claimed that every decision that this Government has taken since 5 March has decidedly promoted the position of the average family. I hope that I will be able to demonstrate that that is demonstrably false. I thought I would take a typical family in my electorate in the city of Launceston that is earning somewhat below average weekly earnings-- Mr Holding —Tasmanians like him. They think he is terrific. They line up to kiss him. Mr NEWMAN —If the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs would stop interjecting for a moment and just listen he might be able to learn a few things. Mr Holding —I am not interjecting. I am talking to your mate. Mr NEWMAN —I thought he was interjecting. Let me take this Launceston family. It is a young family which has only been married two years. They have two children. One child is 18 months old, and one is seven months. The wife will be 20 years old in January. The husband will be 23 in December. The husband is a fitter and turner who has just recently completed his apprenticeship. He has been employed in a well known Launceston company now for about seven years. I will not mention which company for obvious reasons. They own a home, the value of which is about $26,000. The land is worth $5,000. They live in a very modest suburb in Launceston. The situation of this young family is as follows: They earn $314.25 a week. With their family allowance for their two children, which is $55.35 a month-that is about $13.80 a week-their total income is $328.05. This is how they budget. This budget was given to me by the young wife. First of all, to cope with the mortgage on their property, to pay for their car which is on hire purchase-it is an old model station wagon-and to rent a television they pay $94.45. To cope with their clothes, food, petrol, meat and the wood fuel they use they spend another $86. I might say that of that total bill, their food and meat bill comes to $48 of which $14 pays for milk. I do not know whether many families of honourable members in this House would see their wives budgeting on that small amount of money. Anyway, those items of clothes, food, petrol, meat and wood come to $86. To cope with their personal insurance, medical insurance, dues to the union and their social club at their factory, they pay $34.73. They pay tax of $70.22, although if the young man had claimed his dependent spouse rebate and so on that tax bill would have been reduced to about $60. So he will get a rebate at the end of the year. That is one qualification of the figures I am giving. He pays rates at $10 a week or $524 a year. Home insurance, home contents insurance, car registration and so on also, of course have to be paid for. The net result of all that is that he has outgoings of $301.40. I think that all honourable members, being very good mathematicians, will immediately realise that he has a balance there of $26.65. That figure does not include items such as budgeting for holidays, entertainment, car maintenance, provision for electricity bill, the dentist, reserves for emergency, savings, chemist, telephone, or home maintenance. This family also has debts: An electrician, $200; a builder, $800-odd; and a dentist, $100. Mr Goodluck —Gosh, they are battling. Mr NEWMAN —As the honourable member for Franklin interjects, this young couple are battling. They are a decent, hard-working young couple. The budget that I have given is one that that family has worked out to try to survive on. I think that everyone can see that this family is very hard pressed. In fact, even taking into account the small tax cheque that they will get at the end of the year, they will find it very difficult to make ends meet, despite a very modest and properly budgeted lifestyle. This is the family about which honourable members on both sides of the House are claiming to be concerned. In making these comments I am not trying to excuse the previous Government either, because I do not think that it did very much for this family, but I do not think that the present Government is helping very much. In fact, it is probably making life a little more difficult for this family. Let us see how these people will come out of the Budget. First, they will face higher municipal rates. They will face higher utility rates from the Hydro- Electricity Commission, and for telephone and postage. They will face the end of the health rebate, which has gone until February next year. Whatever the Government may say, if this young family wishes to insure for private hospital cover, they will probably end up paying exactly the same as they are now paying in medical insurance. That is about $3 through the rebate and about $7 to cope with their private hospital cover. That is $10, or about what they are paying now. There have been increases in the price of petrol and of cigarettes and, through sales tax, in the price of cosmetics, toiletries and insecticides. The mortgage interest rebate, from which they got some relief, has now gone. There is no indexation of the tax threshold, so this young man's tax will increase as every year goes by. All in all, they will be at least $15 worse off because of this Budget. So much for the Government's claim that it is looking after young families. There is another inequity in this family's situation which I should also like to mention, because it was referred to by the young wife who brought this matter to me. They compared their situation with that of a friend whom she knows very well. This is a case of an unmarried mother, aged 21, who has a child aged two. For the first year she had that child she lived with her parents. She now lives in a de facto relationship with the father, who is a fourth year apprentice. This de facto relationship has not been declared, so their budget works out as follows: First, as a supporting mother she receives a supporting parent's benefit of $82.35. She gets a guardian's allowance of $8, a child allowance of $ 10, a rent supplement of $10, and a family allowance of, say $5.50. They are up to about $116 a week and that does not include the fact that they get a fringe benefit which entitles them to some special chemist's rates; they do not have to pay for their telephone rental, and honourable members will know the rest of the benefits they get through the fringe benefits. The father earns $224 as a fourth year apprentice, and no overtime is included. So their total income is $340 a week. They pay no rates, as I have said, the mother receives all the fringe benefits. They rent a flat so they do not have to worry about maintenance. They do not have to pay rates. The situation is that, although allowing some basic expenses, except for the cost of buying and running their own house, plus their taxation and the fringe benefit advantages, they end up with a surplus of almost $85 a wek. Let me just go back over that again. Mr Gayler —Please do. Mr NEWMAN —I am talking about a young struggling family that gets $328.05, out of which they manage to get $26.65, and I have explained how that really amounts to nothing because of other commitments, and another young couple who live in an undeclared de facto relationship who are almost $85 better off. Some honourable members on the Government benches find that rather amusing. I do not find it amusing, nor do other members of the Opposition. It is a dilemma that faces all of us here. Again I say that I do not believe that the Government is responsible for that position by itself. When we were in government we helped to promote the situation. The fact is that we are creating, through our social welfare system, a special class of welfare cheats. In this case, to put it more crudely, we are providing incentives for people to remain outside marriage and we are asking those in marriage to pay for them. This young family, as I have said, is hard working and responsible. It represents the backbone of a stable and industrious community. Yet it is families such as this who are helping to create the wealth of the community, on which we rely to pay the taxes to finance the Government's programs. I am not suggesting that we should reduce help for those in genuine need, such as those who really deserve the single supporting parent's relief, but I do not believe that any of us here want to see the taxpayer being asked to support cases such as that I have cited. We must find ways and means of helping the young family I have been describing. They require some help from government to maintain a decent living standard. There has to be an awareness that help is needed, and there must be a commitment to provide that help. That must be provided through tax relief and properly adjusted family allowances and, above all, through a stable economy in which interest rates are brought down and stay there and in which inflation is brought down and stays there and in which the family can rely on a secure job. Again, we must demonstrate that there is equity in the system to which a young man such as I have described contributes, because he contributes to it a fairly large slice of his tax. In 1965 he would have been paying 14 per cent of his income in tax. Now, the Government and the Opposition have him paying 20 per cent, which is just not on. Living side by side with someone who can successfully cheat the system can only undermine that family's confidence and faith in a stable society based on the family. The trouble is that bigger we make government, the more the taxpayer has to fork out. If he has to fork out more and more, it is inevitable that people will place their own interests before their community responsibility and will cheat. Sadly, governments have created this situation by well meaning programs designed to help those in need, but we must face the fact that we have, at the same time, eroded community morality. The example of the young couple I have given living in such de facto arrangements, undeclared, epitomises the exploitation of the system only too well. That the couple should be so young and that their deceit is sanctioned by their parents only makes the example worse, because that is the fact of the matter. Mr Aldred —And sanctioned by the socialists opposite. Mr NEWMAN —Yes, I suppose that is true, too. One of the immediate responses that one could make to stop cheating is to call for bigger and better checks and surveillance, but Big Brother is already here and is set to get better and bigger, as we have seen with the Medicare arrangements. The real answer is to reduce big government, to reassert individual enterprise and responsibility, and to allow the market to operate more freely. Unfortunately, I have to say that that is a long way off. When I say that, I hope that this Opposition, as it formulates its new purposes and policies, will work to that ideal. This Budget takes Australia in a direction opposite to the one about which I have been speaking. It is making big government bigger, and it is the likes of my young Launceston family who stand to suffer. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation and Special Minister of State)(10.00) — The central line of the attack on this Budget by the Opposition has been to come at it from two completely contradictory angles and, as usual, not to present seriously to the electorate any form of alternative which it suggests this Government ought to be pursuing. From the two or three years I spent in Opposition and also from the very substantial period before then when I took an interest in this place I can remember how, every time we in Opposition were obliged to come forward and present a response to a Budget by the conservative Government, we were obliged to present details of where we would have changed decisions taken, where we would have raised additional revenue and where we would have proposed appropriate cuts. If that detail was not forthcoming serious doubts were raised in editorials the next day as to our competence and integrity , and mockery was cast upon us by every Government speaker. In some sense when we failed to do that there was justification for both that mockery and criticism in the Press and elsewhere. If one is in a position of being the official Opposition one is obliged to put forward rational alternatives to what the Government is doing. If one fails to do that one is legitimately in a position in which one is obliged to take criticism. We have had nothing but contradiction in the presentations that have come forward from the various members of the Opposition. Assaults have been made on the propositions we have put forward which contained any degree of revenue raising, without any serious suggestion as to where alternative revenue raising activities might be undertaken. Attacks have been made on cuts we have made in certain areas of public expenditure, in certain capital works projects, although funding for not many of those projects has been reduced. But there has been no suggestion from the Opposition as to what cuts or increases it would have made to produce a different result. We have had an opposition take advantage of the least commendable aspect of an opposition's position and that is a capacity, if honourable members opposite so desire, to criticise what a government does irresponsibly. We tend to forget another thing when looking at this Budget. When this Budget was brought down Opposition members looked at it as though it was framed in other than some sort of historical context. They looked at it as though this Parliament had suddenly descended to earth and this Government had made its decisions in isolation of the nature of the economy as it is at the moment and in isolation of decisions taken by previous governments. We are invited to have our competence tested in a context in which the Australian economic community has been invented, as it were, de novo. It has to be realised that this Budget was brought down in the aftermath of seven years of wasted opportunity and of wasted mandate. When the Fraser Government came into office in 1975 it had the capacity, by its majority in the upper and lower Houses, virtually to guarantee itself at least two terms, at least six years, in which to make an impact on the nature of the Australian economy in any direction in which it wished to proceed. From that Government we got footling, backing and filling, cowardice, incompetence and, in the end, economic decline. That Government in its final year managed to achieve the position where, for the first time in 30 or 40 years, it presided over the diminution of Australia as an economic animal. We became 2 per cent smaller than we had been the year before. In conjunction with that, unemployment had risen to something like three quarters of a million Australians and there had been no substantial shift in the inflation rate from the time when that Government secured office to the time when it left office. Whatever can be said of the various problems confronted in that period in the international community, that Government has a record of failure to respond to the crisis which this country confronted. We went from being, in 1975, about seventh amongst the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development group of nations in terms of standard of living, using whatever mysterious mechanisms that Organisation uses to measure that standard, to being about sixteenth now. That is a situation of which no Opposition can be proud. I suppose that if nothing constructive or sensible is coming forward from the Opposition, it is in a situation in which it needs to think about what it is doing before it comes forward with a response. However, even that degree of modesty is not being assumed by the Opposition. It has made a response on some matters. I turn my attention to one or two of those matters before looking at what we have done in the aviation area, which is more directly in my area of responsibility. I am very greatly disappointed to see that the Opposition, when presented with an opportunity to support propositions that have emanated from us-propositions it previously supported in principle-has chosen not to do so. I suppose the most startling example of that has been its criticisms of us in those areas in which we have attempted to relate increases in social security spending or actions in that regard to some criteria of need and to ensure that welfare benefits go to people genuinely in need. We would want probably no better credo for our objectives in that regard than the statement made by the now Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) on 9 September 1981. He said: We must surely question the extent to which this rising expenditure- He is talking about expenditure in relation to social security-- is economically and socially productive whether it meets genuine social need. So much of government spending goes to people who demonstrably do not need government assistance. There has been no support coming forth from the Opposition for those first stage initiatives that we have made so far in this Budget; indeed, exactly the opposite has been forthcoming. There has been a deliberate attempt on the part of the Opposition to induce completely unnecessarily in our pensioner community fears that it will be very seriously impacted upon by an assets test which many members of the Opposition when in govenment advocated as an essential direction in which their Government ought to move. As I said, that has created a degree of concern among pensioners. The creation of that concern was totally reprehensible . Most of the two million pensioners need not be at all concerned as they will not be affected by the proposed assets test. Around half a million pensioners will have changes to their pensions and, of those, about one-third-some 170,000- will be better off. That subject, I think, required some consideration in this discussion of the Budget, because, as I said, it is an unfortunate departure from the direction in which the Leader of the Opposition was moving when he was seriously attempting to contest the leadership of his Party from a somewhat more difficult position in terms of the internal workings of his Party than he subsequently was in when he was finally selected as the candidate. In this Budget the Labor Party, despite the extraordinary stringent times in which we are obliged to govern, did not stint on new policies in areas of real need in the community. An amount of $ 369m is to be spent on job creation, $633m on health and $267m on housing while assistance to State and Territory governments totals $384m. The Government has made a serious commitment to upholding its responsibilities in the sector for which it is directly responsible, public spending, whilst at he same time doing so with a sense of restraint that will not discourage private investment in this country. In the area of capital works expenditure, a number of projects come under the Aviation portfolio which understandably did not receive extensive coverage in the speech of the Treasurer (Mr Keating). I want to deal with them now. Aviation expenditure approved in this year's Budget provided for the largest national airports and airways program in Australia's history. The total program of $620m over the next four years includes new airport development projects estimated to cost $178m. Total expenditure on airports and airways developments in 1983-84 is estimated at $148m. The airport development program will provide greatly improved facilities for passengers and airlines and will cater for future increased passenger and freight traffic as well as the introduction of new aircraft types. In part, the Government's motivation in considering these matters is consideration of the need to ensure that there is job creating potential in major civil works programs. But in fact the main reason-it is in my view the only substantial reason for which one can justify aviation expenditure-is that it is necessary to maintain high aviation operational and safety standards. So that the airport developments that we have decided to proceed with are those which have a very tightly established aviation requirement for their development . That includes the provision to start on a program which will eventually cost $ 96m-the full amount is not provided for in this Budget-for the Darwin international airport which will, when it is completed, overcome a justifiable grievance by the people of the Northern Territory that their airport has waited some 20 years to receive serious attention. When that construction is at its peak it will create up to 400 on-site jobs and that will be very useful in a Territory which is experiencing substantial levels of unemployment. Mr McGauran —Where is the railway? What about their railway? Mr BEAZLEY —The same can be said for the new international terminal at Perth Airport. It will have a similar effect. The honourable member for Gippsland raised the question of the railway to Darwin. What is an interesting point about this Budget is that for all the furore, all the song and dance that comes from the other side of the House, it is one of the ironies that in the $5m we have devoted to give some sort of meaning to the program by which an investigation will be undertaken as to its viability and as to its economic justification, we are in fact spending more on that railway system this year than has been spent in previous Budgets. We have offered the Northern Territory Government the opportunity to put its money where its mouth is. It has yet to arrive at a conclusion which will do that. When it does the Commonwealth stands ready to meet it. We have also provided funds for additional taxi-way development at Sydney ( Kingsford-Smith) Airport. The program we have initiated will ultimately cost in the realm of $11.5m. That will substantially increase the capacity at Sydney Airport when it is completed. We have also set aside an amount for the development of a consultant study on the upgrading of Canberra Airport. Of course that does not necessarily pre-empt a decision by the Government to proceed with that, but that has become a hardy perennial which is much promise but about which nothing is done. The money that has been put forward for a consultant study represents for the first time a serious commitment to getting that project off the ground. As I said, all these developments require an aviation justification. I want to raise one matter in this House that concerns me considerably, and that is the extent to which we confront, looking down the line, very substantial expenditures on airport developments, both in terms of the creation of new airports and in terms of the development of existing facilities. On a variety of interpretations naturally enough at this time, because we are looking down the line at decades of expenditure, detailed costing cannot be available. But we are looking at expenditures in a decade or so in the realm of $2 billion to $3 billion. If and when those developments are proceeded with they will have a very substantial impact on the aviation cost recovery program and, naturally enough, in the first instance on the Australian taxpayer. The reasons we confront that situation are severalfold. The first is that there has been a delay in some necessary developments. As all governments have been aware in the past, until we took on a few of them here, the easiest thing to delay and to run through into another Budget in another year is expenditure on capital works. In addition, there were substantial airport developments in the late 1960s and early 1970s which created a situation in which additional developments could be held off until they became urgent-that is, for at least a decade or so. The capacity to do that in a number of key areas is beginning to run out. That creates for this Government a very substantial responsibility if it is to be able to meet the needs of the aviation industry in a way in which the aviation industry can afford, and in a way which meets the needs of the commuter and the Australian taxpayer. For that reason the Government has committed itself to the setting up of a task force to examine the viability of the creation of a national airports authority. Mr McGauran —They are just words. Mr BEAZLEY —No, they are not, actually. An amount of $750,000 is designated in this Budget to match those words, to enable the consultancies and the necessary studies to take place. It is extremely important that a decision on this matter be reached in the next 18 months, which is the period in which the task force will operate. If we do not reach a satisfactory system whereby we will be able to manage our airports more efficiently, the cost burden that will arise in the aviation industry will be such that it will either not be able to afford the cost or it will charge at a level for its facilities and services which will mean that air travel will be denied, as it is to some considerable degree, to the average Australian. The point about a national airports authority, if and when we can get it off the ground, is that it will offer an opportunity for the development of independent management at each of the major airports in Australia, albeit under the rubric of a national authority, to enable each of them to engage in a type of entrepreneurial activity which will offer considerable relief to the cost recovery program. It is not as though nothing is being done in that area at the moment. In fact the Department of Aviation over the years and under previous governments-I will give them that-has become more efficient in securing opportunities to raise funds from various commercial activities at airports. Those opportunities have probably reached the point of saturation at which a highly centralised process can achieve an effective economic result. We have reached the point at which a serious study needs to be undertaken, concluding in the creation of a national airports authority which, when it is created, will have a capacity, as I said before, to recover costs from other services at an airport in a way that will be of substantial benefit to the aviation industry. I have so far been very impressed with the extent to which the aviation industry has been interested in the propositions that have come forward and has indicated a willingness to participate in them with us. I should have thought that these developments would have drawn a degree of support from the other side of the House. I notice that there has been silence from the aviation spokesman on this matter while we have been dealing with it here. Mr Hodgman —A good spokesman. Mr BEAZLEY —He is not a bad sort of bloke; he is learning fast. I am not surprised, though, that the remarks I have been making should have been greeted with such rampant idiocy by the people on the National Party bench because they have proved themselves to be absolutely incapable of developing cost effective means of delivering essential facilities to Australians anywhere in a way that is not a substantial burden on the taxpayer and which recovers from the industry sensibly and permits the industry to develop and grow. It is with a very considerable amount of pleasure that I note the substantial initiatives of the Government in the area of aviation and in many other areas of the Budget that have been announced by the Treasurer. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.20) —The Hawke socialist Budget is a disaster. This is the first Budget of Australia's second socialist Government in the past 11 years . It is a socialist Budget and it has been brought into the Parliament by a socialist Government led by a man who, quite unashamedly, has boasted of his commitment to the socialist ideology since he first articulated his political views and opinions. Lest there be any doubt about this matter, let me remind the House of words spoken by the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) some 11 years ago . On 4 September 1972 in the Sydney Morning Herald under the headline 'Labor is Socialist Hawke Says' the following appeared: The Australian Labor Party is a Socialist Party, ACTU President Mr Hawke says. He had no respect for anyone who denied this, Mr Hawke said last night. Mr Hawke was speaking at Belmont, a Newcastle suburb, at the opening of the Federal campaign for the seat of Shortland in support of Mr Peter Morris. Mr Hawke said the Labor Party was a Socialist-based organisation. 'I have never at any time tried to walk away from the fact that I am a dedicated and convinced Socialist myself,' he said. He believed that overwhelmingly his colleagues within the Parliamentary Labor Party were convinced that the best way to run Australia- I think 'ruin Australia' would be more appropriate- was by organised socialism. But he warned that Australians were not yet ready to vote for a program of Socialisation. 'If you went out tonight or between now and the next Federal Election and said you were going to bring in Socialism, you would not get in because for too long the people of Australia have been brainwashed into believing Socialism is something evil,' Mr Hawke said. He said people have been brainwashed into believing there was something undemocratic about socialism. So there it is-and here we are in 1983 with a Prime Minister in the Lodge who is , in his own words, a self-confessed and self-convicted dedicated and convinced socialist. And when we look at those who sit behind him, we cannot be left in any doubt at all that what Australia has today is, unequivocally, a socialist Government. If further proof was needed, I invite the people of Australia to carefully study, not just today, but over the next few months, the Budget brought down in this House on Tuesday, 23 August this year-a fateful day for all Australians. Mr Deputy Speaker, this socialist Budget is a disaster and in the fullness of time we will all see with our own eyes the dreadful damage which will be caused to this private enterprise nation of ours as, day by day, the Budget depth charges strike home. This is a delayed shock Budget. At first blush, the commentators, the economic experts and indeed the people of Australia thought it was a mild Budget. As its sinister implications now come to light we can see that this Budget is a Budget of injustice and inequity. Mr Goodluck —Terrible. Mr HODGMAN —It is terrible, as my colleague the honourable member for Franklin said. It will, in the fullness of time, send many small businesses into bankruptcy. It will lead, as the Budget Papers admitted, to increased unemployment and longer dole queues. It will rob the senior citizens of Australia, the elderly, the retired and the superannuitants; and, it will lead to massive upward pressures culminating in increased interest rates, increased government spending, increased inflation and increased taxation. This socialist Budget is a Budget in the Whitlam tradition. Disguised though it may be for cosmetic purposes, it will do to Australia what the Whitlam socialist policies did to our country from 1972 to 1975-only worse. The present Prime Minister is in so many ways a replica of Prime Minister Whitlam. The only real differences between them are that the present Prime Minister is about 15 centimetres shorter and much more dangerous. In order to appreciate fully the diabolical implications of this socialist Budget we have to turn back our minds some six months and recall the basis upon which this socialist Government bribed its way into power. It did so utilising its time honoured policy of promising the world and conning the electorate. The list of promises made before the Federal election of 5 March is indeed extensive . The list of promises dishonoured and broken since 5 March is almost identical. I am hard pressed to bring to mind any promises which have been honoured during the past six months. Let us take the two fundamental promises upon which this deceitful Government bribed its way into power. Standing on the stage at the Sydney Opera House, in one of the slickest theatrical performances of all time, the present Prime Minister solemnly promised immediate cuts in personal income tax for 96 per cent of Australian workers upon a Labor government coming to power. What has happened to that solemn promise? As soon as the Prime Minister was in the Lodge and he and his socialist colleagues had settled into their plush ministerial suites that promise was torn up and flagrantly dishonoured. Let us recall another solemn promise-an extra 500,000 jobs for the people of Australia. What has happened to that promise? Again it has been torn up and dishonoured. Let us remember another solemn promise to the pensioners, the elderly, the superannuitants; indeed, the senior citizens of Australia. The promise solemnly made was that a Labor Government would 'not take money out of the pensioners' cheques'. Yet within six shabby months this rotten socialist Government has cruelly imposed-and in quick succession-an income means test on the over-70-year-olds; a massive hike in taxation on superannuation and, in this disgraceful Budget, an unjust and discriminatory reimposition of the asset means test abolished by Malcolm Fraser and his Liberal-National Party Government back in 1976. If that was not enough, this Government has now belted the poor old pensioners over the head by decreeing that the price of their beer and their cigarettes will go up automatically every six months. Shame on the Government! Members of this Government are not just socialists waging a vicious war against the pensioners of Australia; they are collectively and individually the most shameless bunch of granny robbers ever to occupy the treasury bench. Honourable members opposite might think it is funny. They might think that these poor old people will not be able to fight back. Let me tell them that they are in for a very big shock because silver power will fight back and will destroy them and their rotten socialist policies. The Hawke Government's contemptible treatment of the elderly and the arrogant way in which the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) now says that pensioner groups will be consulted on the asset means test demonstrate that this is a government which will implement its socialist policies first and think about the consequences later. Cynically, this Government used promise after promise to worm its way into power and now, as the months pass, it leaves behind it a trail of broken promises and dishonoured commitments. With almost no exception, there is hardly a field of Federal Government activity in which incompetence, bungling and straight out dereliction of duty by the Hawke Government have not occurred. In foreign affairs, save only for the actions of the last three weeks with respect to the massacre of the 269 innocent people on the Korean jumbo jet, the Hawke Government has pursued a policy of appeasement towards Moscow and the Soviet Union. Shortly after coming to power the Hawke socialist Government, wrongly in my view and wrongly in the opinion of the overwhelming majority of Australians, including most ethnic groups in this nation, lifted all sanctions against the Soviet Union. These sanctions put in place by the Fraser Government following the brutal Soviet invasion of Afghanistan were lifted to the great delight of Moscow and to the great regret of most right thinking Australians. In defence, the performance of the Hawke Government can only be described as deplorable. We will not be getting an aircraft carrier to defend our country-the world's largest island continent. The Fleet Air Arm with over 50 years of experience, tradition and service to Australia has been disbanded. Service superannuitants have been hit over the fence with massive tax increases-- Mr Baldwin —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. I would have thought that debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1983-84 should bear some relationship, however remote, to the content of that Bill and not the Korean airliner disaster . Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr HODGMAN —Service superannuitants have been hit over the fence with massive tax increases and-wait for it-in the Budget this socialist Government has belted the reserve forces of Australia over the head by deciding for the first time ever in the history of Australia that 50 per cent of the pay of members of the reserves will now be taxed. What a way to treat thousands of Australian men and women who, because of their patriotic commitment to defend this country, now find that they are to be taxed when they are on a pay scale which is determined on the basis that their remuneration will be tax free. Morale in the defence forces is lower than it has ever been in living memory. Morale in the reserves is even worse. Having served in the Royal Australian Naval Reserve and keeping in regular contact with the reserves- Debate interrupted. Sydney Rugby Union Grand Final: Manly Rugby Union Club-Newcastle Council Election-Coal Mining Industry-Hunter Valley-Member for Bruce-Immigration-Record 'Australiana' Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(10.30) —In the adjournment debate tonight I wish to raise a matter of national and in fact international importance. I am talking about the game they play in heaven. We all know that the game they play in heaven is the mighty rugby union. What I want to speak about tonight is the fact that after 33 years the Mighty Blues, the Manly Rugby Union Club, has won the grand final, the premiership of New South Wales, in an absolutely spirited and courageous performance last Saturday. There has been a lot of criticism by various clubs. I notice the Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) is leaving the chamber. I can understand that as Randwick was beaten in three grand finals on Saturday. But the fact is that there has been a lot of criticism of the Manly Club over recent years about the approach adopted by that Club in the recruitment of players. I just want to point out to those who make that criticism that club spirit cannot be bought. The fact is that the ones won the grand final; the twos were in the preliminary final, as were the threes; the fours were in the semi-final and the fives were joint premiers. It was a magnificent performance by this Club which has a great tradition in Sydney rugby union and has in fact supplied a great number of magnificent players to Australia over the years. At this stage I just want to pay a tribute to the administrators of the Manly Rugby Union Club. The fact that I happen to be the patron of the Club may bear some small relationship to this. I am extremely proud of being the patron of the Club. I point out that I did not play for Manly and because of that it took them a long time to ask me to be patron. But, quite seriously, I am enormously proud to be associated with a group of people who are not only just a tribute to the game but also who have put a great deal into the civic life of Manly. The Club President and his fellow administrators have pursued a policy of involving the Club right throughout the civic organisation and civic community in Manly, which I think has paid off. In talking of previous coaches, I mention the famous Slaggie Miller, who has played more test matches for Australia than any other player; Mr Taylor, who is coaching the junior team for Australia; and Mr Bob Lane, who was a previous coach for the Manly Rugby Union Club and has performed a magnificent service in difficult circumstances and in fact gee'd up the club before the grand final to make sure that all supporters were in the right place. Of course, I refer also to Mr Alan Jones, the successful coach after 33 years. Members of this House will be well aware of Mr Jones, who performed such a sterling service for the previous Prime Minister and now is performing the same service for the Manly Rugby Union Club by coaching it successfully. I should not particularise by naming the people who were involved in the grand final. Suffice it to say that the Manly Club, with at that stage one international player, took on the might of Randwick with five international players and in fact was successful in the grand final. I say that the Manly team had one international player at that stage because I am enormously pleased, as are all followers of rugby, that Mr Ollie Hall, that gentle little giant from the bush who has come to play for Manly, has now been selected to play for the Australian team when it tours through Italy and France in just a couple of weeks time. I know that my colleague from Queensland will applaud the selection of Mr Hall because he is taking the place of Mr Stan Pilecki, another gentle soul who has been a great force for Australia in many ways on the rugby field. Quite seriously, it was a great privilege to see stalwarts of the game, people who have represented Australia on the rugby pitches throughout the world and who have not only been players but administrators, coaches and referees-I speak of people like Harold Tolhurst, Ron Walden, Sid Malcolm and people who have been an ornament to the game and to this country-join in with all those other members of the rugby sporting fraternity in congratulating a team which has rebounded upon those critics who said that it could not handle the tough stuff. In fact it took on the might of Sydney rugby union and turned back the galloping greens last Saturday. I finish by saying that we have the opportunity for a unique double because next Sunday the Manly Sea Eagles take on Parramatta. I notice that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) is not in the chamber tonight. I can understand that he is very worried about the composition of his team. If we can achieve that double it will be a truly unique thing and the peninsula will ring throughout the night. Mr SPEAKER —I only regret that the honourable member could not give a commercial for Robert Walls's fine effort with Fitzroy Football Club in Melbourne this season. Mr ALLAN MORRIS(Newcastle)(10.35) —I speak in this debate on a matter which is extremely important to the future of Newcastle. On Saturday, 24 September, Newcastle residents will go to the polls in an election for the Lord Mayor and a city council. Candidates for Lord Mayor include the present Lord Mayor, Alderman Joy Cummings, who in 1974 became Australia's first lady Lord Mayor. Joy Cummings is a lady of rare talents and is held in high esteem by politicians of all political persuasion all over Australia. In fact, during the presentation of the Address-in-Reply at Government House I was approached by a front bencher from the other side of the House who inquired of Alderman Cummings, indicating not only how far and wide she is known but also how much she is admired. Her major opponent for Lord Mayor is one Donald Geddes whose major claim to fame is that he is going to bully the State and Federal governments. His most spectacular campaign stunt to date has been to leave an empty bus parked all round Newcastle with his name on it. This bus is as empty as his rhetoric. It has no purpose other than to proclaim its own existence. For the past three years Alderman Cummings has had a hostile council in which Geddes has been able by various deals to gain sufficient votes to become Deputy Lord Mayor. He and his non-Labor coalition have dominated all positions within the Council and its representative bodies, yet they have been totally unable to exercise any real constructive leadership within the Council itself. Of course, this year for the first time the Liberal Party has endorsed candidates for the Newcastle City Council, a move I welcome because it means that for the first time the Liberal Party is taking local government seriously. That is long overdue. My fears centre mainly around the amount of money being spent in this election. The Australian Labor Party candidates and our Party membership have been fund raising for three years. We have raised the sum of $11,000, which we are very proud of. We think it is an appropriate amount for an election for a council the size of that in Newcastle. However, Geddes and his strangely named and supposedly non-political citizens group will outspend us by at least five to one and probably closer to six to one. Whilst their opulent and extravagant campaign has no real substance, like their bus, it must be paid for. My concern is about who foots the bill and what the real price of that campaign will be. Their candidates, who incidentally include a member of the Liberal Party, an ex- secretary of the National Party and a real estate agent, appear in the main not to be wealthy and there have been no clear signs of any major fund raising exercises. But what must concern me is the fact that in recent years increasingly difficult development issues have faced our city and its residents. Geddes has almost invariably supported developers and a major issue was one in which Geddes supported a project which would have required a breach of the Council's height code by some 50 per cent. The encroachment of flats in some of our older residential areas has caused great bitterness and it has been supported almost completely by Geddes and his colleagues. Changes to the State Electoral Act and proposed changes to the Federal Electoral Act require election donations to be made public. However, no such provisions apply to local government elections. I consider that this current election justifies a similar provision. How on earth can aldermen, with a taxable allowance of $1,000 a year, raise $50,000 or $60,000 for an election campaign? The potential for special treatment, for favourable consideration and for council decisions which maximise a developer's profit is enormous. Given that local government election expenses are not tax deductible, it is possible that advertising bills are being paid for by individuals or companies as part of their operational accounts, which means that it may well be that the Australian taxpayer is paying almost half the cost. Local government has a tremendous capacity to do good for Australia. It has a great capacity to do harm as well if the motives are not right. Does anybody seriously think that people who donate the kind of money involved will not call the tune and that the invisible financiers will not extract a price? I believe that the voters of Newcastle will see through the razmataz of this self- proclaimed bully who wants to be a part time lord mayor. Having been a member of the Council with this candidate for six years, I have had more than enough opportunity to judge his contribution, which has certainly been part time. In fact, years ago I dubbed him the absentee alderman. I do not really imagine that Neville Wran and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) are quaking in their shoes about this self-proclaimed bully. However, I am concerned that the Prime Minister and the Premier have a great interest in the future of Newcastle and the reconstruction of New South Wales and Australia. I am sure they will be interested to know who is prepared to invest so heavily in gaining control of a council in this way and what their real motives might be. What undertakings have been given? What promises have been made? The amount of money, of course, in council terms is great but in terms of the profitability of projects it is actually very small. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr O'KEEFE(Paterson)(10.40) —The upper Hunter River area centred on Singleton and Muswellbrook contains vast resources of easily accessible coal deposits for the local and export markets. Currently there are 10 major coal mines and two large power stations. Bayswater station is currently under construction. There are countless opportunities for further massive capital investment. The lack of adequate infrastructure and effective forward planning could place this exciting prospect in jeopardy. I shall detail some of the areas requiring urgent consideration and front-end financing. Heavy transport movements are placing severe strains on the national, State and local road systems, requiring massive injections of public funds to bring the New England Highway to a safe standard and to upgrade coal haulage routes. The local bridge network is in a deplorable state and a bridge subsidy scheme should be implemented. In regard to water supply and sewerage, essential services are deficient in the coal development areas. Singleton, Muswellbrook, Scone and Denman are all important towns with major augmentation schemes in the pipeline. The total cost of these schemes will exceed $30m and the burden of the local council's debts cannot be afforded by the existing population when the expanded population will be the major beneficiary. There is a need for sporting and recreation facilities. With a progressively younger population age, due to the influx of mine workers and associated service industries, the resource development areas urgently require upgraded sporting facilities. Deficiencies exist in the area of open space available in many localities. There is a lack of adequate indoor sporting stadiums in some towns and a need for the employment of recreation officers. A general need exists for expert co-ordination of sporting services in those key towns, which would help to make better use of existing services and improve the standard of coaching and performance. There is a need for child care and youth facilities. Recent studies arising from the Hunter social development program have revealed a grave deficiency in the standard and extent of child care and youth services available in the resource development areas of the upper Hunter. All of these communities require the employment of youth development officers and funding for youth service centres. Similarly, with the influx of many young married people with no social or family connections in the Hunter region, there has been a growing need for more child care centres and childhood services. Requirements include occasional day care, long term day care, and childhood services to remote rural areas. There are many needs for additional infrastructure to service the aged populations of the Hunter region. These include many more senior citizens centres, nursing and convalescent homes, day care programs, and senior citizens support staffing in local government and community areas. The upper Hunter region will experience rapid population growth, with some 17 new coal mines planned to be developed by the 1990s and expansion of the power generation industry. In excess of 5,000 new jobs can be generated in this region with good planning and favourable marketing arrangements. This growth will be hampered unless the constraints to growth are recognised and overcome. These include the financial and organisational requirements involved in providing the necessary physical and social infrastructure. This effort cannot be left to the industry and local community but should be shared in an equitable manner between all tiers of government and the relevant resource sector. The State and Federal governments extract royalties from the mining companies. The mine owners also should be involved. This great industry is of benefit not only to the Hunter Valley but also to the country generally. A major co-operative effort by government and the private sector will be required if we are to bring about economic recovery in this area. Mrs CHILD(Henty)(10.45) —I do not know what motivated the attack on Race Mathews, the honourable member for Oakleigh in the Victorian Parliament, by the honourable member for Bruce (Mr Aldred) in the adjournment debate on 15 September last, but I do know that anyone who knows Race Mathews would reject the allegations totally. No one has been able to view the so-called transcript mentioned in the adjournment speech. There is no evidence to support the claims of the honourable member for Bruce and the main witness, 'Mr V', has totally denied any such conversation. The honourable member for Bruce either has a very lively imagination or has deliberately set out to make an attack on the Minister for Police in Victoria under parliamentary privilege to try to damage Mr Mathews 's reputation. But that will not work. The conversation, so the honourable member for Bruce said, was held on Sunday, 5 May. There was no Sunday, 5 May, this year. He then said that it was on 8 May. This impeccable source he has is very adaptable to time and date. The language in the so-called transcript is so unlike Race Mathews that it is quite obvious that this is a load of malicious nonsense. 'Mr V', as mentioned in the fairytale of the honourable member for Bruce, says that he has never spoken to Mr Mathews about poker machines, that he does not know how long it is since he spoke to Mr Mathews, but that he does know he has not spoken to Mr Mathews since Mr Mathews became a Minister. The honourable member for Bruce hit the front pages of the Age in 1980. Being bored with a lunch being given at Parliament House for the King of Tonga, he tried balancing expensive glasses of expensive French wine to relieve the boredom. Predictably, he broke the glasses and wasted the wine. He is wasting his time now in trying to blacken Race Mathews's good name. He should now table the source of his information or make his statement outside Parliament ; in other words, he should put up or shut up. The honourable member for Bruce said in his speech that the Australian Labor Party is a bankrupt party-bankrupt of ideas, bankrupt of integrity and bankrupt of honesty. We were not so bankrupt of ideas that we could not win the last Federal election in a landslide. What would he know about integrity and honour being part of a party that pursued a deplorable set of double standards when in Government? Ministerial sackings, suspensions and resignations reached an all time high at that time. The record included meat substitution rackets, failure to prosecute Liberal Party of Australia supporters for tax evasion, years of inaction in the collection of tax due from wealthy taxpayers and a seemingly unlimited supply of money for ministerial junkets overseas with the former Prime Minister notching up a remarkable figure and being claimed to be a $30,000 a day traveller. What would the honourable member for Bruce know about integrity and honour in Government? The honourable member for Bruce must retract and publicly apologise for his malicious allegations against Mr Mathews. They are totally without foundation and I believe he has misled the House in making them. Mr BURR(Wilmot)(10.49) —This evening I want to start what will be a continuing saga about the case of Mr John Griffin, an applicant for permanent residency in Australia. This case started back in early 1982 when Mr Griffin first arrived in Australia on a visitor's visa. The story was that Mr Griffin came to Australia to join his parents as he knows them. Mr Griffin was born in England. His mother deserted him when he was two years old and since that age he was brought up by his real mother's sister, whom he knew as his own mother. Her family, the Rossiter family, raised John Griffin as part of the family and from the age of two years onwards he knew no one else but the Rossiter family as his true parents. Unfortunately, the Rossiters did not officially and formally adopt John as their son. He continued to live with them in England as part of the family. The Rossiters immigrated to Australia as permanent residents in 1970. At that stage, John was 21 years of age. He decided to stay behind in order to complete his apprenticeship training. Also at that time he was engaged to be married. He made his own choice to remain in England. The other members of the family subsequently immigrated to Australia and established their life in Tasmania. In 1980, John's marriage broke down and he was subsequently divorced. At that time he was advised by his priest to immigrate to Australia because he has had psychological difficulties. He applied to Australia House in London for permanent resident status in Australia, but was refused on the basis that he was not directly related to the Rossiter family. As a result, John decided to come to Australia on a visitor's visa. He arrived in Australia on 2 January 1982. That was the only mechanism that he had available to him to be reunited with the people whom he knew as his direct family relations. At that stage, all of the other family members, including his grandparents, were permanently resident in Tasmania. When John arrived in Tasmania to be reunited with his family, he again applied for permanent residence in Australia as he wished to live permanently in this country with the other members of his family. That application was supported by the now Premier of Tasmania, Mr Gray, who wrote to the then Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr Macphee, supporting the application that Mr Griffin had made and requesting that he be allowed to remain in Australia permanently. That application and the letter from Mr Gray were never responded to by the then Minister or the Department. The application itself, for some reason or other, was not handled by the officers of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Mr Griffin's visa for temporary entry into Australia expired on 2 June 1982. At that stage he had not heard anything from the Department about the processing of his application for entry to Australia, either by way of the represenations made on his behalf by Mr Gray or any other officer of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. He continued to believe that he would receive some correspondence from the Department, but none was forthcoming. In the meantime, Mr Griffin, in an effort to show how dedicated he was to make a permanent life in Australia, had joined the Australian Reserve Army, but refused to accept any pay for the service that he was giving to what he hoped would be his new country . When his temporary entry visa expired, he still had heard nothing from the Department. In August 1982, Mr Griffin was in camp with the Army Reserve at Brighton in Tasmania. Without having received any other correspondence from the Department, he was picked up by police and taken to gaol. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(10.54) —Earlier this evening, my colleague the honourable member for Henty (Mrs Child) referred to certain comments made by the honourable member for Bruce (Mr Aldred) in this chamber on Thursday, 15 September. The honourable member for Bruce has been adverted to on a number of occasions this evening and he still does not deign to grace us with his presence . In any event, the honourable member for Bruce-- Mr MacKellar —I raise a point of order. I acknowledge that the honourable member for Maribyrnong is a new member and probably he does not know the forms of the House, but it is customary to let people know if such an attack is going to be made. I ask the honourable member whether he informed the honourable member for Bruce that he would be speaking about him. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr MacKellar —Have you informed him? Mr Charles —Sit down. Mr MacKellar —Don't tell me to sit down. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I advise honourable members that, if any directions are given to sit down, the Chair will give them. There is no point of order. I call the honourable member for Maribyrnong. Mr GRIFFITHS —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I shall have something to say about the honourable member in due course. The comments made by the honourable member for Bruce related to an alleged conversation by the Hon. Race Mathews, the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for the Arts in the Victorian Government. As most honourable members would be aware, Mr Mathews has a very creditable record, not only having been a member of this chamber between 1972 and 1975, but also having made a significant contribution to the affairs of this nation for a very long time before he took up his current position. He is a very good Minister, one held in very high esteem not only by honourable members on this side of the chamber but I hope by most of those who are not prepared to abuse the privileges of this great Parliament, as was done by the honourable member for Bruce last Thursday evening. I will say something else about the honourable member for Bruce-I hope the temporary member, and I am sure that will be the case. Once his constituents become aware of the sorts of scurrilous allegations put before this House by him , I am sure that the very small percentage of voters who need to change their votes to change the complexion of that seat will certainly do so. I will read to honourable members a comment by Mr Geoffrey Barker of the Age in describing the current honourable member for Bruce on 28 May 1983: He is big, relaxed, confident and exudes the bright, slightly wet, cream puff bonhomie of so many young Liberals. I also add that he engages in scurrilous allegations, something that is not only consistent with the behaviour of many young Liberals but also some of their older peers. When he made those rather scurrilous allegations he did not have the decency to check at any stage with Mr Mathews before he used the privilege of the Parliament. I hope honourable members will reflect for a moment on how difficult it has been over many hundreds of years to build up the great privileges of this House and how essentially shaky the premise of those privileges will be if they are continued to be abused in this scurrilous manner. In the course of his allegations, comrade Aldred- Mr Chynoweth —You could not call him that. Mr GRIFFITHS —No, I withdraw that. The honourable member for Bruce, for the benefit of members of the House who are not aware, made application to join the Australian Labor Party in 1972 and was knocked back. In the view of the branch he showed all the traits of an opportunist. Certainly within two years, having been endorsed as the Liberal party candidate for Henty, one would have to describe that political flexibility as opportunism. Mr Hodgman —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. In respect of the earlier ruling, I submit that it is contrary to the practice of the House to permit a cowardly attack on a member when he is not present. Mr SPEAKER —There is nothing required in the practice or the Standing Orders. Custom is a different thing. I call the honourable member for Maribyrnong. Mr GRIFFITHS —Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(10.59) —I do not wish to get involved in that sort of thing tonight, and I would like everybody to join with me. Last week a gentleman rang me from a radio station. He said: 'Bruce, have a listen to this record'. I was appalled. I said: 'Is that record freely available in the streets of Hobart? ' He said: 'Yes, Bruce. It is on the opposite side of the hit record Australiana '. It is a record by Austen Tayshus. On the other side of that record were four four-letter words in about three seconds. All honourable members who have children would agree that the sad point is that children aged 9, 10 and 11 are buying that hit tune. On the other side of the record they are being fed this filth. I was not even allowed to use that word during national service. We do not use that word. Yet it seems to be part and parcel of the modern rock era. A music centre had the audacity to send me a letter saying that it was sub judice for me to say on television in a nice way: 'Look, if it is not good enough to play over the radio, it is not good enough to be sold to our children' . In Melbourne the matter is before the courts. The music centre says that the matter is sub judice. I do not know what that means. It is before the courts. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 10.30 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act to make various amendments to the statute law of the Commonwealth, and for related purposes. Mr Hurford to present a Bill for an Act to grant financial assistance to the States in connection with expenditure of a capital nature, to make loans to the States and the Northern Territory for public housing and to authorise the borrowing of certain moneys by the Commonwealth. Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973, and for related purposes. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 20 September 1983: Australian Federal Police Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 158 Dried Fruits Export Charges Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 159 Judiciary Act-Rule of Court, dated 5 September 1983 Lands Acquisition Act-Statements (2) of lands acquired by agreement authorised under sub-section 7 (1) Public Service Act-Appointment-Department of Administrative Services-S. G. Murphy Re-establishment and Employment Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 161 Salaries and Wages Pause Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 160 War Graves Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 162 The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 89 Mr McVeigh asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: (1) Has the Government established its promised land ownership register to monitor the degree of foreign ownership of farmland; if not, (a) when will it be established and operational, (b) how many personnel will be appointed to operate the register and (c) precisely how will the register function. (2) How will the register establish the existing degree of foreign ownership of farmland. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) As I indicated in the House on 5 May, the Government is conducting a review of foreign investment policy. The possible establishment of a register of foreign ownership of rural land is being examined as part of that review. Question No. 131 Mr Jacobi asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 12 May 1983: (1) Can the Attorney-General say what progress has been made towards the implementation of decisions taken at the Premiers Conference in June 1982 regarding the abolition of the residual constitutional links with the United Kingdom. (2) Do those decisions entail (a) a formal Act on the part of the United Kingdom Parliament and Government, renouncing sovereignty over Australian affairs, (b) termination of the application of section 4 of the Statute of Westminster 1931 under which United Kingdom legislation can still operate in Australia if the legislation merely declares that the Commonwealth Parliament and Government request and consent to the operation of the legislation in Australia, and (c) putting beyond doubt the legal power to amend the covering clauses of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 under the amendment procedure contained in section 128 of the Constitution. (3) Has the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General completed the instructions to prepare the draft legislation necessary to implement the decisions taken at the 1982 Premiers Conference on this matter. (4) Are there any outstanding areas of disagreement which are delaying the implementation of those decisions. (5) Can the Attorney-General say why the then Prime Minister and Premiers found it necessary to retain, for the time being, the present system under which State recommendations on the appointment of State Governors are sent to the Queen through British Ministers. (6) Does the Commonwealth Government remain opposed to the proposals put forward by the Premiers, namely, that the State Governments should be able to tender advice directly to the Queen on the appointment of State Governors and the granting of British honours. (7) Can the Attorney-General say if the Queen is opposed to the proposals referred to in part 6. (8) When does the Commonwealth Government (a) anticipate being able to reach final agreement with the Queen, the Government of the United Kingdom and the State Governments, on the way in which the residual constitutional links with the United Kingdom should be abolished and (b) envisage that the residual constitutional links with the United Kingdom will finally be abolished. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Considerable progress has been made towards settling draft legislation and discussions are continuing with a view to resolving the few outstanding issues as quickly as possible. (2) (a) Yes, (b) Yes, (c) The legislation will not amend or clarify section 128 itself, but it will provide for certain procedures that will clearly enable the covering clauses to be amended. (3) No. (4) (5) and (6) The Commonwealth and State Governments have not yet reached agreement on the procedures to be substituted for the present procedures concerning the tendering of advice to the Queen on the appointments of State Governors and the granting of honours pursuant to State recommendations. (7) It would not be appropriate for me to state whether the Queen does or does not oppose the proposals referred to. (8) (a) Not before 1984, (b) In 1984. Question No. 156 Dr Charlesworth asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 17 May 1983: Can he indicate (a) how many Aboriginal people reside in the electoral division of Perth, (b) what facilities are provided by his Department for these people and (c) what proportion of these people are receiving (i) unemployment benefits, (ii) sickness benefits and (iii) supporting parents benefits. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) 643-(Source: 1981 Census) (b) Grants-in-aid provided by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to Aboriginal groups operating in or with their headquarters located in the electoral division of Perth in 1982-83 and allocation of funds decided so far for 1983-84, are- 1983-84 1982-83 (proposed) Aboriginal Advancement Council 145,262 106,700 Anglican Health and Welfare ( Nungar and Willong Shelter) 170,401 158,500 Aboriginal Legal Service 1,290,760 1,484,000 Aboriginal Medical Service 313,819 338,500 Kadee Aboriginal Co- operative 7,700 9,000 Middar Theatre Group 39,500 8,200 Kulila Association 120,560 125,800 WA College of Advanced Education (Mt Lawley Campus-Aboriginal teacher training program) 146,508 155,661 WA School of Nursing (special 1st Year program of Aboriginal nursing students) 3,700 20,300 Note- 1. Allocation of further funds to the area for 1983-84 is under consideration. 2. The Department also provides funds for wider ranging Aboriginal organisations such as the Aboriginal Legal Service, the Aboriginal Medical Service which are active on a State wide basis. 3. Funds are provided to the State Government for provision of services to Aboriginals in the areas of housing, health, welfare, etc. These funds cannot be identified by electorate boundaries. 4. The Perth electorate is serviced by the Central Area Office of the Department in Perth. 5. The above table includes funding to education institutions providing special courses for Aboriginals in the Perth electorate but for which the student intake could be State-wide. (c) As the Department of Social Security does not identify Aboriginals separately in its figures, and the Perth Office of the Commonwealth Employment Service is not confined to the Perth electorate, I am unable to provide the honourable member with the information requested. Question No. 188 Mr Blanchard asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 19 May 1983: Can he indicate (a) how many Aboriginal people reside in the electoral division of Moore, (b) what facilities are provided by his Department for these people and (c) what proportion of these people are receiving (i) unemployment, (ii) sickness, (iii) supporting parents and (iv) any other type of benefits from the Department of Social Security. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) 1,174-(source: 1981 Census) (b) Grants-in-aid provided by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to Aboriginal groups in the electoral division of Moore in 1982-83 and allocation of funds decided so far for 1983-84, are- 1982-83 1983-84 $ $ Nyoongah Aboriginal Community-for Lake Gnangara Cultural complex 131,525 107,300 Urban Fringe Dweller Association 2,323 . . Swan Shire Council 6,705 7, 878 Notes- 1. Allocation of further funds to the area for 1983-84 is under consideration particularly in relation to town campers and for employment and training. 2. The Department also provides funds for wider ranging Aboriginal organisations such as the Aboriginal Legal Service and Aboriginal Medical Service which are active on a State wide basis. 3. Funds are provided to the State Government for provision of services to Aboriginals in the areas of housing, education, health, welfare, etc. These funds cannot be identified by electorate boundaries. 4. The Moore electorate is serviced by the Central Area Office of the Department in Perth. (c) The Department of Social Security does not identify Aboriginals separately in its figures. Commonwealth Employment Service officers in the Moore electorate had a total of 116 Aboriginals registered as unemployed at the end of August. It is considered, however, that this would be a very conservative reflection of the actual number of unemployed Aboriginals due to registration procedures and other factors. Question No. 339 Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 23 August 1983. Is the Minister able to provide an analysis of claims for compensation resulting from repetitive strain injury in the Minister's Department for each of the years 1978 to 1983. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: There were no claims for compensation resulting from repetitive strain injury lodged in my Department during the years 1978 to 1981 inclusive. The following analysis is provided for 1982 and 1983 to date: (a) Number of claims: 1982, 1; 1983, 2. (b) Number of claims settled: 1982, 1; 1983, 1. Number of claims outstanding: 1982, nil; 1983, 1. (c) Sex of claimant: All female. (d) Type of work performed resulting in repetitive strain injury: 1982, one on typing duties; 1983, one on typing duties and one on clerical duties. Question No. 362 Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: (1) How many warships of the Soviet Union were sighted in the Indian Ocean (a) in 1981, (b) in 1982 and (c) to 30 June 1983. (2) Is he able to say what is the estimated number of days spent in the Indian Ocean by each Soviet warship. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) 1981, 25; (b) 1982, 18; (c) to 30 June 1983, 6. (2) Ship/day figures for each particular ship are shown in the following tables : (a) 1981- Total Numbers ship days SHIP (see note) Sverdlov Cl 016 1 224 Kashin DDG 562 1 93 Kotlin DDG 785 1 161 Krivak I FFG 646 1 4 Krivak II FFG 678 1 224 Krivak II FFG 789 1 93 Petya II FFL 664 1 6 Riga FF 827 1 129 Kotlin DD 718 1 190 Kresta I CG 032 1 148 Kara CG 730 1 99 Riga FF 819 1 103 Krivak II FFG 712 1 99 Krivak I FFG 699 1 72 14 1,645 SUBMARINE-CLASS Charlie I SSGN 1 140 Mod Echo II SSGN 1 193 Victor SSN 3 374 Foxtrot SS 6 546 11 1,253 Total 25 2,898 (b) 1982- Total Numbers ship days SHIP (see note) Kara CG 730 1 90 Krivak I FFG 699 1 138 Krivak II FFG 712 1 90 Kresta II CG 549 1 245 Krivak II FFG 690 1 236 Krivak II FFG 675 1 19 Krivak I FFG 623 1 12 Kara CG 556 1 40 Kiev CVHG 011 1 40 9 910 SUBMARINE-CLASS Charlie I SSGN 2 149 Mod Echo II SSGN 1 132 Victor SSN 3 302 Foxtrot SS 3 234 9 817 Total 18 1,727 (c) 1983 (up to 30 June 1983)- Total Numbers ship days SHIP (see note) Kara CG 556 1 76 Kiev CVHG 011 1 17 Kashin DDG 544 1 115 Krivak II FFG 695 1 109 4 317 SUBMARINE-CLASS Charlie I SSGN 1 38 Mod Echo II SSGN 1 83 2 121 Total 6 438 Note-Only major combatants have been listed, therefore the data does not include minor war vessels (i.e.) minesweepers and patrol craft, amphibious units , or naval/naval-associated auxiliaries (i.e.) tankers and stores ships. Question No. 405 Mr Porter asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 25 August 1983: Did he announce on 24 March 1983 that he had authorised payment of emergency assistance of up to $20 000 to the Muladja Aboriginal community, and subsequently advise the Senate Estimates Committee that his Department had received no other request during 1982-83 for similar assistance; if so, (a) how are applications for such assistance assessed, (b) what level of assistance is available, (c) who will be eligible and (d) is assistance in the form of a grant or loan. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes. (a) On their merits. (b) To the extent of savings firstly available in the respective region and secondly nationally. (c) Communities affected by a natural disaster providing that with due regard to expedience the assistance has the support of the local NAC representative and providing alternative assistance has been sought through appropriate State and Federal Natural Disaster Relief Funds. (d) In the form of a grant. Question No. 444 Mr Wells asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 6 September 1983: What Commonwealth funds, listed by purpose, in the form of (a) grants, (b) subsidies, (c) special purpose grants, (d) dollar for dollar contributions or (e ) other contributions have been partly or totally (i) received or (ii) returned or refused by the Queensland Government, from December 1972 to August 1983. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Payments to the Queensland Government for the period 1 July 1972 to 31 August 1983 were all in the form of grants and amounted to $83 683 647. Repayments can only be determined for the period 1 July 1976 to 31 August 1983 due to the normal destruction of accounting records. Total repayments for this period amounted to $1 719 386. Question No. 206 Mr Reeves asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 24 May 1983: What are the total amounts of all expenditures and/or capital works programs undertaken by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in or related to the Northern Territory for each year from 1978-79 to 1982-83 which were not covered by general or specific grants to the Northern Territory. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: My Department does not maintain a branch office in the Northern Territory and any expenditure if incurred in or related to the Northern Territory over the period concerned would fall within one of the following categories: (a) salaries and associated costs (including limited travel) of officers engaged in dealing from time to time with matters affecting the Northern Territory; (b) expenditures (primarily salaries, travel and associated costs) by the Office of Ceremonial and Hospitality on Official or Royal Visits which might include the Northern Territory; and (c) expenditures on visits to the Northern Territory by the Governor-General. Expenditure in the above categories is not recorded on a State/Territory basis and I am not prepared to authorise the considerable research which would be necessary to produce such figures. Details of expenditures relating to the Northern Territory were also sought from the Public Service Board, Auditor-General's Office, Commonwealth Ombudsman, Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTEC) and Office of National Assessments (ONA). They advised as follows: $ Public Service Board 1978-79 270,308 1979-80 295,633 1980-81 417,784 1981-82 406,707 1982-83 411,670 Auditor-General's Office 1978-79 318,916 1979-80 455,061 1980-81 575,977 1981-82 637,522 1982-83 67,244 Commonwealth Ombudsman 1978-79 Nil 1979-80 20,665 1980-81 21,618 1981-82 26,937 1982-83 30,880 ASTEC 1978-79 to 1982-83 Position is similar to that of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, as indicated above. ONA 1978-79 to 1982-83 Nil Question No. 355 Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment upon notice, on 23 August 1983: Is the Minister able to provide an analysis of claims for compensation resulting from repetitive strain injury in the Minister's Department for each of the years 1978 to 1983. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: A total of 27 claims for compensation as a result of repetitive strain injury has been made on my Department and the statutory authorities within my portfolio since 1978. An analysis of the claims is shown below: 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 Total Number claims . . . . 1 2 5 19 27 Number settled 1 2 5 10 18 Number outstanding . . . . . . 9 9 Sex- Male . . . . 1 3 4 Female 1 2 4 16 23 Type of work- Keyboard 1 2 3 15 21 Film checking . . . . . . 3 3 Repetitive drawing . . . . 2 . . 2 File checking . . . . . . 1 1 An analysis of claims made on each body is shown below: 1.-DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS AND ENVIRONMENT (Includes Secretariat to the Museum of Australia) 1983 Number claims 1 Number settled 1 Number outstanding . . Sex- Male . . Female 1 Type of work-keyboard 1 2.-AUSTRALIAN FILM COMMISSION 1982 1983 Number claims 1 1 Number settled 1 . . Number outstanding . . 1 Sex- Male . . . . Female 1 1 Type of work- Keyboard . . 1 Repetitive drawing (e.g. animation) 1 . . 3.-AUSTRALIAN FILM AND TELEVISION SCHOOL 1982 Number claims 1 Number settled . . Number outstanding 1 Sex- Male 1 Female . . Type of work-repetitive drawing 1 4.-AUSTRALIAN ARCHIVES 1983 Number claims 1 Number settled 1 Number outstanding . . Sex- Male . . Female 1 Type of work-keyboard 1 5.-AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL GALLERY 1983 Number claims 1 Number settled . . Number outstanding 1 Sex- Male . . Female 1 Type of work-keyboard 1 6.-NATIONAL LIBRARY 1980 1981 1982 1983 Number claims 1 2 3 15 Number settled 1 2 3 8 Number outstanding . . . . . . 7 Sex- Male . . . . . . 3 Female 1 2 3 12 Type of work- Keyboard 1 2 3 11 Film checking . . . . . . 3 Card file checking . . . . . . 1 7. No claims for compensation from repetitive strain injury have been made on the Australian Heritage Commission, Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, Australian War Memorial, Australia Council, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Office of the Supervising Scientist, or the Australian Bicentennial Authority. Question No. 445 Mr Wells asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 6 September 1983: What Commonwealth funds, listed by purpose, in the form of (a) grants, (b) subsidies, (c) special purpose grants, (d) dollar for dollar contributions or (e ) other contributions have been partly or totally (i) received or (ii) returned or refused by the Queensland Government, from December 1972 to August 1983. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: No grants, subsidies, special purpose grants, dollar for dollar contributions or other contributions have been provided to the Queensland Government by my Department during the period covered by the question.