Wednesday, 21 September 1983 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10.30 a.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 utilizing chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Andrew,Mr Ian Cameron,Mr Carlton,Mr Chynoweth,Mr Cross,Dr Everingham,Mr Steele Hall,Mr Porter,Mr Ian Robinson and Mr Young. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the 1983 Budget imposition of the excise on grape spirit used in fortifying wine places at risk the future of the fortified wine industry in Australia. That the requirement to pay the excise within 7 days of the fortification occurring is inequitable. That the excise will be reflected in increased costs to the consumers of fortified wines of up to 100% and consumer choice will be restricted. That this will cause reduced fortified wine sales which will result in reduced intake of grapes from grapegrowers. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will reconsider their previous decision and either withdraw this tax or modify its method of application and collection. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Andrew. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That 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 certain citizens of Australia shows: 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fry. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we completely support the statement made by the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Bill Hayden, in his call for support for the right of all Central American countries to live in peace and security, free from outside interference. That we support the statement by Mr Hayden that military action will not solve the problem of Central America and is not conducive to reform and reconciliation . We applaud the Minister's statement that the Nicaraguan revolution stands for principles which have received wide international support. That we support the call by the Governments of Mexico, Columbia, Venezuela and Panama for the withdrawal of all foreign military advisers and bases from Central America, a freeze on arms buildups and the creation of demilitarised zones. That we regard the 6 point peace proposal made by the Nicaraguan Government as a positive initiative that should receive the active support of all democratic peoples. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Australian Government actively urge upon the Government of the United States of America a readiness to genuinely work towards the achievement of a peaceful settlement of Central American issues along the lines proposed by the Governments of Nicaragua, Mexico, Columbia, Venezuela and Panama. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Les Johnson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas the Government of Australia has signed the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states that ''The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the State''. And Whereas the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women would violate the above Article 23 (1). We humbly pray the Government to refrain from ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; Believing that its implementation would result in: (1) Undue cost to the Nation at this time. (2) The elimination of any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women at all levels as described in Part 3 Article 10 (c), being a disruption of traditional parental roles, is likely to result in emotional disturbances of childhood. (3) The strong encouragements to mothers to join the workforce, with the provision of networks of creches and child care centres as outlined in Article 11 of the convention is likely to result in maternal deprivation and psychological disturbances among children with an increase in childhood psychiatric illnesses. (4) The sexual role changing as recommended in Part 3 Article 10 (c) is likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our Nation and your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Mildren. 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 Andrew and Mr Young. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We the Citizens of the City of Woodville and supported by the citizens of South Australia, being deeply concerned over the threat of closure of the Woodville Plant of General Motors-Holdens, respectfully show- 1. That the management of General Motors-Holdens has failed over a period of more than two (2) years to give any assurances that the Woodville Plant would continue in operation. 2. That a recent statement attributed to the GMH Managing Director, quote: ''The overall objective of our South Australian rationalisation plan has been to eliminate all productive activities on the Woodville site'' end of quote. This statement has not been refuted. 3. That the elimination of the Woodville Plant will cause enormous social dislocation, hardship and misery to the citizens of Woodville and South Australia. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Parliament of Australia will condemn this callous disregard for the citizens of Woodville and South Australia, and do all in its power to force General Motors-Holdens to retain its operations at the Woodville Plant. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Scott. Petitions received. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with alarm- (a) the determination of a small group of people to change the Australian flag, and (b) the hypocrisy of the Australian Labor Party in joining in this call while adopting the present Australian flag as part of its motif, and (2) applauds the formation of an Australian National Flag Association of Queensland on 21 September 1983 to foster pride in and to continue the use of our existing national flag by- (a) communicating positively to all Australians the importance and significance of a chief national symbol, the Australian national flag; (b) providing promotional and educational material concerning the Australian flag; (c) promoting the Australian identity overseas by the use of the Australian national flag; (d) supporting existing 'fly the flag' programs and encouraging support from recognised organisations, and (e) encouraging personal identity with the Australian national flag at all levels within the community. Mr FISHER(Mallee) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House- (1) notes the severe plight of grape growers in Australia in both the wine and dried fruits industries; (2) notes the savage effect which the introduction of an excise tax will have on these growers and on wine makers; (3) condemns the Government for this ill-conceived and ill-considered tax, and (4) calls on the Government to remove the tax immediately. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice, that on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for Braddon will second and support: That this House notes with shame that- (1) notwithstanding the notices of motion of the member for Denison given on 8, 14 and 20 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-- Mr Keogh-You put on this act yesterday. Mr HODGMAN —I will do it every day until you pay. The motion continues: (2) the Government at the date hereof has still not paid one cent in compensation to the State of Tasmania. Mr GEAR(Tangney) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House deplores the management of Pinnochios Nightclub in Perth, Western Australia, for refusing admission to Brownlow Medal runner-up Maurice Rioli solely on the grounds that he is an Aboriginal. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with concern that so many radical feminists are being appointed to influential positions by the Government; (2) calls on the Prime Minister to vet carefully such women to make certain they are not out to destroy family life in Australia; and (3) congratulates the stand taken by Women who want to be Women and other responsible organisations. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) will second in support, that this House: (1) notes that the Australian Labor Party Government in 1930 introduced a sales tax on wine and removed it less than a year later; (2) expresses its concern that the present Government, without prior consultation with grapegrowers or the wine industry, has introduced another tax on wine; (3) notes that the Government cannot achieve consensus with the wine industry about taxation on wine; and (4) calls on the Government to revoke its decision to impose a tax on the wine industry. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House condemns the Government of New South Wales for- (1) presenting programs which have been devised and paid for by the Commonwealth Government as being initiatives of the New South Wales Government; (2) exposing such a confused array of revenue raisings that responsible accounting for funds has become a joke; and (3) double counting funds from the Commonwealth in health, education, employment, housing and roads. Mr Dobie-Who seconded it? Mr CADMAN —It will be seconded by the honourable member for Cook. Mr FISHER(Mallee) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House- (1) notes that the 38 Bush Nursing Hospitals in Victoria are community owned and operated, provide a unique and efficient health delivery service and provide a comprehensive, personalised service for their 828 bed capacity; and (2) calls on the Government to remove discrimination against patients attending these hospitals by ensuring maintenance of existing services and application of Medicare provision to patients in these hospitals. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That- (1) this House is surprised that Mr Bond's syndicate had not lodged a protest following the defeat of Australia II in the America's Cup challenge race of 21 September 1983, and (2) a Royal Commission be appointed immediately to investigate the failure of the Bond syndicate to lodge a protest in the America's Cup challenge race of 21 September 1983. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(10.39) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill continues the practice developed during the last Parliament of introducing an omnibus Bill into each sittings of the Parliament to make a large number of non-contentious amendments. In introducing the omnibus Bill in the last sittings the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) informed the Senate of the criteria that he had approved for determining whether a proposed amendment might be included in such a Bill. The consequence of adopting those criteria is a rather shorter Bill on this occasion with a less complicated set of provisions to consider. Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 The purpose of this amendment is to make it clear that part time members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal do not have the entitlement to a pension under the Judges Pensions Act 1968 which section 18 confers on presidential members of the AAT. Airports (Surface Traffic) Act 1960 The existing penalty for illegal parking at Commonwealth airports was set in 1976. That penalty is inadequate having regard to present day money levels and does not serve as a deterrent. Moreover, the present level of penalty no longer allows for economic recovery of the costs of pursuing unpaid parking infringement notices. Australia-Japan Foundation Act 1976 The purpose of the amendments is to provide standard provisions relating to disclosure of possible conflicts of interest by statutory office-holders. The amendments accord with the recommendations of the Bowen Committee of Inquiry concerning Public Duty and Private Interest. A similar amendment has been proposed to the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Act 1982. Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 The first substantive amendment makes it clear that the Chairman of the Board of the Corporation ceases to hold office as Chairman if he ceases to hold office as a director. The other substantive amendment requires the Principal Community Affairs Officer to inform a complainant of his decision made on the investigation of a complaint. Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act 1933 The proposed amendment is intended to remove restrictions, now contained in sub -section 35 (1) of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act, on the functions that may be conferred on the Registrar of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court and on the means by which such functions may be conferred. In particular, it will permit ordinances to confer functions on the Registrar which are not in respect of proceedings pending in the Supreme Court. There are many instances where it is highly desirable for functions related to the Court's responsibilities, but not necessarily to pending proceedings, to be conferred on the Registrar. Australian Federal Police Act 1979 The proposed amendments to this Act are necessary to ensure consistency with the amendments made to section 36 of the Act by the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 1) 1983 to ensure that in the selection of members of the Australian Federal Police for promotion to a vacancy within a rank, and in cases where particular expertise or qualification is required, consideration may be given to an applicant's possession of those requirements. Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 The purpose of these amendments is to remove unnecessary conditions imposed on the application for a community television aerial system licence, to improve certain administrative procedures of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, and to remove unintended restrictions on test permits. Section 83 requires a licensee of a community television aerial system to provide a detailed program undertaking at the grant or renewal of a licence. That requirement is unnecessary as CTAS licences only permit the retransmission of programs originated by other stations. The proposed amendment will remove that requirement and make the provisions of CTAS licences consistent with the analogous translator licences. Under sections 90J and 92F the Chairman of the Tribunal is required to undertake personally certain functions. The proposed amendments of sections 90J and 92F will permit the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to delegate to other members of the Tribunal his authority to accept an application for a share transaction. The amendment will also provide the Tribunal with the discretion to extend the deadline for lodgment with the Tribunal of an application for a change in ownership in the shareholdings of a licensee. The provision of a discretionary extension of the deadline is necessary as the existing time limit of 28 days has proved too short for persons acquiring shareholdings indirectly and places such persons in breach of the Act. Section 126 (6) of the Act prohibits the holder of a permit for test transmissions from broadcasting or televising advertisements. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to allow the transmission of advertisements by permit holders in certain instances, including where a permit has been granted in relation to a proposed broadcasting translator station licence or a proposed television translator station licence. Commonwealth Legal Aid Act 1977 The Commonwealth Legal Aid Council ascertains and reviews the need for legal assistance in respect of Commonwealth matters and advises and makes recommendations to the Attorney-General on the most effective and economical means of satisfying that need. Community legal centres are involved in the provision of legal aid services, advice, referral and research. The centres are staffed by both volunteer and salaried staff and are managed by members of the community in which they operate. In 1983, 32 centres throughout Australia are receiving grants from the Government. The proposed amendment will make provision for the appointment of an additional member of the Commonwealth Legal Aid Council who is representative of community legal centres. Copyright Act 1968 The Bill includes provisions which amend the Copyright Act 1968 to rectify technical drafting defects which have come to light since the Copyright Act was amended in 1980. The most significant amendment is to section 133, which contains penalty provisions for the offences of piracy of copyright material. The effect of the amendment is to make it clear that the penalty provisions apply to piracy of sound recordings, broadcasts and published editions. The application of these was rendered uncertain when special penalties were included in the 1980 amendments to deal with piracy of cinematograph films. Crimes Act 1914 Section 21AA of the Crimes Act 1914 deals with the power of courts when sentencing a Federal offender to take into account, in certain circumstances, other offences in respect of which an offender has admitted his guilt but not been sentenced. The section is being amended to bring it into line with recently amended provisions of the Judiciary Act 1903. A court will then be able to take into account indictable offences committed outside the jurisdiction if the court would have had power to sentence the offender in respect of that offence pursuant to section 68 of the Judiciary Act 1903. Economic Planning Advisory Council Act 1983 The Economic Planning Advisory Council, known as EPAC, was set up by the Government to continue the process of consultation and co-operation begun at the National Economic Summit in April this year. EPAC's central purpose is to provide independent, community based advice to the Government on the broad conduct of economic policy, particularly in a medium and longer term context. EPAC has at present a membership of 17, drawn from the Commonwealth and State governments, industry, the union movement, local government and community groups . There is, however, no specific provision for the appointment of a member drawn from the small business sector. In view of the importance of that sector in the Australian economy, the Government believes that there would be great value in having on EPAC a member with special knowledge of the problems faced by small businesses. The proposed amendment would allow such an appointment to be made. Environment Protection (Northern Territory Supreme Court) Act 1978 This is a consequential amendment on the abolition by the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly in 1980 of the Territory Parks and Wildlife Commission and its replacement with the Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory. Evidence Act 1905 Section 4 of the Evidence Act provides that all courts shall take judicial notice of the official signature and seal of any person who holds, or has held, any office to which the Governor-General, by order published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette, declares the section to apply where the signature or seal purports to be attached or appended to an official document. The section also provides for judicial notice to be taken of the fact that such a person holds, or has held, the office concerned. It has been the practice to publish the Governor-General's orders from time to time as the need arises. It has also been the practice when making revised consolidated orders to revoke the previous consolidated order, except in relation to signatures or seals purporting to have been attached or appended before the date of the new order. There are doubts that the section does in fact authorise this procedure because it does not specifically provide for the making of orders for offices which have ceased to exist. It is also doubtful that an order made in relation to an office that ceases to exist after the making of the order, continues to operate. The amendments are designed to overcome these doubts. Section 6 of the Act provides for the admissibility in evidence in all courts of a copy or extract of a Commonwealth public book or document if it purports to be signed and certified as a true copy or extract by the officer in whose costody the original is entrusted. However, if that officer is served with a subpoena calling on him to produce the original, he must produce the original. The amendment will permit the officer to produce a certified copy or extract, in answer to a subpoena calling for production of the original, but enabling the court to require production of the original to be produced if it thinks fit. The amendment is designed to overcome administrative problems that have been caused when a court has custody of original records admitted in evidence. It will bring the Commonwealth Evidence Act into line with evidence laws of most of the States . The purpose of the proposed amendment to sub-section 7A (1) is to apply Part IIIA of the Act, which facilitates the admissibility of business records in proceedings in Federal courts, to proceedings in courts of the Australian Capital Territory. Part IIIA was inserted in the Act in 1978 and is based on recommendations of the New South Wales Law Reform Commission. Provisions dealing with this subject matter are to be found in most States in relation to proceedings in State courts. It is highly desirable that parties to proceedings in Australian Capital Territory courts have the benefit of the provisions of Part IIIA of the Act. Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 The purpose of the amendment is to overcome inequities which now arise from the operation of the Act. The Act has a statutory limit on the amount payable for costs in respect of any one appeal. Where, as is usually the case, the costs of both parties in an appeal are covered by one certificate, the total costs normally exceed that limit. Usually, in such cases, the costs are apportioned on a pro-rata basis. Each party receives a part payment of his costs and bears the balance of his costs of the appeal. This situation is aggravated where a new trial is ordered as a result of a successful appeal. For the purpose of the statutory limit a new trial is presently treated as part of the appeal. The one amount must therefore cover two proceedings. The proposed amendment provides that the prescribed maximum amount payable under the Act applies separately to each costs certificate granted in respect of an appeal, or of a new trial, rather than to the sum of all the costs certificates granted in respect of the appeal, including a new trial. Growth Centres (Financial Assistance) Act 1973 Land Commission (Financial Assistance) Act 1973 The insertion of a new sub-section 10 (5A) in these Acts will allow the Commonwealth and a State to vary, by agreement, the terms and conditions in relation to the repayment of loans made by the Commonwealth under the Acts. At present the only variation of a loan agreement allowable is in relation to the period of repayment of the loan-that is, sub-section 10 (4). Judiciary Act 1903 There are a number of amendments to this Act. The first amendment inserts a new section 39B into the Act. Paragraph 75 (v) of the Constitution confers original jurisdiction on the High Court of Australia in matters in which a writ of mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth. The High Court has a heavy work load and one way of reducing that work load would be to confer jurisdiction in paragraph 75 (v) matters on the Federal Court of Australia. The High Court cannot be divested of its jurisdiction in this area. Section 44 of this Act empowers the High Court to remit matters pending before it to any Federal court, or court of a State or Territory where that Court has jurisdiction in respect of the subject matter and the parties. The proposed amendment will not only confer jurisdiction so that proceedings under paragraph 75 (v) may be commenced in the Federal Court but will also allow the High Court to remit to the Federal Court matters commenced before it. The proposed amendment will also close in part a gap which has been left by section 9 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. Section 9 has had the effect of depriving State courts of some jurisdiction which those courts formerly possessed to review decisions and actions of officers of the Commonwealth. But the whole of the jurisdiction so taken away was not conferred on the Federal Court under that Act. As a consequence some parties who might formerly have obtained relief in a State court were confined to seeking relief only in the High Court. Following the amendment they will be able to seek relief also in the Federal Court. The Federal Court will not initially have jurisdiction under the proposed new legislation in relation to matters arising before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, the Public Service Arbitrator, the Coal Industry Tribunal or the Family Court of Australia. However, further consideration is being given to extending the capacity of the High Court to remit matters under section 44 in relation to these areas. Under section 40 of the Act, the Commonwealth and States are each able to apply for removal into the High Court, as of course, of a proceeding involving a constitutional issue. Under section 78A of the Act, the Commonwealth and the States are each able to intervene in such a proceeding. The Northern Territory also should have these rights which would be consistent with self-government. The proposed amendments of those sections will achieve that result. The purpose of the amendment to section 44 of the Act is to enable the High Court to remit part of any matter that is at any time pending in the Court to any Federal, State or Territory court that has jurisdiction with respect to the subject-matter and the parties. At present the High Court is empowered only to remit the whole matter. This is an unnecessary restriction on the Court's power, as the High Court should be able to remit any aspect of proceedings which can more appropriately be dealt with by another court, for example, hearing evidence . The amendment has the support of the Chief Justice of the High Court. The proposed amendment of section 78B will achieve improved operation of that section of the Act, which provides for Commonwealth and State Attorneys-General to be given notice of proceedings in which a constitutional issue is involved with a view to their considering intervening in the proceedings or removing them into the High Court. It will also put the Northern Territory on an equal footing with the States as regards receipt of such notices. A new section 88 is to be inserted allowing the making of regulations necessary or convenient to be prescribed under the Act, the content and form of notices under section 78B, the practice and procedure for the giving of notice and specifying any affidavits that are necessary to be attached to section 78B notices. Law Officers Act 1964 The Law Officers Act is being amended to include a provision, section 16A, enabling the Solicitor-General to be paid in lieu of long leave. Commonwealth employees have had entitlement to long service leave since 1943 and the legislation provides for payment in lieu of taking long service leave. The provisions were revised in the Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1976. Section 10 (3) of that Act excludes from the operation of the Act holders of judicial office and the Solicitor-General. Since the 1960's judges have had, by administrative arrangement, entitlement to long leave and to payment in lieu where that leave was not taken. In 1979 payment in lieu of long leave was put on a statutory basis for High Court justices and judges of federal courts. Unfortunately, at that time a similar provision for the Solicitor-General was not addressed, which only became apparent earlier this year when the Solicitor- General informed the Attorney-General of his intention to retire later this year . Under the 1968 amendments of the Law Officers Act 1964 the Solicitor-General has been entitled since that time to payment of pension in respect of his period of service on an equivalent basis to the entitlement for judges of federal courts. In 1980 the Solicitor-General's salary and allowances were increased to the same level as was paid to judges of the Federal Court of Australia. These movements in the Solicitor-General's entitlements demonstrate a clear intention to equate the Solicitor-General with the status of a judge of the Federal Court and the proposed amendment will give effect to that position in relation to payment in lieu of long leave. Sub-section 17 (2) of the Act is being amended to enable the delegation of the Attorney-General's powers and functions to officers of his Department other than the Secretary as at present. It will take a considerable load off the Attorney- General's personal functions and also those of the Secretary in relation to many minor matters of administration which do not require his personal attention, or even the attention of the Secretary-for example, the appointment under section 44A of the Trade Practices Act of a person to act as Deputy Registrar of the Trade Practices Tribunal whilst the Deputy Registrar is absent from duty. Law Reform Commission Act 1973 The proposed amendment of section 12(3) of this Act will clarify that the Chairman may perform duties as a judge of the Federal Court notwithstanding that his office as Chairman is full time Meat Inspection Arrangements Act 1964 The transfer of the New South Wales Meat Inspection Service to the Commonwealth was effected on 1 July 1983 under the Meat Inspection Arrangements Act 1964. Under the arrangement meat inspectors previously employed by New South Wales were transferred to the Australian Public Service. Such transfers are now effected under the Public Service Act 1922, and the proposed amendments under consideration take account of that fact. The proposed amendment extending the application of the Act to the Northern Territory and Norfolk Island takes account of the fact that at some future date the Commonwealth may enter into such an arrangement with either Territory. Pig Industry Research Act 1971 and Pig Meat Promotion Act 1975 The purpose of the amendment to each Act is to include the changed name of the federal pig industry organisation, by substituting Australian Pork Producers Federation for Australian Commercial Pig Producers Federation. Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Act 1966 The purpose of the amendments is to update the anti-dumping provisions in the Act to reflect the corresponding provisions in the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975. In 1981 amendments were made to the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act to change the anti-dumping criteria. Consequently, the anti-dumping provisions in the Nitrogenous Subsidy Act are in conflict with the provisions in the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act. The amendment will remove the inconsistencies between the Acts. Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946 The proposed amendments to sections 13, 23 and 31 of the Act grant the Minister power with respect to certain matters which at present are exercised by the Governor-General. These powers are the appointment of Acting Commissioners, of the Chairman of the Promotions Appeal Board and the Chairman of the Disciplinary Appeal Board. It is felt that the nature of these powers makes them more suitable for exercise by the Minister. Since 1946 section 75 (2) of the Act has imposed a requirement to consult with an advisory body which comprises representatives of all the British Commonwealth governments, known as the Commonwealth Telecommunications Council, prior to certain action being taken by the Overseas Telecommunications Commission; for example, changes in rates of services or discontinuance of services. These provisions were first enacted to enable the introduction of new international telecommunications arrangements between countries of the British Commonwealth. The requirement to consult the Council is being repealed by this Bill. A new arrangement for collaborative financial arrangements has been entered into under which there is neither common use by Commonwealth 'partners' of one anothers external telecommunications facilities, nor sharing of the operating expenses of those facilities. Patents Act 1952 The amendments to this Act remedy difficulties that have arisen under the recently expanded range of activities and services by the Patents Office. These involve the handling of international applications under the Patent Co-operation Treaty and the provision of more ready access to information contained in patents specifications. The Treaty now provides simplified procedures for obtaining patent protection in a number of different countries. Since its implementation in early 1980 a number of problems have arisen in Patent Office procedures, in the determination of priority dates and in the provision of searches and examination reports. These are overcome by amendments of section 58, 58C and 58F. To facilitate access to the valuable technical information contained in patents specifications , the amendments to section 35 require the preparation of an abstract. Royal Commissions Act 1902 The proposed amendments to the Royal Commissions Act permit a royal commission to communicate information or furnish evidence or a document acquired by it to another royal commission where it appears to the first royal commission that the information, evidence or document is relevant to the matters into which the second royal commission is authorised to inquire. Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act (No. 1) 1982 The Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act (No. 1) 1982 distinguishes the powers of presidential members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal who are judges of the Federal Court of Australia from other presidential members. By virtue of section 40 of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act (No. 1) 1982 certain powers required to be exercised by a presidential member can only be exercised by a presidential member who is a Judge of the Federal Court. Included in the requirement was the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under section 66E of the Migration Act 1958. Following upon the recent recommendation of the Administrative Review Council that any presidential member should be able to constitute the Tribunal for the purposes of hearing applications for review under the Migration Act, the proposed amendment will now permit presidential members who are not necessarily judges of the Federal Court to hear applications pursuant to the Migration Act. The President of the Tribunal is in agreement with this approach. Telecommunications Act 1975 The amendments relating to the appointment of an Acting Managing Director or part time Commissioner do not involve any substantive changes but bring these provisions up to date in accordance with current drafting practice. The Bill introduces legislation which will lower the minimum retiring age for employees of Telecom Australia from age 60 to age 55 enabling staff to retire early, although with reduced superannuation entitlements. The legislation extends to staff of Telecom Australia early retirement conditions that are available to staff employed under the Public Service Act and the staff of prescribed authorities under the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act. Telecom Australia will be given the same flexibility with respect to meetings as those enjoyed by the Parliament House Construction Authority under its legislation. This means that in certain cases meetings will be able to be held and decisions made without all the members being physically present together. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Steele Hall) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(11.05) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of this Bill is to authorise payments in 1983-84 arising out of two decisions taken at the recent Loan Council meeting which fall outside the provisions of the Financial Agreement Act 1928. These decisions were, firstly, to continue the arrangements whereby part of the annual borrowing program approved by Loan Council for State government purposes is provided by way of grants; and, secondly, the arrangements introduced in 1982-83 which allow the States and the Northern Territory, once they have met certain conditions, to nominate part of their approved borrowing programs as being for public housing purposes which they can then receive on concessional loan terms and conditions. As a result, this Bill seeks to authorise the payment of, firstly, general purpose capital grants to the States and, secondly, such loans on concessional terms and conditions as the States and the Northern Territory nominate from their approved 1983-84 borrowing programs as being for the purposes of public housing. The Bill also provides scope for the payment of capital grants and concessional housing loans in the first six months of 1984-85. The amounts to be advanced under these provisions are limited to an amount equal to one-half of the grants to be paid in 1983-84 in the case of the grants and an amount equal to one-half of the approved borrowings in 1983-84 in the case of the concessional housing loans. Grants amounting to $489.7m, equal to one-third of the approved Loan Council programs for the States in 1983-84, were agreed to at the June-July 1983 Loan Council meeting. These grants are to be made in accordance with revenue assistance arrangements originally adopted at the June 1970 Premiers Conference. Under these arrangements it was agreed that the Commonwealth Government would provide a portion of the States' Loan Council programs as interest-free non- repayable grants instead of what would otherwise be interest-bearing borrowings by the States. The effect of the grants is to relieve the States of debt charges, that is, interest payments and sinking fund contributions, which they would otherwise have to pay, and the grants accordingly have a substantial beneficial effect on the States' financial positions. The grants were introduced to help States finance works, such as schools and other capital works, from which debt charges are not normally recovered. The States are, however, entirely free to apply these grants as they choose. The Bill also provides for the continuation of arrangements introduced last year whereby the States and the Northern Territory are able to nominate part of their approved borrowing programs for public housing. As a condition to the payment of these funds, the Bill contains a provision that a State or the Northern Territory must be able to meet its matching requirements for the purposes of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. After a State can demonstrate its ability to meet this condition, the funds so nominated will be provided to the States and the Northern Territory at the loan terms and conditions set out in the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, and hence will bear interest at the highly favourable rate of 4 1/2 per cent per annum and will be repayable over 53 years. The object of providing concessional loans for public housing is to provide an incentive to the States to increase the amounts that they would otherwise direct to public housing. This is in addition to the direct funding under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, which is being increased to $500m in 1983- 84, an increase of 50 per cent on the amount provided in 1982-83 by the previous Government. Moreover, the whole of this increase is being provided in the form of grants. Together, these measures should result in a significant increase in public sector housing activity in 1983-84. The assistance being provided under this Bill forms part of the State governments' new money programs for 1983-84 as approved by the Loan Council and the analogous general purpose capital payments to the Northern Territory. In 1983-84, these general purpose capital funds amount to $1,598m, an increase of 7 per cent over the amounts for 1982-83. When these funds are combined with the very strong growth in Commonwealth specific purpose payments, it is estimated that total net Commonwealth capital payments will increase by around 16.1 per cent in 1983-84. In addition, the States will benefit from an increase of 15.4 per cent in their larger semi-government non-electricity borrowing program, while electricity authority borrowings in 1983-84 are expected to be slightly above their very high 1982-83 level. Overall, the Commonwealth is providing a significant increase in funding to the States and the Northern Territory this year to assist them with expenditure on capital projects. This should provide the basis for continued growth in real terms in State and local government authorities' capital expenditures following the strong growth in 1982-83. This Bill forms an important part of the Commonwealth's overall finance assistance to the States and Northern Territory. It is therefore with great pleasure that I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Steele Hall) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr John Brown, for Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(11.10) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of this Bill is to amend the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973 in order to suspend the requirement in certain circumstances for a report by the Industries Assistance Commission before temporary assistance granted to an industry may be extended. Under present arrangements, the Minister may grant temporary assistance to an industry for a period of up to one year after he has received a report from the Temporary Assistance Authority. This assistance can be extended by the Minister for a period of 12 months after he has received a further report from the Temporary Assistance Authority. Temporary assistance cannot, however, be extended by him beyond a period of two years without a report by the Industries Assistance Commission. The practical effect of the amendments proposed by this Bill will be that temporary assistance will be able to be extended to industries receiving temporary assistance during the 12 month period commencing on 1 July 1983 for a total of three years without the need for a report from the Industries Assistance Commission. However, a report from the Temporary Assistance Authority will still be required annually by the Minister and extension of assistance beyond three years will also require a prior report from the Industries Assistance Commission. This Bill is proposed as a consequence of the Government's recognition that industry is facing severe problems in the present difficult economic conditions. The Bill complements other administrative actions taken by the Government to speed up and simplify, as far as possible, the procedures for consideration of industry requests for temporary assistance. The extension of the temporary assistance provision as proposed by the Bill will not involve any additional advisory machinery. Accordingly, the legislation has no direct financial implications. The opportunity has been taken to incorporate in the Bill some administrative amendments including those relating to suspension and removal from office, acting appointments and disclosure of interests. The changes bring the legislation into line with standard practice and with the recommendations of the report of the Committee of Inquiry concerning Public Duty and Private Interest. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Steele Hall) adjourned. (Budget Debate) Debate resumed from 20 September, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(11.13) —Having myself served in the Royal Australian Naval Reserve and having kept in regular contact with the reserves I can assure the House that the tax slug on reserves' pay, together with the major cutback in training days, has absolutely devastated the morale of reservists right around Australia. The cutback in training days in itself is a vote of no confidence in the worth of the reserves by this socialist Hawke Government. Reserve training days in some parts of Australia petered out in April and May and were not resumed till late July. In other words, for more than two months this year training days were abandoned in some parts of Australia. What a way to treat the reserves. What a way to treat the defence of Australia. Is there any truth in the rumour that the Hawke Government is now going to give the Department of Defence its own new flag and that that flag will be all white? Prior to the Federal election we clearly and forcibly warned the people of Australia what would happen to the defence of this nation if the Australian Labor Party came to power. The combination of the Hawke Government's stance on foreign affairs and its attitude to the defence of Australia is a monumental disaster and poses a major threat to our national security and to the protection of our Australian way of life. In the area of immigration and ethnic affairs, which is my shadow ministerial portfolio responsibility, I can only say that the policies of the Hawke socialist Government are bad news for Australia. The once bi-partisan approach to immigration and ethnic affairs is now shattered as, under the initiatives of the Hawke Government, immigration policies have taken a major, and a dangerous turn, to the left. Urged on by the idealogically committed Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West)-the darling of the socialist Left in New South Wales and the only socialist Left Minister in the inner Cabinet-we have seen a major change in direction which will be unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of Australians. I have dealt in detail with this socialist Government's new policy directions in immigration and ethnic affairs in another speech which was delivered recently in a debate in this Parliament on a matter of public importance. Suffice it to say here and now that I am concerned about the Minister's commitment to increase substantially the number of refugees coming into Australia from Central America and South America. If they are genuine-and I repeat 'genuine' refugees-that is fair enough. But if they are something else we will be importing into this country major problems which will tick away as a time bomb threatening our Australian way of life. Under the Hawke Government's policies deportation will now virtually become a thing of the past. People such as Professor Hidaka will have open access to this country and people such as Mr Brett Collins will be told they can stay here till their dying day. Gangsters, drug traffickers and organised crime bosses will sleep well at night knowing that they will not be deported from Australia under the present socialist regime . On the other side of the coin, ministerial discretion becomes a thing of the past as far as people in Australia on visas wishing to-- Mr Holding —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Mr HODGMAN —Why are you interrupting? Mr Holding —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order which I will explain to the honourable gentleman. The honourable gentleman has referred to points he has already made in the House and in another debate. The point of order that I am making is that the issues in that debate were resolved by resolution of the House and by a decision of the House. What the honourable gentleman is now doing in his speech is reflecting on a decision of the House. He is therefore out of order. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —There is no point of order. Mr HODGMAN —The pro-communist Left will not silence me in this place or elsewhere. On the other side of the coin, ministerial discretion becomes a thing of the past as far as people in Australia on visas wishing to transfer to permanent resident status are concerned. Pre-election promises as to the size of the migration intake have been cast aside. Ethnic communities who were wooed before the election have now been spurned and let down. Overall, a major electoral backlash is building up against the Hawke Government's policies on immigration and ethnic affairs. Madam Deputy Speaker, this socialist Government is also totally committed to the destruction of Federalism in Australia. The Prime Minister has on a number of occasions made derogatory remarks about the States and the need for State governments in Australia today. The Australian Labor Party knows only too well that a strong federal system will present a bulwark against the implementation of its socialist policies. Therefore, this socialist Government is determined to strike down our federal system, to destroy the States and to centralise power in Canberra. These blatant political objectives were starkly revealed, when, in the first days of its election to power, the Hawke Government effectively declared war on Australia's smallest State-- Mr Goodluck —Tasmania. Mr HODGMAN —My home State of Tasmania, as that good Tasmanian, the honourable member for Franklin, interjects. The implications of the High Court decision in the Tasmanian dam case are horrific to all those who believe in and support the federal system of government in Australia. Out of that majority decision-a watershed in Australian constitutional law-we now find an extended interpretation of the external affairs power under section 51 (xxix) which effectively gives the Commonwealth, and this socialist Government, a blank cheque to alter drastically forever the traditional balance of power in Australia. It gives to Canberra a large stick with which to beat the States into submission and, ultimately, into extinction. Notwithstanding the pious claims that these powers will not be abused by the present Government, the fact is that they now have within their grasp the power to destroy the federal system forever . I believe that those who are committed to the federation must now fight back. I commend the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and Liberal Party of Australia and National Party of Australia leaders from all around Australia on their firm commitment to defend and protect the federal system. I further believe that upon our return to power legislative action, including the possibility of a referendum, must be implemented to protect and uphold the federal system-thought to be guaranteed in our Constitution-for if it is destroyed the people of Australia will be the losers. Whilst on the subject of the Hawke Government's action leading to the halting of the Gordon-below-Franklin power development scheme in defiance of the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Tasmanians, democratically expressed on at least three occasions-- Mr Holding —Don't you believe in accepting the referee's decision? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will cease interjecting. Mr HODGMAN —Socialist interjector. I draw again to the attention of the House and the people of Australia the shameful fact that to date the Hawke Government has failed to pay 1c in compensation to the State of Tasmania, nor has it provided one single job for the 377 workers who have been displaced in their employment as a result of the actions of the Australian Labor Party. I say 'the Australian Labor Party' advisedly because it was not just the Hawke Government which perpetrated this outrage against Tasmania. The ALP in Tasmania adopted a supine and acquiescent approach to the plans of the Federal ALP to intrude into Tasmanian internal affairs. The ALP was sucked in by the greenies, the trendies and the lefties, whose real commitment is not to the protection of the environment but to the prevention of development and progress wherever it arises . If the State Leader of the Opposition had shown a bit more guts and courage in the early stages of this debate-- Mr Goodluck —Has he got any? Mr HODGMAN —I do not think so-Prime Minister Hawke and his socialist colleagues would never have commenced their action in the High Court of Australia to prevent the building of the Gordon below Franklin power development scheme. In short, if Mr Wriedt and his State ALP colleagues had stood up for Tasmania and for Tasmania's right to determine its future, instead of currying favour with the ALP party bosses in Canberra, Tasmania and the federal system would not have been victims of a litigious onslaught unparalleled in the history of this nation . It is because of the actions of the ALP, both nationally and in Tasmania, that the most recent gallup poll shows federal voting intentions in Tasmania at present to be as follows: ALP, a miserable 39 per cent; the Liberal Party, a magnificent 57 per cent. It will be many years before the ALP wins a federal seat in Tasmania, and it will be, thank heavens, many years before the Labor Party in Tasmania again resumes the treasury bench in our State. So there it is, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Hawke socialist Budget-a disaster for Australians, and a disaster for Australia. This depth-charge, delayed-shock, Budget will, in the fullness of time, do more to put our nation on the brink of bankruptcy than even the Whitlam Government at its worst ever did. The people of Australia are starting to wake up to this Prime Minister, this self-styled president of an Australian republic, this dictatorial little Caesar, this imposter and usurper. As many would know, I am just a quiet country boy lost in a big city. But I am not much impressed by this public breast-beating about being a re- formed alcoholic and a retired boudoir bandicoot. Slick theatrical performances and the ability to con, the capacity to juggle the truth-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! I ask the honourable member to withdraw the former remark that he made about the Prime Minister. Mr HODGMAN —Which one-'reformed alcoholic' or 'retired boudoir bandicoot'? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Will the honourable member withdraw those words, please. Mr HODGMAN —I withdraw whichever you ask me to withdraw, Madam Deputy Speaker. Slick theatrical performances and the ability to con, the capacity to juggle the truth, to tell lies and to misrepresent the facts, do not impress me-- Mr Holding —I raise a point of order. The honourable member is-- Mr HODGMAN —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) is a socialist, and he is trying to silence me. Mr Holding —You are a disgrace to the Parliament and to the people of Tasmania. You are deliberately abusing the Standing Orders, and you know it. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will resume his seat. The honourable member for Denison will withdraw his last remarks. Mr HODGMAN —I withdraw, Madam Deputy Speaker. Slick theatrical performances and the ability to con, and all these matters, do not impress me or the overwhelming majority of Australians. We see before us a charlatan, a usurper of power-- Mr Holding —I raise a point of order. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr Holding —I raise a point of order. Mr Hodgman —The Minister has deliberately prevented me-- Mr Holding —I have stopped you-- Mr Hodgman —You are the voice of the Soviet Union. You ought to go back to the Soviet Embassy. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member's time has expired. Please resume your seat. Mr Holding —I ask the honourable member, Madam Deputy Speaker, to withdraw that statement. Mr Hodgman —You ought to go back to the Soviet Embassy. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable gentleman will please withdraw that remark. Mr Hodgman —I will withdraw. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Thank you. Please resume your seat. Mr Holding —Thank you very much. Mr KENT(Hotham)(11.25) —We have just listened to a Goebbelsian speech delivered by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). It was not unlike speeches delivered in the Reichstag in the 1930s. He has just as much respect for the courts as any Brownshirt. Mr Hodgman —I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek the withdrawal of that remark made by the honourable member, on the same basis as the Minister sought a withdrawal of my remark in relation to him. Mr Holding —I wish to speak to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The statement made in relation to speeches made in the Reichstag carries no sort of inference. All sorts of speeches could be made in the Reichstag. There was a clear breach of the Standing Orders by the honourable member for Denison, which you upheld. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. There is no need for the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) to withdraw. He will please proceed. There was no personal attack made. It was likened to a speech in the-- Mr Hodgman —With respect, Madam Deputy Speaker, I greatly admire your impartiality, but I put it to you that what the Minister has just said is deliberately and blatantly misleading. He has said that all sorts of speeches were made in the Reichstag, but the inference is obvious. If the honourable member is permitted to get away with that, I shall ask him to stop bringing into this Parliament speeches direct from the Soviet Embassy in Canberra. Mr Holding —What absolute rubbish. You are a fool. Mr KENT —It sounded like a Reichstag statement to me, too. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will please resume his seat. Mr Groom —I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. A reference was made by the honourable member for Hotham to Brownshirts. Obviously, that has certain inferences. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Chair did not hear the reference to Brownshirts. Mr Groom —The rest of the chamber heard it, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was made. I suggest that it is most unparliamentary-- Government members interjecting- Mr Groom —If you do not know what is wrong with it, you do not know anything about it. The honourable member knows what is wrong with it, too. It is most offensive and should be withdrawn. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the honourable member made such a reference to Brownshirts, will he please withdraw the remark? Mr KENT —On the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for Denison called me and my party socialists. I have the same right to call his party and him fascists. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the honourable member referred to Brownshirts, will he please withdraw the remark? Mr KENT —I withdraw it, Madam Deputy Speaker, in deference to you. As I was saying, the honourable member has just as much respect for the courts as anyone wearing a shirt of the colour that I am wearing now. The speech was full of propaganda but was light on facts and substance. The word 'socialist' was repeated a hundred times. If by 'socialists' the honourable member for Denison means people such as myself, who are for the underdog and who fight for the rights of ordinary Australian wage and salary earners, I do not mind being called a socialist, not even by a Tasmanian fascist. Mr Steele Hall —I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The honourable gentleman has used an unparliamentary term in referring to my colleague. I ask that he withdraw it. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am sorry; the Chair was speaking to the Clerk. If the honourable member for Hotham has used an unparliamentary term, will he please withdraw? Mr KENT —On the point of order-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am asking the honourable member to withdraw. Mr KENT —In deference to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I withdraw. Unlike the honourable member for Denison, I welcome the 1983-84 Budget as the best possible compromise under the disastrous economic conditions inherited from the conservative Liberal-National Party Government. It took Mr Fraser, Mr Howard and Mr Anthony seven years to ruin our economy, and of course, no one can expect the Labor Government to rectify the situation in the few months that we have been in office. However, the first Labor Budget after seven years of conservative mismanagement lays the foundation and creates the climate for a slow, sustained economic recovery. I especially welcome the provisions of this Budget which are geared to assist our manufacturing industry. In welcoming these provisions, I want to point out that it takes more than a budget, indeed, more than the Budget , to defend Australia's manufacturing industry, which is under attack by the world transnational corporations. Only by defending our industries from the foreign onslaught can we defend our living standards, our skills, our jobs, and our economic and, ultimately, our national independence. There is no doubt that we are witnessing today the biggest economic dislocation since the big depression of the 1930s. Emerging from that depression the world, and Australia with it, plunged into the Second World War, which highlighted clearly the lack of our industrial development. While we busily industrialised in the period after the war, creating full employment and general prosperity, foreign capital was also busy in securing for itself the cream of our industry. Many of them, such as our automobile, chemical, pharmaceutical and oil industries, came under complete or substantial foreign ownership and control. Our national resources today are owned and controlled by foreign transnational companies. Even a substantial part of our advertising industry is American controlled, so transnational giants are able to brainwash the public, the economists and the politicians according to their needs. The best example of their ability to promote ideas that suit the profitability of the transnational companies is demonstrated by their manipulation of opinion to support lowering the trade and tariff barriers which hitherto protected our manufacturing industry. The power of transnationals through their ownership of the advertising industry and their influence on our media is such that they can talk us into committing economic hara-kiri. Our dependence on foreign capital troubled greatly some thinking Australians like a former Deputy Prime Minister, Jack McEwen, who was talking about buying back the farm. It is also highlighted by Bruce Grant who recently wrote: Australia resembles many Third World countries in that it continues to rely on foreign capital, research and, in some instances, skills from abroad, while offering its natural resources and primary commodities in return. Australia's reliance of foreign capital for development has kept alive, as has its dependence on foreign military protectors, the unhealthy tension between the value of what Australians do and what is done overseas. A deliberate effort is required to ration foreign capital inflow and to raise Australian capital, so that the economy is no longer so vulnerable to outside forces and events. I cannot agree more. The outside forces Bruce Grant mentions but does not spell out are the transnational corporations which, through accumulation of capital to an unprecedented scale and their control of the world banking system, have developed the ability to manipulate investment to the extent of being able to dictate economic developments world wide. I quote Professor E. L. Wheelwright who said: They can pull financial resources out of industries and countries, and switch them to the other side of the world. They can decide where and how capital is to be accumulated, and where in the world it is to be used. They can close down industries in certain countries and relocate them in others, as has been done with automobiles, electronics and textiles. Mineral investments can be denied to governments who are looked on with disfavour, and offered to those who carry favour. Industries are articulated on a world basis in the most carefully planned way; but the economics of nations states are disarticulated in the process, making it impossible to plan them for the benefits of the inhabitants. Economic power is challenging political power-and winning in a way never before seen in history. The high concentration of capital into fewer and fewer hands enabled the transnationals to adopt long term planning and increased the mobility of capital . Large corporations operating with capital larger than the Budgets of a country were in a position to transfer investment into cheap labour countries or move production behind trade barriers. Of course, such movement of investment and production disregards completely the economic or the social needs of the host country. By agreement between transnational corporations and the corrupt elite in Third World countries, free trade zones are set up where workers toil long hours for a couple of dollars a day. There are no environmental requirements, unions or labour laws in such zones, but only one interest-the profits of the corporations. The argument that the underdeveloped countries profit from transnational investment is fallacious. Only the transnationals reap the profits and, to some extent, let the ruling elite benefit. The people of such countries will be impoverished more than before and suffer the social dislocation of being uprooted from their land and drawn into shanty towns around the industries where they hope to be employed for a pittance. The transnationals' operations in the Third World countries are the worst form of colonial exploitation and oppression . Whilst there is no benefit to the underdeveloped world from the transfer of production into free trade zones, there is certainly a net loss to developed countries as they are forced to compete on their domestic as well as international markets with cheaply produced goods of transnationals. Even the conservative honourable members opposite will understand that lowering trade barriers in these circumstances will mean committing an economic hara-kiri, as I said before. The debate over protection and free trade must be assessed in the light of full knowledge that only the transnationals will benefit from the latter. The Industries Assistance Commission should be made fully aware that lowering barriers will lead to deindustrialisation of Australia and, as a consequence, instead of the temporary unemployment of some 800,000 workers as at present, we will have 1 1/2 million permanently unemployed in future. If one looks at the past recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission-recommendations that were, in the main, detrimental to our manufacturing industry-one would wonder whether the Commission was picked and appointed in Australia by the Australian Government or set up in New York and Tokyo to serve the foreign transnationals. The name itself is the biggest misnomer, if there ever was one. Unfortunately, the same can be said for some of our officials in the Department of Trade. They differ from the Japanese only in their features. No wonder our industries are going down the drain. The dismantling of Australia's manufacturing industry has already begun and it is proceeding according to the wishes of the transnationals. American and Japanese capital, concentrated in fewer and fewer hands with the assistance of the international banking system, has been used to devise a plan to control an integrated global world economy, not in the interest of the people on this planet, but in the interest of high profits to transnationals and their shareholders. The most vivid example of this plan is the so-called world car. The idea is to make cars to a common design everywhere so that capital intensive parts of production can be organised in technologically advanced countries such as West Germany, the United States of America and Japan, while labour intensive parts would be manufactured in cheap labour countries, thus maximising the profits of transnational manufacturers. We in Australia are already feeling the effect of this plan. Our car industry is under attack and we are losing jobs by the thousands. We are also losing skills and our ability to maintain a viable industry. The loss of skills in the car industry will be greatly missed in our defence industry, especially during an emergency or war. The recent sacking of 633 workers by General Motors-Holden' s Ltd is not an isolated case. It comes as a consequence of the growing number of imports of foreign made cars. While the Government restricted imports under the motor vehicle manufacturing plan, Japanese transnationals found a way to circumvent the plan. They are taking over a growing slice of our domestic market by importing so-called light commercial vehicles which are, in fact, used as substitutes for passengers cars. While the total motor vehicle market has remained static and actually declined this year, sale of light commercial vehicles, including four wheel drive vehicles, has increased by more than 40 per cent. Unless the Government acts quickly to bring LCVs under the motor vehicle manufacturing plan, employment in the industry will decline further as imported vehicles will take an even larger share of our market. For instance, local share of the total market of all vehicles under 2.72 tonnes in 1980 was 65.3 per cent. That share declined to 53.5 per cent in 1983, while the number of imports increased from 34.7 per cent in 1980 to 46.5 per cent in 1983. We have to keep in mind the fact that when we are talking of light commercial vehicles, which are really not sold, nor intended to be used, as light commercial vehicles, 60 per cent of them are registered as private vehicles and are used as passenger cars. I wonder how long the Government and the Department will allow this blatant circumvention of the motor vehicle manufacturing plan. Not only the light commercial vehicles are threatening our motor industry. Foreign imports also completely dominate our heavy commercial motor vehicle market and this foreign dominance is squeezing out of business our heavy commerical motor vehicle component industry. Over the last 12 months employment in this sector has gone down by 70 per cent. If one adds to all this the export facilitation scheme which allows motor car assemblers to reduce drastically the local content of vehicles made in Australia, with the consequence of further job losses, one will understand why protection of our industries is so important. It is interesting to note that the conservatives opposite who argue for free trade today were quite happy to advocate the protection of our industries when it suited capital. Industrial development in the Western world would have been impossible without protection. The same protection that helped capital in the past is in the way of transnational capital today. This fact clearly explains why the conservatives opposite so strongly espouse the idea of the lowering of trade barriers and the abandonment of national control over our trade and resources. I am disgusted to see them running around and preaching a free go for transnationals to plunder Australia's assets, to mine and export our minerals at bargain basement prices, to take over and dismantle our industries. They became the compradors, the agents of foreign interests, under the guise of efficiency, free market economy and rationalisation. They want to narrow down our industrial base, not to suit our national interest but to suit the global plan of foreign transnational companies. I quote Professor Wheelwright again: The reduction of protection in the developed countries enables the transnational corporations to integrate more fully their world-wide production processes and to shift these products about the world without trade restrictions . The inevitable result is the industrialisation of the developed countries, unemployment and increased repression of labour there; and, on the other hand, an expansion of capitalist relations of production in the Third World countries, and their tighter integration into the international division of labour, controlled and directed by the transnationals of the developed countries, involving repression of labour in the Third World also. Mr Hodgman —Did Bill Hartley write this? Mr KENT —I can give the honourable member the manuscript. It is beyond doubt that the lowering of trade barriers and a reduction in the level of protection of our manufacturing industry will not help the underdeveloped world. Its only effect will be to force our industry out of business by competition with cheaply produced imports. In fact, together with Toyotas, Diahatsus and Datsuns, we are also importing unemployment from Japan. I, like other honourable members, receive many letters from industries seeking assistance so that they can employ our people. Unfortunately, we do not act quickly on those letters and do not afford to industry enough assistance because of pressures from members opposite, who are the compradors, the agents, of foreign interests and who advocate free trade. It is a paradox that while this Budget introduces much needed provisions to create jobs, mostly temporary ones from six to 12 months duration, at the same time we are losing real and permanent jobs because of the Government's failure to assist adequately our manufacturing industry. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(11.43) —The magazine the Economist, in its Australian survey a few weeks ago, commented that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) sounded 'like meat and drink for the amateur psychiatrist'. Much the same is true of this Budget. I am not speaking loosely when I say that it is a schizophrenic Budget. In its worst aspects it is simply not attuned to reality. Its ends are not appropriate to Australia's economic situation. Its means are not appropriate to achieving those ends. Of course, none of this should be taken as casting aspersions on the Treasurer (Mr Keating) because, after all, much the same could be said of practically the whole of the Australian Labor Party's economic policy. The difference is that whilst even Labor governments seldom try to implement the crazier bits of their Party's policy, this unrealistic Budget will be a fact of day to day life in Australia when the necessary legislation is passed by the Parliament. It will come as no surprise to me if we have another mini-Budget before the end of summer. It will probably take that long for the deficiencies in this one to register in the collective minds of the Government and for members of the Government to get to work on a new one. It would be better, I suggest, for the country if they started now. For some indication of the schizophrenic nature of the Budget all one has to do is compare Budget Statement No. 2 with the Budget Speech and recent utterances of the Treasurer and the Prime Minister. A clearer sign is the extent to which the whole-absolutely all-of the Commonwealth Government's Budget strategy is dependent on that splendid import from cloud cuckoo land, the infamous prices and incomes accord. I suggest that if honourable members ponder on the accord it appears to be a little like the Cheshire cat. It comes and goes. During the recess we saw and heard little of it, but in the lead-up to the national wage case and the Australian Council of Trade Unions Congress it has been much more in evidence. It certainly crops up every time the Prime Minister wants to do a con job on the public. The first time it worked. It helped him win the election. The Cheshire cat, or its grin, was apparent in this chamber during the National Economic Summit Conference. As a matter of interest, I invite everyone to remember what was in the communique issued by that conference, as well as its relevance to what has taken place since. To those who have examined the accord it has been obvious from the start that as a solemn and binding covenant it is about as reliable as Chamberlain's Munich Agreement with Hitler. There is no sign that either side in the accord intends to stick to it any longer than is to its perceived advantage. For that matter neither party could deliver its promises without a great deal of luck. We are probably all in agreement that potential economic recovery will be destroyed by a wages explosion or that, alternatively, it will be severely damaged by excessive wage and salary increases. So what does the Government do about it? It produces the accord from the corner and gives the tarnished brightwork a quick rub. It flourishes the accord, haggles with the ACTU to find out the minimum pay increase it will accept, and keeps its fingers crossed that the economy can afford it. Meanwhile, it hopes the unions will not notice the pea in thimble trick it is playing with Medicare and the consumer price index. The Government hopes that the union movement will forget that the promised tax cuts were not granted. Some hopes! The process is obvious. It was very neatly exemplified in a speech by the Prime Minister recently in which he said: Following the Summit and in our submission to the current wage case, my Government indicated support for a general wage increase in the order of 3 to 4 per cent in the second half of this year. Until the good news associated with the breaking of the drought raised food prices sharply, it seemed that an increase based on the increase in the CPI in the first half of this year might fall comfortably within this range. In the new circumstances, we judged that it was best to accept a wage increase of 4.3 per cent, to secure workers' firm commitment to pursuing wage claims only through the centralised system. There are some points worth making about that passage. First, it is fair to assume that the Government would have liked to see an increase of only 3 per cent, but the truth is that it was willing to go higher in the hope of peace and quiet. Second, only some food prices, especially beef and lamb, went up because of the end of the drought. This drove up the food component of the CPI but, because the CPI shopping basket is unchanging while shoppers substitute relatively cheaper foods for temporarily more expensive ones, the effect of the food bill on the average family was exaggerated. Third, the increase in the consumer price index indirectly caused by the breaking of the drought does not in any way reflect an increased capacity to pay on the part of employers. Nevertheless, the Government goes ahead trying to buy industrial peace with someone else's money. All the Government's rhetoric aside, does it really care whether another few thousand jobs are lost in sectors that cannot afford this extra payment? The answer to that has to be an unqualified no. Yet, at the same time, the Government was primping and preening itself on what it likes to call job creation programs. I have another example of the sort of thing I have been talking about. Summarising the economic situation to the Hobart Chamber of Commerce recently, the Prime Minister said: Unemployment had spiralled to rates not experienced since the 1930s as business responded to high labour costs, a slump on profitability, and weakening demand. What do we find in the Government policies mirrored in this Budget? We find further increases in labour costs and nothing to encourage profits-in fact there are some positive disincentives to profits in the private sector-also, thanks to the huge deficit, potential pressure on interest rates, inflation and the balance of payments because of the likely demand for increased imports. That is no way in which to encourage recovery. The Government promised that it could and would simultaneously bring down inflation and unemployment. I am not so naive as to expect this to have been done within seven months, but if this Budget lasts out the whole year the job will not even have been started after 17 months. The Government is making no serious attempt to tackle inflation. Rather, by indexing wages and indirect taxes to the CPI it is locking the system into a neat circle. A rise in the CPI provokes increases in excise which cause a further rise in the CPI, and so on around the circle. Meanwhile a similar cycle is operating through CPI rises, increased wages, increased prices and another CPI rise. The two cycles will react on one another. It is a little like trying to put out a fire with petrol; theoretically possible, I am told, but not the way in which a sane man would go about it. By indexing excise rates to the CPI the Government has increased its own interest in continuing inflation. From now on such taxes will stay steady in real terms as inflation continues, whether they are indexed excise or ad valorem taxes. Meanwhile fiscal drag will increase the real take from income tax. An honest Budget would have indexed income taxes as well as excise duties. As for unemployment, it seems that there is no chance of improvement as a result of this Budget. Even if all the job creation programs and everything else go according to plan the increase in employment will not be quite enough to absorb the increase in the work force. The Budget Papers acknowledge that fact. Only a tiny proportion of new jobs will be created in the private sector. The vast majority will be for new public servants-for example, the Medicare police-or for short term mickey mouse jobs on so-called community projects. I said at the beginning of my speech that the Budget measures pay little attention to reality. Professor Hewson, writing recently in the Business Review Weekly, seems to share that view. The Economist was no kinder when it stated: The main aim of the new budget is to brace the rickety wages agreement with the trade unions. The Economist went on to conclude: This may prove to be wishful thinking. What the Treasurer and the Prime Minister say suggests that they are on some levels aware of the realities of the economic problem, but what they propose does not fit reality. What they do corresponds with neither the economic problem nor reality. I believe it is not unfair to describe this Budget as schizophrenic . It is time for the Prime Minister and his colleagues to come clean and admit that the prices and incomes accord is a con trick. As I have said before, it did what it was meant to do; it helped Labor win the election. But now the attitudes of both parties to the accord-that is, the Government and the unions-have shown it to be the cynical sham that it is. If any honourable members opposite think otherwise I suggest that they are even greener than the colour scheme of this chamber. It has happened before. It has happened in Britain and in the United States. Let me refer to an example in the United Kingdom. I shall quote briefly from a party political broadcast made in 1974 by Mr Michael Foot who, until recently, was the Leader of the British Labour Party. Speaking of the social contract that had been agreed between the United Kingdom Labour Government and the unions, Mr Foot said: The trade unions agreed upon the way they would strive to help the nation. They knew that for quite a long time ahead, we just would not have the extra goods available to increase our living standards so they agreed to give centralised guidelines to wage negotiators which took account of that inescapable fact. Mr Frank Chapple also had something to say about that matter. Mr Chapple is not an unimportant man in the British union movement. Speaking in 1979 and looking back on the social contract, he said: I don't think the trade unions regarded the pay guidelines in the 1974 contract as being of great significance. Those that did, promptly lost sight of them in the rush to restore the pay situation after three years of Conservatory government . . . All the signs are and have been since just a few days after the Summit Conference that the Australian union movement does not regard the various suggestions of pay restraint in the prices and incomes accord and the Summit communique as of great significance. For instance, on 19 April, almost before the ink on the communique was dry, Mr Ivan Hodgson, of the Transport Workers Union of Australia, and also of the ACTU executive, said on an Australian Broadcasting Corporation program that he did not recall agreeing to wage restraint at the Summit. He went on to say: I'm not saying we offered or accepted anything. We had a very, very interesting discussion with everyone at the Summit, and I think it was worthwhile-at least as a public relations exercise. Some honourable members will recall that in its second paragraph the Summit communique states: There is a recognition that to achieve recovery will require restraint in expectations and claims from all sections of the community. Obviously Mr Hodgson did not read the communique that far so he would not have seen paragraph 6 which refers to: A community prepared to place a priority on employment and a restraint on self- interest. Then there are the building unions whose attitudes to requests for restraint are similar to those of Nelson at Copenhagen. I refer to the blind eye and telescope incident. I am sure that Mr Ralph Taylor of the Australian Railways Union shares my reservations about the Government's wages policy. Recently on the ABC-I wholeheartedly agree with him-Mr Taylor said: We hold no brief for the arm-twisting of people behind the scenes to get what they called the economic consensus. It becomes more obvious daily that the arm-twisting had only a very temporary effect. Governments, unions and employers have very different ideas as to just what the consensus was. Much sophistry is used to obscure this point but the fact remains that the Prime Minister first said that there should be increases of 2.5 per cent but now suggests an increase of 4.3 per cent this year, while the ACTU is demanding full indexation and backdated application. The surprising thing is that within the terms of the accord the ACTU is in the right and the Government is trying to evade its commitment. On page 9 the accord states straight out: . . . the adoption of a system of full cost of living adjustments will be strongly supported in tripartite consultations and before industrial tribunals. That means supported by both government and unions. On page 5 the accord also states: This document sets out the details of policies which will be implemented when a Labor Government is in office. I repeat: Policies which will be implemented. Again, at page 11, the accord states: On taking office the Government will substantially restructure the income tax scale to ease the tax burden on low and middle income earners. At page 13 the accord also states: In the event that economic or social circumstances at some future date necessitate, in the view of the Government, a general rise in taxation, the Government will discuss this matter with the unions before seeking to give effect to it. Since coming to office the Government has maintained the tax scale and has effectively increased the amount of tax very many Australians will have to pay, without apparently discussing the matter with the unions. If that is the Government's attitude to the famous accord, it is not surprising that the unions are treating wage restraint and the suppression of sectional interest as, in Mr Ivan Hodgson's words, just a public relations exercise. The Prime Minister should come clean with the nation. He should tear up the whole accord and start again otherwise he will have what the British social contract became and what Mr Dolan has suggested could well happen-a free for all. That is something that this country cannot afford as long as the unions have monopolistic power in the labour market. As the acknowledged linchpin of the Government's Budget strategy the efficacy of the prices and incomes accord is very much in doubt. It is certainly the greatest single concern and the cause of uncertainty in the private sector. Much is not being done in the private sector by way of planning, investment, expansion or even just ensuring business survival because of this uncertainty. But uncertainty as to this Government's intentions-its economic direction-is not confined to doubts about the incomes and prices accord. There is uncertainty amongst the aged who are worried about pension entitlements. There is uncertainty amongst pay-as-you-earn and corporate taxpayers who have been promised tax reductions. They have seen them disappear and they have had to face up to increased taxes instead. There is uncertainty in the defence forces where it is not known whether the Government will persist with its attitude towards the tax on lump sum superannuation payments. There is still further uncertainty amongst defence personnel about the Government's lack of commitment to defence spending. There is uncertainty in the transport, cleaning, mechanical repairs and building industries because of prescribed payments legislation which imposes a withholding tax for the first time in this country's history. There is uncertainty about deficit spending and a likely accumulated national debt of some $70 billion if this Government goes its full term of three years. There is uncertainty about uranium mining and sales. There is uncertainty about resource rental taxes and capital gains taxes or other forms of wealth taxes. There is uncertainty in a whole range of endeavours which is heightened in this Budget. Most of all there is uncertainty about the employment prospects of many Australians. That uncertainty about jobs is not confined to the 700,000-plus unemployed. It is shared by many in work who are worried about their continued employment. This concern manifests itself in many ways. I give a couple of examples. It is evidenced by increased savings bank deposits. People are putting money aside for a rainy day. Young couples have withdrawn from the housing market-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Ms FATIN(Canning)(12.05) —I welcome the opportunity to speak in this Budget debate today. I wish first to make reference to the derogatory statements of the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) about the Commonwealth employment program-the job creation scheme. He referred to the 70,000 jobs to be created as mickey mouse jobs. I suggest that the men and women who will be getting those jobs and who will be paid award wages for a full year will consider them to be very valuable jobs and a very worthwhile experience. Just over six months ago the Australian Labor Party was given an unequivocal mandate to reorder Australia's priorities and policies. The former Government was leading this country deeper into recession and further away from the kind of democratic, fair society that we have come to value. Of course, Australia has been the victim of the world recession, and, although we retained the title the 'lucky country' well into the 1970s, we all knew that the effects of high interest rates and increasing domestic costs could not be staved off indefinitely. But the previous Government failed the people of Australia. It failed to act to cushion those most vulnerable to the blows of the economic depression. This was surely one of the chief causes of its crushing defeat in the last election. Mr Fraser obviously thought that he had lulled the whole of Australia to sleep with his catch cry of 'life wasn't meant to be easy'. Judging by the former Government's behaviour, the enormity of its mistake still has not dawned on members of the Opposition. The empty rhetoric which has emanated from Opposition members during this Budget debate is a clear indication of the extent of the confusion in which they now find themselves. There has not been one coherent strand of argument detectable amongst all the straws which have been clutched at by the Opposition during the debate. Only one point has emerged clearly: Confronted with a Budget which takes a sizable step towards restoring equity to Australian society, honourable members opposite have been reduced to mounting a token response which has ranged from downright abuse to manifest dishonesty. For instance, take the way in which they have reacted to the Government's announcement about the reintroduction of the assets test for pensioners. The Government's intention was made quite clear by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his Budget Speech on 23 August . There is a growing number of people who are deliberately arranging their financial affairs so as to avoid the pension income test. In times of widespread hardship it would be indefensible for a government with any claim to responsibility to turn a blind eye to these practices. We must ensure that our resources reach the people who need them most. It is a basic principle of any just society that welfare payments are directed towards those in need; not those who assume that they have a right to have their already extensive investments and incomes supplemented by the welfare system. As the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) has pointed out, four coalition Ministers for Social Security retained the assets test between 1961 and 1972, believing it to be a fair system. When the Liberal government removed the assets test, it must have known that it was opening up the system to exploitation by wealthy people. But it took the easy option-the path which it believed would accrue the most political advantage. The former Goverment abolished the assets test, but failed to carry out the crucial second recommendation of the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty which stated quite categorically that a capital gains tax should be introduced to discourage people from holding assets idle and waiting for capital gains to accrue. This Government promised to make Australia a fairer society. The reintroduction of the assets test for pensioners is a crucial step towards implementing that promise. I now turn to some of the very positive moves the Government has made in the Budget to provide increased assistance to pensioners and the recipients of Commonwealth benefits. The decision to index the single over-18 unemployment benefit to the rate of inflation is one of the most significant of these moves. 'We will be generous to those who can't get a job and want to work', said Malcolm Fraser in 1975. Yet during the next seven years he and his Government watched the rate of unemployment benefit for single people over 18 fall by $13 a week in real terms. The Fraser Government's failure to index the unemployment benefit for inflation was compounded by its refusal to raise the level at which a person's additional earnings affect his or her rate of benefit. The Labor Government has acted decisively in this area by doubling the amount a person can earn before his or her benefit starts to decrease. Several measures to be introduced by this Government in the present session will go a significant way towards removing some of the bureaucratic and administrative hassles foisted upon people by the previous Government. The decision to index-link fringe benefit limits not only is fairer but also overcomes the absurdity whereby pensioners lost their fringe benefit entitlement as a result of a small cost of living adjustment to their superannuation. I add at this point that the introduction of Medicare will go a long way towards relieving some of the financial pressures and worries faced by many Australian pensioners. I have found a huge groundswell of support for Medicare amongst people throughout the community. But it is particularly the elderly people who are expressing relief that the increasing confusion created by the previous Government is to be brought to an end. Of course what Mr Fraser and his Ministers could not cover up in the confusion was the fact that, in seven years, the cost of basic family health insurance rose by 220 per cent compared to an increase in average earnings of less than 100 per cent. The Opposition has tried its best in this debate to cast doubts on the Government's statement of accord with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, but all it has really succeeded in doing is to highlight the central importance of having a sound prices and incomes policy. The Australian Labor Party has never pretended otherwise. The accord with the ACTU was reached as a result of months of discussion during which the overriding concern was to establish the areas in which the Government and the trade union movement could work together to get Australia out of the vicious circle which seven years of Fraserism had set in motion. The intent behind the accord is so far removed from the expressed policy and experience of the previous Government that it is hardly surprising to find members of the Opposition speechless in disbelief. The Liberal Party of Australia has always paid lip-service to the idea of working with the trade union movement, but how did Mr Fraser carry out his 1975 pledge to 'work positively in co-operation with trade unionists'? We may very well ask. The record shows that he proceeded to pursue policies of deliberate confrontation, dealing one savage blow after another to the security of Australian workers. We have the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act, the establishment of the Industrial Relations Bureau and the expansion of the Trade Practices Act, all of which were intended to curb the effectiveness of the trade union movement. We even saw legislation introduced to bring in industry unions and to end compulsory unionism. Mr Fraser also promised to support wage indexation. His Government then turned around and opposed the full flow-on of the consumer price index at almost every Conciliation and Arbitration Commission hearing until he formally abandoned indexation in 1981. During those five years 12 out of 15 hearings resulted in an award which did not cover the cost of inflation. No wonder the Opposition mistrusts the trade union movement. It has every reason to be wary after the injustice it has casually handed out for so many years. I have said that some of the attitudes and poses adopted by the Opposition during the Budget debate are predictable. For instance, it is hardly surprising to find the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) vainly attempting to divert attention away from the real significance and potential of the Government 's community employment program. However, I am frankly astonished at the manifest inconsistencies in some of the Opposition's arguments. On the one hand, it urges the need for compassion towards those in real need and talks about programs that look after 'the real needs of Australia' and, on the other hand, it opposes Budget legislation that will raise the revenue necessary to implement the reforms so desperately needed if equity is to be returned to Australian society. Despite the fact that the Costigan Royal Commission into the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union reported that tax evasion in Australia during the last Government's period in office had become a multimillion dollar industry, the Opposition has attempted to sabotage every move this Government makes towards recouping some of the lost revenue. The number of people identified by the Commissioner of Taxation as being involved in tax avoidance schemes rose by 2,500 per cent between 1975 and 1981. It is estimated that more than $3,000m a year in tax revenue has been lost through non-declaration of income alone. Of course, the previous Government recognised the problem and even won elections by promising to clamp down on tax avoidance. Yet when this Government, the Hawke Government, acted decisively to bring certain industries into line with the legal requirements of the Australian Taxation Office by making source deductions, the Opposition was horrified and did everything it could to create confusion. That is hardly a consistent reaction from a party which, while in government, had pledged to remove loopholes which permit tax avoidance. It seems to me that the root cause of these inconsistencies is that the Opposition really does not know what it is supposed to be arguing about. First, it attacks the Government for bringing down an expansionist Budget. Then it accuses us of not spending more to help the unemployed and the disadvantaged. On the one hand, it attacks us for sanctioning an unacceptably high deficit. It then says that we should not have increased certain areas of indirect taxation. The truth is that the Opposition has dug itself into a wholly untenable ideological position. It is only too quick to oppose any measures which might increase the well being of people who for any number of reasons require assistance from the Commonwealth welfare system. Yet it condones the accumulation of private fortunes even when these are amassed by unsavoury, if not overtly, illegal means. It uses grand-sounding phrases about enlightened self-interest and the diversity and richness of individual personalities without considering for a moment the insidious nature of the systems of economic inequality which it is promoting and the extent to which these policies are completely opposed to any real concept of individual freedom. This Government was elected on the clear understanding that what Australians need is the opportunity to work together for the common good. We have acted decisively to restore the justice and equality which were being wilfully eroded by the previous Government parties who are still clinging to the wholly discredited doctrine of laissez-faire economics. The Government is working on the understanding that it is not too late to reverse the damage done during the Fraser years. We have a mandate from the Australian people to carry out our task and our first Budget is a clear indication that we shall not be diverted from our goal of securing a decent, secure, dignified and constructive way of life for all Australians. Mr HICKS(Riverina)(12.17) —Mr Deputy Speaker, as you and most honourable members of this House would be aware, this year, 1983, is the year when the City of Broken Hill is celebrating its centenary. For a century the Australian nation has been the beneficiary of the wealth obtained by the work of the people of Broken Hill. These people have lived for the greater part of the century in what , to put it mildly, can be described only as inhospitable conditions. It is only in relatively recent times that Broken Hill has become a comfortable, modern and well-appointed city, and the residents of that city are concerned to ensure that Broken Hill progresses into its second century as a prosperous and progressive city that can provide work for its citizens. It has been the concern of Broken Hill for many years that the quantity and the grade of ore remaining is reducing. Perhaps the first major shock in recent years came with the closure of the South Mine in 1972. In April 1979 the Broken Hill City Council approached the New South Wales Government expressing grave concern for the future welfare of the city and stressing the importance of joint government decision-making and action if the future of the city was to be assured. As a result of that representation, later that year the setting up of the Broken Hill Committee of Economic Review was announced. Its terms of reference included a study of Broken Hill, its economic structure, the labour force, its social fabric and, most importantly, an examination of the alternatives for the future. The report of that study, entitled 'The Broken Hill Economic Review', was released in May 1981. It is not my intention to go into every detail of this informative document, but there are some recommendations of that report I wish to discuss in relation to the Federal Budget. Because of the diminution of known reserves of high grade ore for which Broken Hill has been famous for many years, the extraction of low grade ores at competitive cost has now become a necessity. In fact the future of Broken Hill hinges on the mining companies being able to extract those low grade ores at costs competitive with the rest of the world. This means that some fundamental decisions have to be made by mining companies, mining unions and governments if the mines are expected to be operating after the mid-1990s. Many costs related to mining are escalating rapidly, but the costs which mitigate most against the mining companies today are the royalties paid to the New South Wales Government. Honourable members will be interested to know that the royalties imposed by the New South Wales Government on the Broken Hill mines are set at 4 per cent of the first $400,000 net profit, increasing by 2 per cent for each additional $400,000 until the rate reaches a ceiling of 50 per cent. Most other New South Wales mining royalties are imposed at a flat rate on the minerals won particularly at 4 per cent of the total value. This means when profits are low the Broken Hill mining companies are better off than they would be with a production royalty of 4 per cent. However, at higher profit levels they are much worse off. The only other similar royalty structure is imposed on Cobar Mines Pty Ltd. Its rates are 2 per cent for the first $200,000 profit, increasing by 1 per cent for each additional $200,000 to a ceiling of 8 per cent . The Cobar rates are therefore significantly lower than for the Broken Hill mines. An indication of the value of the royalty payments is that for the 10 years to June 1979 the Broken Hill mining companies paid $131.5m in royalties and with the addition of company tax, payroll tax, municipal rates, water board deficiency and tax paid by employees the total became a massive $355m. All mining companies in Broken Hill regard the present royalty scale as inequitable. Not only is the royalty rate excessive, but also with inflation eroding the real value of profits, the fixed scale of royalties means an increasing share of real income is taken by the New South Wales Treasury. The scale is also a disincentive to future mining investment in Broken Hill because of the low rate of return after tax on royalties. It is not surprising then to find that the Economic Review Committee recommended that an incentive be devised whereby royalty relief could be provided to mining companies extracting low grade ores. It was suggested that this should be on a sliding scale which related royalties to the lead grade of ore. It was also recommended that the Commonwealth Government be asked to match any royalty relief approved by the New South Wales Government, bearing in mind that any such relief would otherwise benefit the Commonwealth by way of company tax, which is 46c in the dollar. In April 1982 the then Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Resources, at my invitation visited Broken Hill and learnt first hand the problems facing the mining industry-an industry in which he was already well versed-by speaking to the leading commercial, industrial and civic organisations of Broken Hill. Subsequent to that visit Mr Anthony wrote to the Premier of New South Wales, Mr Neville Wran, pointing out the anomalies that existed in the payment of royalties by the mining companies to the New South Wales Treasury and asked that they be reviewed in order to help Broken Hill industry to plan for the future on an equitable and competitive basis. In his reply to Mr Anthony, the New South Wales Premier contended that the economic future of Broken Hill had been a matter of continuous concern to his Government. Mr Wran wrote that he had instigated and participated in discussions with senior directors of the mining companies concerning royalty charges, energy supplies and other industrial issues. He went on to suggest that a joint consultative State-Federal committee be established in the near future to ensure that maximum results could be achieved. Mr Wran commented on Mr Anthony's valued and co-operative approach to his Government on the coal industry and he hoped a similar approach could be adopted in the case of Broken Hill. In a Budget debate on 28 September 1982 the New South Wales Premier stated that the New South Wales Government would be prepared to change its royalty basis provided that the Commonwealth Government agreed to the additional benefits going completely to Broken Hill. On 27 October 1982 Mr Anthony wrote to the Premier, pointing out that there would be no- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member will not refer to another member by his name, but by his electorate or the position he occupies, in this case, the Leader of the National Party of Australia. Mr McVeigh —A good leader, too. Mr HICKS —A great leader, indeed. I apologise- Mr John Brown —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I am loath to stop this pleasant interlude on the life of Broken Hill but we are dealing with a certain matter before the House. I think that the honourable member's remarks ever so tenuously should relate to that matter. At this stage they have not borne the slightest relationship to the Appropriation Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr HICKS —I am trying to point out the importance of Broken Hill to the economy of Australia and its relevance to the Budget. On 27 October 1982 the Leader of the National Party of Australia wrote to the Premier, pointing out that there would not be any scope for the Commonwealth Government to change its laws on the rate of company tax so as specifically to benefit the companies operating at Broken Hill. The Leader of the National Party also listed a number of incentives the Federal Government had taken in the August Budget to assist the mining industry. He assured the New South Wales Premier that he had written to the Prime Minister, the Right Hon. J. M. Fraser, with the Premier's suggestion that a joint Commonwealth-State consultative committee be established. Unfortunately the then Prime Minister became ill. Christmas followed and it was not long after that the last Federal election occurred, which did not enable the former Prime Minister to reply to the request of the Leader of the National Party. In his recent visit to Broken Hill, the New South Wales Premier told different groups that when he had approached the Leader of the National Party, the then Deputy Prime Minister, he had rejected his approaches and that of the Broken Hill City Council. As I previously explained, the Leader of the National Party said with regard to federal company tax that there would be no scope for alteration, but he did not rule out other forms of assistance. I believe that the present Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, has given his personal support to this attitude. I know that all Broken Hill people will be pleased to hear of his interest in the welfare of the city. Various New South Wales governments over a number of years have given as their excuse for not changing the royalty system that the Federal Government would gain from the increased profits of the companies by obtaining increased company taxes, whereas the New South Wales Government would lose on its royalty receipts . I do not believe that this is as strong an argument as the New South Wales Government would try to have us believe, because other mining companies are paying lower royalties and still pay the same rate of company tax to the Federal Government as do the Broken Hill mining companies. Having made that observation, I agree that the New South Wales Government, after having had Broken Hill as a milking cow for so long, would find the weaning process very difficult. It is therefore important that the Federal and State governments come together on this matter so that a balance can be struck that will enable the rate of royalties to be reduced, thus promoting the further development of the large low grade ore body. In turn, because of the increased revenue to the Federal Government through company tax I believe, as do the citizens of Broken Hill, that the Federal Government must play a role in providing funds to ensure Broken Hill's future, whether it be in promoting private industry or government enterprise within the city. I can understand this Government's and the previous Government's problem in making any alteration to the universal company tax that applies throughout Australia. However, I am sure that where there is a will, there is a way of getting federal funds into Broken Hill. Broken Hill is used to going it alone and of being ruggedly individualistic and self-sufficient. However, the time has now come for assistance to be given to Broken Hill, not as a handout but as an investment in a city that has put Australia on the map as an industrial nation and that intends to continue its part in providing for the nation's welfare. It may be too late for substantial amounts to be made available for Broken Hill in the Budget. Certainly, however, they could be made available for planning so that by the time the next Budget is being formulated substantial amounts can be allocated for projects within Broken Hill. Talking of Broken Hill leads me to the Army Reserve. Recently the 10th Battalion, Royal South Australian Regiment, whose complement includes a number of Broken Hill men and women, received the freedom of entry to the city of Broken Hill as part of the celebrations for Broken Hill's centenary. This is the first time in Broken Hill's history that any military unit has been given that significant honour. I mention this in order to impress upon members of this House the high esteem in which the Army Reserve is held in Broken Hill. I am sure that this is reflected in all areas of Australia from which the Reserve is drawn. Presently sections 23S and 23SA of the Income Tax Assessment Act provide an exemption from income tax of the pay and allowances for certain part time members of the Reserve defence forces. The exemption is to be phased out in two steps. From 1 December 1983 one half of such pay and allowances will be exempted and from 1 December 1984 the exemption will be completely terminated. This is tragic not only for the Reserve forces but for the total Defence Force of Australia. I know that the Government has instigated an inquiry under Justice Coldham into many aspects of the defence forces. It has been intimated that the report should lead to an increase in salaries for members of the Reserve. Any rise in pay would need to be significant, or else the present tax free system of payment should remain. Once again, I raise the matter of the recently imposed iniquitous $2.50 a litre indexed excise on grape spirit. Mr McGauran —Disgraceful. Mr HICKS —It is disgraceful. I know that most honourable members will be sick and tired of my labouring this point, but I make no apology for that. Mr McGauran —Don't ever apologise for representing your people. Mr HICKS —That is true. Before the introduction of the recent Budget I had assured wine grape growers in my electorate that there would not be a tax or excise on wine. Why did I do that? I did it because the Prime Minister was a man of his word and he had pledged before the Federal election that there would be no tax or excise on wine grapes. Mr McGauran —They are wiser now. Mr HICKS —They are certainly wiser now. However, I must confess I became worried when a number of other promises that were made to rural Australia, such as the promise not to reduce the tariff on orange juice and the promise to support the drought aid packages instigated by the former Government, were not kept. Mr John Brown —He got the drought over. That was more important. Mr HICKS —The Minister at the table says that the drought was over, but I can assure him that in parts of my electorate the drought was nowhere near over, and in parts it is still not over. Still, I believed that when a pledge was given with no conditions attached that pledge would be kept. It was not kept. After thousands of letters of protest and submissions from many members of this House and the other place, it is pleasing to see that the Government has realised that if the proposed excise goes ahead many wine grape growers will face bankruptcy. It now appears that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is prepared to reconsider the Government's earlier thoughtless action in this matter. Others may have a different view, but in my opinion no tax or excise of any type should be placed on wine. That was promised before the last election. Many things worry me about this Budget, particularly as they affect rural Australians, irrespective of whether they live on the land or in small non- metropolitan communities. Because of the lack of time I cannot speak of them today. However, I ask the Government to consider seriously the points I have made, particularly in relation to Broken Hill's future, the future of the Army Reserve, and the threat to the stability of the wine industry by the imposition of an excise on grape spirit. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(12.32) —At the outset, I must acknowledge the concerns expressed by the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Hicks) about the prospects of the city of Broken Hill. Like him, I have a great interest in the welfare and progress of that city, as Broken Hill was my birth place. The city of Broken Hill has made an outstanding contribution to the wealth of this nation and all governments should recognise this fact when considering the implementation of the findings of the Broken Hill Committee of Economic Review. On 12 May this year I had the privilege of delivering my maiden speech to the House. In my opening remarks I made the following comments: I enter this Parliament at a time when my fellow Australians, having lost faith in the previous Government, placed their trust in the Government led by the Australian Labor Party's leader and now the Prime Minister. That sense of trust, that sense of hope manifested itself initially in the National Economic Summit Conference held in April this year. Let there be no mistake about it, despite the feeble and continued attempts of the divided rabble that postures under the name of the Federal Opposition, businesses in Australia, both large and small, the trade union movement, State and local government, and the vast majority of the people of Australia embraced the concept of the Summit as evidence of their sense of trust and hope in the new Labor Government. The May economic statement was further evidence that the Australian people's judgment on 5 March was vindicated as the Treasurer (Mr Keating) began to clear some of the kamikaze economic fabric that had characterised the previous seven years of conservative rule in this place. In its place the Treasurer launched some of the economic programs to reinforce further that sense of hope and that sense of trust that I mentioned-indeed, I might say a sense of social justice-in our society. The Government's Budget announced to the people of Australia on 23 August was a most significant statement in the very short but nonetheless impressive six months of the new Labor Government. It is reflective to ponder the community reaction to the Budget. For the first few days following the presentation of the Budget the stock exchange reaction reflected the level of business confidence on the Budget. The all ordinaries index at the Sydney Stock Exchange rose by 14 points to 708.4 in the first move above the 700 barrier since 2 July 1981. Significantly, the Sydney Morning Herald commented that brokers had indicated that the market 'now had the bit firmly between its teeth and there was nothing to stop the index beating the all time high of 746.2, recorded on 17 November 1980'. Naturally, one would not expect an all embracing reaction to every single aspect of a government's Budget. Nonetheless, it must have been politically stunning to the Opposition to pick up most newspapers in Australia on the morning after the night before. I invite honourable members to consider the following editorial comment from the Australian Financial Review of 24 August: The first Budget of the new Labor Government . . . is a Budget for recovery.. . . . Certainly, the Budget is not marked by recklessness or excessive risk-taking. Later, in a leading article by Anne Summers, we read this: In framing its first Budget, the Hawke Government has sought to strike a balance between honouring its election mandate to stimulate the economy and assist those most injured by the recession, while trying to reassure business that it is seriously addressing the inflationary risks its recovery strategy contains. Mr McVeigh —She is looking for a job with the Prime Minister. That is all she is after. Mr SIMMONS —The reaction of the Sydney Morning Herald is also interesting. I am sure the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) will be interested in this comment from that newspaper: The Budget passes the test set for it by the Leader of the Opposition. It establishes a framework for economic growth with lasting job opportunities. Mr John Brown —Which leader was that-Country Party or Liberal? They have two leaders these days. Mr SIMMONS —The Minister makes a fair comment. I am somewhat confused by public statements as well. Mr McVeigh —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member will quickly come to the point of order. Mr McVeigh —This is an appropriation debate. The leadership of rival parties has nothing whatsoever to do with the business before the House. I suggest that the honourable member should get back to the business. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr SIMMONS —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The response from the Western Advocate , the daily newspaper in what is my own city now, Bathurst, is to this effect: It is not anywhere as bad as tipped . . . In concluding its editorial on 25 August it notes the often quoted but not entirely accurate perception by some sections of the community that Labor governments are fiscally irresponsible and says: The Federal Government under Mr Hawke has not been a big spender as Australians have come to know recent Labor Governments. For Mr Hawke it looks like a rebuilding program, steady as she goes. A rebuilding program is an appropriate phrase to use to describe what the Government is seeking to do following the level of destruction by the manic depressive policy of fight inflation first unflinchingly followed by the previous Fraser Government. The 1983-84 Budget is a fiscally sound document. It is a responsibly expansionary document. It is a document overwhelmingly endorsed by Australians, a fact demonstrated by the Morgan gallup poll, the results of which were published in the Bulletin of 20 September. When the question ' Altogether would you say the Federal Budget was a good budget, an average budget or a bad budget?' was posed, only 14 per cent of the people indicated that they thought the Budget was bad. I might add that only 22 per cent of the Liberal- National Party respondents in that survey indicated that they throught the Budget was terribly bad. The same poll also indicated that the level of inflationary expectations was moderating in the community. I represent a rural and provincial electorate that has been devastated by drought for nearly five years. Thankfully the drought has now ended and all indications suggest that the 1983 wheat harvest, for example, will be a record one. Indeed, yesterday the Australian Wheat Board revised its forecast of the 1983 harvest, suggesting that it will be of between 18 million and 19 million tonnes. However, when it comes to the farm sector-whether one is concerned with communities in my electorate such as in Parkes in central western New South Wales where wheat growing is a major activity, or the orchardists at Orange, or the fat lamb producers near Oberon-one single theme abounds: It is in the long term interests of the rural sector for inflation to be minimised. Whenever I travel throughout my electorate talking to individual rural producers or addressing meetings of organisations such as the New South Wales Live Stock and Grain Producers Association their overriding concern is the Government's ability to control inflation and inflationary expectations. Confidence is indeed a very fragile commodity. Nowhere is this more evident than among the farming community. After all, it is continually at the mercy of the vagaries of weather. I contend that there is a feeling of confidence among the rural sector. It has the drought largely behind it. The Budget deficit does not place undue strains on the money market. Should the Australian Wheat Board be forced to borrow additional funds to guarantee Australian farmers a minimum price for their wheat it now can borrow on the overseas financial markets. Despite the ramblings of certain National Party members, rural producers know that they have not been forced to bear a harsher economic burden than other sectors of the Australian economy. Much to the disgust of the National Party, the rural sector knows that in the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) it has a Minister who knows and understands the concerns and aspirations of all sectors of our great primary industries. In addressing some specific aspects of the Appropriation Bill, I could not let this opportunity pass without commenting upon the outlays in the Budget for housing. In particular, I comment upon the contribution by the Commonwealth to the States for public housing assistance. One of the obvious and more regrettable aspects of the economic recession has been the increasing levels of demand that have outstripped the supply for public housing. Press reports only yesterday indicated that in New South Wales the demand for public housing has risen by some 11.5 per cent a year since 1981. However, it is noteworthy that the attitude of the Fraser Government did little to assist in this regard. Its approach to public housing provision was fairly typical of its miserable attitude to the needs of the disadvantaged in Australia. Significantly, while the Whitlam Government in its 1974-75 Budget devoted 1.1 per cent of total gross national product to the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, by 1982-83 the Fraser Government had reduced this to 0.1 of one per cent. Clearly, the effect on the States of such a massive retreat by the Commonwealth was totally devastating, so much so that in New South Wales alone there are now more than 52 ,000 applications for public housing. I congratulate the Government on its decision to increase substantially the level of assistance available to the States for public housing. This financial year there has been an increase of some 50 per cent in Commonwealth funds for this particular outlay. The Government is arresting the sorry state of neglect by the Fraser Government in the area of public housing. To those Australians about to purchase their first home after 1 October the generous levels of assistance of up to $7,000 will benefit some 37,500 first home buyers this financial year, rising to 137,500 in 1985-86. During the past few weeks I have written to every real estate agent in my electorate providing full details of the operation of this new form of assistance to first home buyers. Additionally, I have publicised the fact that this information is available from my electorate office. The response has been phenomenal. Real estate agents, who have been receiving many inquiries, have been able to provide information immediately. My office has also received countless inquiries. I am at a loss to understand the reason for the cutbacks in housing finance by the previous Government, particularly at a time of depressed economic activity. Stimulation of the housing sector provides an impressive boost in so many other areas of economic activity. Just imagine-this year the stimulus provided under this scheme should produce sales of 37,500 additional refrigerators, 37,500 additional cooking ranges, thousands of metres of carpets, curtains, light bulbs and so on; the list continues. Many such component and white goods manufacturers are facing difficult economic times. Only last week a deputation of trade unions and management from Email Ltd in Orange met with the Government Caucus Industry Committee to express their concern about import competition, dumping and other matters related to the white goods industry. Major appliance companies such as Email welcome the initiatives of the Government in both private and public housing. Having today completed more than five years as a member of the Bathurst City Council I now wish to comment briefly upon the initiatives in the Budget aimed at raising the status of this important area of government in Australia. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 101A. The honourable member will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr PEACOCK —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will recall that in his address to the Business Council of Australia on 2 September he said: The Roxby development is going ahead, and nothing is going to stop that. The Prime Minister will also be aware that on 12 September the Minister for Resources and Energy was asked about reports emanating from those comments that the future of Roxby Downs was assured, and the Minister said: There is that 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. Will the Prime Minister now advise the House and the Business Council of Australia that his promise on Roxby Downs, like his election promises, has been superseded by changed circumstances? Mr HAWKE —When I spoke to the Business Council of Australia I expressed my belief as to what would happen. It is still my belief. Of course, it is a matter for discussion. Mr Howard —It is only a belief now; it is not a decision. Mr HAWKE —I repeat what I said, namely, that I expressed my belief as to what would happen. It is still my belief as to what will happen. There is no secret about the fact that on the issue of uranium there are differences of opinion in the Government party. Mr Howard —So there is chaos on the subject, is there? Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, if we are to have any suggestions from the other side of the House about the question of differences of opinion about policies, I would be quite happy to have a very lengthy discussion on that issue. Within the Government party there will be a series of discussions in the Cabinet and in the Caucus and the Government's position will emerge from that. I adhere to my expression of belief on that occasion. Mr GEAR —My question is also directed to the Prime Minister. Can he inform the House of progress on negotiations with the State of Tasmania on alternative job projects and other matters following cessation of work on the Gordon below Franklin hydro scheme? Mr HAWKE —As all honourable members will be aware, the Commonwealth can provide funds only on the basis of an agreement with the State. I must confess to being totally mystified by the attitude of the Premier of Tasmania on this matter. The facts are that on 1 July, the day of the historic High Court of Australia judgment on this matter, I gave the Premier of Tasmania a letter offering assistance from the Commonwealth to the State of Tasmania, firstly for some alternative job creation schemes, and, of course, also to cover employees and contractors who, in the event that alternative work could not be immediately found for them, would require carry-over assistance. In that letter, it was made clear that we would expect those arrangements, to which I alluded there, to be covered by an agreement, because that is the normal and proper practice if there is to be a transfer of money from the Commonwealth to the State. That was on 1 July. By the following week the officers of the Premier of Tasmania had received from Commonwealth officials a draft of the proposed agreement. So, that was at the very beginning of July. We have stressed repeatedly, right from the outset, that the agreement about which we are talking is an interim one only. It is to enable the Commonwealth Government to make quick payments to Tasmania, including advances, to meet the costs of ensuring that any persons who had been employed on the Gordon below Franklin project would not be disadvantaged by the cessation of work on that project which followed from the High Court decision. Of course, I emphasise that our offer-in fact, our pressing of that interim agreement-did not preclude, and still does not preclude, the making of any other claims by the State of Tasmania . Despite all that, starting from 1 July, there has been, on the part of the State of Tasmania, delay after delay. While the Premier is delaying the signing of this agreement, drawn up in consultation between his officials and the Commonwealth officials, he insists on accusing the Commonwealth of withholding funds. Mr Hodgman —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister is misleading the House, because a meeting of officials is scheduled for Friday. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Hodgman —He is telling lies. Mr HAWKE —I ask that that be withdrawn. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member knows that questions of misleading the House are matters for substantive motion. I ask him to withdraw the statement. Mr Hodgman —The Prime Minister called the previous Prime Minister a liar. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Denison. I ask him to withdraw the allegation of misleading. Mr Hodgman —I withdraw the allegation of lying. Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, that was from 1 July. I thought that we had had the matter settled at the beginning of last month, because when I met Mr Gray in Hobart I handed him copies of the agreement as settled between his officials and the officials of the Commonwealth. I passed them to him then on the understanding that he would sign. He asked for more time to look at the matter, and, of course , I readily agreed that he should have that extra time. That was nearly three weeks ago, and the Premier has still not signed the agreement. The facts are overwhelmingly clear. We made the offer on the day of the High Court judgment. There has been agreement between the Tasmanian officials and the Commonwealth officials, and the only reason that this agreement has not been signed is that the Premier of Tasmania has no interest in the welfare of his State. He, in conjunction with his miserable cronies on the other side of the House, instead of trying to fix up this matter, is attempting to play miserable politics with the welfare of his own people. Mr PEACOCK —Let us see whether we can fix up our policy on uranium, then, instead of playing politics. My question to the Prime Minister is supplementary to the answer that he gave to me just a moment ago. I ask him how he squares his answer that it was his belief that Roxby would proceed with the firm, unequivocal announcement to the Business Council of Australia-I was there and I heard it, as did other members-and I quote from the Weekend Australian of 3-4 September reporting it: In Sydney yesterday he- that is, the Prime Minister- told the inaugural lunch of the Business Council of Australia that 'as far as our Government is concerned'- no personal belief- 'the Federal Government, and the Government of South Australia, the Roxby development is going ahead, and nothing is going to stop that'. I reiterate that that was a Government announcement, not his personal belief. What or who caused the significant change, or did he simply mislead the Business Council in the first place? Mr HAWKE —There was no misleading of the Business Council. Opposition members interjecting-- Mr HAWKE —Events will turn out to show whether or not my statement is accurate. I expressed to the Business Council a belief of what the position of the Government would be, on my interpretation of the position. I repeat that I believe that the statement I made, based on my interpretation, will turn out to be accurate. Mr BRUMBY —I direct my question to the Minister for Health. In relation to the Stella Anderson wing of the Home and Hospital for the Aged in Bendigo, what progress has been made in discussions with the Minister for Social Security and the Victorian Minister of Health in resolving the funding stalemate? Secondly, can the Minister provide an assurance to the people of Bendigo that the wing will be officially opened this year? Dr BLEWETT —In answering the question I would like to make two preliminary comments. First, I would like to commend the honourable member for Bendigo. Certainly, if we are to resolve this issue satisfactorily much of the resolution will result from his determination and perseverence with this problem. Mr Fisher —Who is responsible for the problem? Dr BLEWETT —I will deal with the responsibility question now. Secondly, the problem of the Stella Anderson wing results very much from the chaos and confusion in aged care policy in this country which we inherited. The Australian Labor Party has a very clear commitment to a comprehensive frail aged policy which has received remarkably widespread community support. It has two essential characteristics. The first is that we will begin to shift emphasis away from nursing home care and have greater emphasis on hostel and domiciliary care. Secondly, we will seek to deal with the kinds of confusions which have resulted in some of the problems with the Stella Anderson wing by concentrating all frail aged services in a single administration, thereby avoiding the duplication, confusion and waste of the present system. The specific problem with the Stella Anderson wing is that it is really a project somewhat in advance of its time, being really a halfway house between hostel and nursing home provision. Unfortunately, there is no legislative provision for recurrent funding for such organisations. Indeed, it was very much the result of ill-conceived and opportunistic decisions by previous State and Federal Liberal governments. It is not possible to finance the provision at the Stella Anderson project from the personal care subsidy. That would be inadequate to fund it for what it provides. We are looking at the possibility of reclassifying it as a nursing home and, therefore, bringing it under nursing home funding. But there are some problems in relation to that. First, the building would need to be fitted, furnished and staffed as a nursing home before approval could be given. Secondly , there are already too many nursing home beds in the area. We have to be concerned with the fair and equal distribution of nursing home beds across the country. Thirdly, there may be some legal difficulties in classifying as a nursing home a building which has secured capital funding as a hostel. I do not believe that those difficulties are insurmountable. If we have reasonable assurances about the development of nursing home beds in that area I think we may be able to carry through that reclassification. Anyhow, I point out that in many ways the Government would prefer, if possible, that the Stella Anderson project function, as it was originally intended, as a high level project providing hostel care for the frail aged. Let me finally say to the honourable member for Bendigo that the Government is fully aware of a very fine institution being not properly used because of the total inadequacy of the present funding arrangements. We are making every effort to reach a speedy conclusion of that problem. Mr ANTHONY —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will recall that in Question Time yesterday the Minister for Science and Technology attributed certain views on the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory to the Chairman of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Dr Wild, and two of Dr Wild's senior colleagues. Is the Prime Minister able to say, or, if not, can he ascertain, whether Dr Wild has since reaffirmed the views he expressed on this subject in a news release last Friday which cast serious doubts on the statement the Minister made to this Parliament yesterday? Will the Prime Minister step in and resolve this serious conflict between the Minister and one of the Government's most important and highly regarded statutory authorities on an issue which goes to the integrity of the people involved and is immensely important to Australia's rural industries? Mr HAWKE —Let me preface my answer by saying that I have total confidence in my Minister and his handling of this matter. I am not aware of the statement to which the Leader of the National Party referred. I will take steps to look at it and discuss the matter with the Minister. I will take the matter further, if necessary. Mr GORMAN —Can the Minister for Aviation inform the House what transpired at the extraordinary session of the International Civil Aviation Organisation Council called recently to discuss the Korean Air Lines tragedy? Mr BEAZLEY —A number of honourable members would be aware from statements made last week that the ICAO Council had an extraordinary session on 15 September and passed a resolution directing the Secretary-General of ICAO to instigate an investigation and report to Council within 30 days. This was a joint resolution proposed by Australia and a number of other members of the Council which were equally concerned with the tragedy. The Council also directed its subsidiary body, the Air Navigation Commission, to examine ways in which a recurrence of such a tragic accident might be prevented. The triennial assembly meeting of ICAO commenced in Montreal on 20 September. The Australian delegation to the assembly is being led by the Secretary to my Department. The delegation will support fully the concept of a thorough and exhaustive inquiry into the disaster , under the auspices of the Secretary-General of ICAO, and initiatives to strengthen the security of international civil aviation. I think the assembly will provide a very useful forum through which to make absolutely certain that the concern of the international aviation community about the actions of the Soviet Union in the course of that disaster is fully brought home to that country and that an appropriate form of investigation takes place. For the interest of honourable members who may wish to read further on this matter, I table the resolution carried by the ICAO Council. I will keep honourable members informed on subsequent action by the assembly. Mr HOWARD —Does the Prime Minister agree that in present economic circumstances maximum certainty in the minds of those in the business community about government decisions is paramount? In view of the confusion that must now exist in the minds of those concerned in the uranium industry and the uncertainty of employment consequences in relation to Roxby Downs arising from the answer given by the honourable gentleman, can he give the Parliament and the nation a clear timetable within which the Government will resolve its conflict and its chaos over uranium policy? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for his question. He is correct in saying that the major requirement of the business community is the maximum possible degree of certainty. It is precisely because that is the desire of the business community that this Government has the overwhelming support of the business community in this country. The absolute lack of direction, the vacillation and the conflicting emphases that characterised what passed for an economic policy under the previous Government have been replaced by a coherent policy on the part of this Government which was reflected in the statement of 9 May. Indeed, that coherent policy started with the action of this Government in making the 10 per cent decision in regard to the exchange rate which was necessary because-- Mr Peacock —Get back to uranium. Mr HAWKE —I will get to uranium. The honourable member referred to maximum certainty. The decision in regard to the exchange rate, the fiscal decisions and the wages policy decisions taken by this Government have created a degree of certainty unmatched in the history of this country since the end of the last war . This has been reflected in the confidence of the business community and the financial sectors. I noticed the glee with which the Leader of the Opposition a week ago was waving around a certain issue of the Bulletin. I have not seen him waving the Bulletin around today. That is because he finds no comfort in all the indications that are available about the attitude of the business community to this Government. I come specifically to that aspect of the Deputy Leader's question which dealt with uranium. Opposition members-Ah! Mr HAWKE —Honourable members opposite are slow learners; so I have to go slowly with them. In regard to uranium, I have been speaking with the Premier of South Australia as recently as this morning. The activities at Roxby Downs are going ahead. There is no change in the economic activities in regard to Roxby. There is no uncertainty. There has been no change of plans on the part of the companies. They are proceeding. There is no change of plans on their part. No person has been displaced. Everything is going ahead as usual. At present no decision by this Government in regard to existing operations is required. They are going ahead without change. No person has lost a job. There has been no change of investment decisions. In the last part of the question the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked for a timetable. The timetable will be roughly this: A paper will be prepared which will be considered by the Government party in the next few weeks. I believe that a decision will be taken by the Government in regard to this area before the end of October. Mr MILTON —Is the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware that the Philippines Constabulary Security Group has called before it two women, Norma Pineda and Monica Gondo, together with two other officers of the union at the Judric Canning Co., a subsidiary of the Australian company, Safcol, in Manila, in the name of national security? In view of the fact that a number of union organisers have been killed or have disappeared in the recent past in or near Manila and that 35 union officials and members at the Judric Canning Co. are in gaol or under house arrest, will the Minister ask the Australian Embassy to make inquiries as a matter of great urgency of Colonel Ishmael L. Rodrigo regarding the attentions that the security police have afforded these two women? Mr HAYDEN —As coincidence would have it, I know a little about this matter largely because the honourable member took the insurance of mentioning it to me. The strength of the coincidence is weakened by the fact that he mentioned it more than a week ago and I have forgotten a great deal of the details in the interim. However, my recollection of the circumstances is this: Following the honourable member's approach to me on this matter I had formal and official inquiries made on the matter in Manila. My recollection is that the information elicited from those inquiries was that the two women concerned are involved in an internal union dispute. They are active members of their union. The dispute is as to whether funds collected to cover union members employed at the establishment to which the honourable member referred should be paid to the parent body or should go into the hands of the local job site representatives. My understanding is that the Philippines Government authorities in Manila have not been involved in this matter. Of course, we will maintain interest in this matter and should anything develop which requires our attention I will make sure that the honourable member is informed about it. Mr Groom proceeding to address a question to the Prime Minister- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I think the question the honourable member is raising is getting into the area of the sub judice rule in respect of the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies. It is a matter of evidence that would go before that Commission. It is opening up a fresh area and is rather dissimilar to the questions we have had previously. Mr Groom-I wish to speak to that point, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —I am willing to hear the honourable member. Mr Groom-First, the Prime Minister has already developed the content of his statement, made on 23 August, and I am now speaking to that in this question. The second point is that it is in the public interest that these matters be properly debated. The third point is that the Royal Commission is taking place before a senior judge. One of the issues concerning the sub judice rule is whether a tribunal can be prejudiced by any comments that might be made. My point is that this is not a matter before a judge and a jury. It is a matter before a senior judge. I therefore submit to you that it is a proper question. Mr SPEAKER —That is not relevant. The question is out of order. Mr SAUNDERSON —Has the Minister for Defence seen complaints from Tasmanian members of this Parliament that the Defence Force is using an inverted map of Tasmania situated to the north-west of Australia to depict an enemy nation in the exercise Kangaroo 83? Does the Minister feel that this represents an attack on that State's integrity? Mr SCHOLES —Those members of the House who are interested in defence matters will be aware that currently a major defence exercise, Kangaroo 83, is taking place. It is a most significant and important exercise and I would have thought it was one of the things which the Opposition would not choose to trivialise. But one has to take into account the sources of the complaints and the competence of those who make them. It is true that the enemy nation is depicted on the maps involved in the exercise as Kamaria. That island is off the north-west coast of Australia. I point out that it is not an inverted map of Tasmania; it is in fact a corruption of a map of the South Island of New Zealand. I suggest that honourable members representing the State of Tasmania look at a map of that island at some stage. I will table the map. One of the groups of forces which will be defending the South Island of New Zealand named Kamaria is the New Zealand force. Mr Hodgman —Orangeland. Mr SCHOLES —If the honourable member looks at the Notice Paper he will see what I am talking about. I think I should inform the House that those people are trivialising a very serious and important defence exercise by making the claim that we are treating Tasmania as an enemy nation. I look directly at the honourable member for Braddon and the honourable member for Bass because I am surprised that they do not know better. Mr Groom —You have a look at the map. Mr SCHOLES —I have the map, and I will subsequently table it. I think I should inform the House that the island which was designated as Orangeland was an inverted map of Tasmania. It is not, as the hillbillies from Tasmania seem to claim, the target of Kangaroo 83 and it is not, as has been firmly stated by honourable members from Tasmania, off the north-west coast of Australia. It is in fact placed in the Coral Sea, which is a different location. There seems to be something wrong with their geography, and their dates are not so hot, either. They are not really good on dates. Mr Goodluck —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I cannot understand the answer. Would you ask the Minister- Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The Chair cannot be responsible for the honourable member's comprehension. Mr SCHOLES —In order to give the House a clear example of where the Tasmanian members stand in this matter about governments' attacks on Tasmania, I think I should explain where Orangeland is because they obviously do not know the difference between the Coral Sea and the sea to the north-west of Australia. They also do not know the difference between 1981 and 1983 and who was in government in 1981. Perhaps the honourable member for Bass, who was the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence at the time, could tell his colleagues, if they do not already know, that the enemy nation of Orange land was the object of the 1981 exercise when the honourable gentleman was a Minister in the Government that planned the exercise. The honourable member for Braddon, who has a totally false notice on the Notice Paper, was a recently sacked Minister who would have been aware of those plans. Mr Speaker, I table the official map of the exercise which shows the locations because obviously honourable members from Tasmania do not know the difference between east and west. Mr Peacock —Minister, did the accomplished aviator-cum-Attorney-General draw that map? Mr SCHOLES —With due respect, if the map is in error or in any way deficient it is because of the previous Government that was in power and its incompetent Ministers who did not know the difference between the island they were attacking then and the island which is being attacked now. They did not even know which side of Australia it was on. Mr EWEN CAMERON —Is the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware of the current threat being posed to Australian wheat crops by the disease stripe rust? Is he also aware that the chemical company Bayer Australia Ltd has made provision to import sufficient fungicide to spray some 400,000 hectares of endangered crops? Does he realise that the Australian Workers Union this morning placed a ban on Bayer Australia in support of a $90 a week penalty pay claim? In light of the obvious implications of such an action for the success or failure of a large part of the nation's wheat crop and our export earnings potential, what is the Government doing to ensure that Bayer Australia is able to handle these vital supplies of chemical without delay? Mr WILLIS —I am not aware of the situation the honourable member described, which he said occurred only this morning. I certainly have not been apprised of it until now. On the general matter of claims, as a result of the Australian Council of Trade Unions Congress a couple of sectional claims which were being pursued have been dropped, in particular one at Albright and Wilson (Australia) Ltd by chemical workers in Melbourne, and one by workers at Australian Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd in Sydney. I think the general attitude of the trade union movement now is very much one of complete support for the centralised wages system. That wages system is one which has their confidence, and if the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission gives a decision in line with the 4.3 per cent claim I am sure it will be adhered to. I take this opportunity to advise the House that the national wage decision will be given on Friday at 10.30 a.m. Finally, in relation to the honourable member's question, I will investigate the matters he has raised with me and give him a response privately later on. Mr BALDWIN —I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he has seen a report appearing in the Sydney Morning Herald of 19 September of United States President Ronald Reagan's weekly radio address in which he is reported to have said: The key lesson of the Korean airliner incident was that the United States must continue its military buildup and prepare for a long ideological struggle with the Soviet Union. Does the Australian Government agree with this assessment? Mr HAYDEN —I have not seen the report referred to by the honourable member. However, in general terms we view with some apprehension the continuing build-up of tension between the two super powers. Incidents in recent times which were cause for unanimous expressions of concern and condemnation in this Parliament have obviously added to that environment of tension. We were impressed by the measured and restrained way in which the President of the United States of America responded to that situation. More generally, this Government is concerned about the implications of the arms race, both conventional and nuclear . As I have outlined in this place and elsewhere on previous occasions and therefore need not go into in detail again today, we have taken a number of initiatives, most particularly in appointing a full time Ambassador for Disarmament whose beneficial role is already quite evident. I hope soon to be able to announce the details of a peace research institute which we expect to have established at the Australian National University. At the forthcoming General Assembly of the United Nations I will make references, among other comments, to our concern on this matter. There are sobering aspects to the staggering arms race with all of its destabilising implications which we witness today. On current estimates the world will spend around $700,000m on armaments this year alone. That is more than the entire income of 1,500 million people living in the 50 poorest countries. It would be more than enough to pay off the entire debt of the Third World, currently around $600,000m. It represents around 7 per cent of global output, or roughly the same proportion of global output produced by the 340 million people living in Latin America or the 1,300 million living in Africa and South Asia. The cost of a single modern fighter plane could pay for inoculation of three million children against major childhood diseases in developing countries. The cost of one nuclear submarine and its missiles could provide 100, 000 years of nursing care for old people. As a more specific reference to the implications of the nuclear arms race, I point out that the total number of nuclear warheads in the world today may well exceed 50,000. The total strength of present nuclear arsenals seems likely to be equivalent to about one million Hiroshima bombs; that is, some 13,000 million tonnes of TNT, or more than three tonnes of TNT for every man, woman and child on earth. Each United States Trident nuclear submarine will carry the equivalent of 1,500 Hiroshima bombs-and the Hiroshima bomb alone was responsible for killing 65,000 people. Mr Anthony —Do you support Reagan's statement or not? Mr HAYDEN —I do not support the arms race if it is credible-- Mr Anthony —Do you support the statement, that is what he asked? Mr HAYDEN —I do not support the arms race if it is an incitement to an escalation of this build-up. While the Leader of the National Party frequently disagrees with the Leader of the Opposition on contemporary matters, I do not know whether or not he is prepared to disagree with him on this matter as I know that he happens to agree with my views. Mr Anthony —I asked you a question. Why don't you answer it? The Americans want to know. Mr HAYDEN —Doug, I will go home and ask Dallas. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. Obviously the Minister wants to go home. I call the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Mr HAYDEN —Mr Speaker, I think that is too good a finish to spoil with further comment. Mr TUCKEY —Is the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, a director of the Parramatta Police Citizens and Boys Club, a sport and recreation club? Is he aware of the charges laid against a former office holder of that club? Is this the same person whom the Minister defended against allegations of embezzlement during the grievance debate in this House on 24 September 1981? If so, does the Minister now consider that his directorship represents a conflict of interest with his ministerial responsibilities? Does he still stand by his speech of 24 September 1981? Mr JOHN BROWN —I think that is about the level of a question we would expect from the member. I can answer with frankness every issue that he has canvassed. I am a very proud director of that very important establishment within my electorate which does an extraordinary amount of good work for young people. I did stand up in this House and defend the supervisor of that club. I defended him on the grounds of a report that had been issued by the internal audit section of the New South Wales Police Force which found him innocent of all charges. Subsequent to that more evidence has become available. Apparently he has been charged with certain offences. I will withhold my judgment on that until those charges are heard. On the subject of the defence of Sergeant Jones I point out that, if the honourable member had bothered to read that grievance debate, he would have noted that I was defending Sergeant Jones against charges by the Press based on a speech made in the upper House in New South Wales by a very famous character assassin, Mr Derek Freeman. I think all honourable members opposite who are associated with that man politically ought to be ashamed of his record. Those charges were made prior to the charges being heard by the police. I offer no apologies whatsoever for my support of Sergeant Jones in terms of the excellent work that he has done over many years as a director of that police boys club. In fact I mentioned at that time that he was considered a hero in his own time. That is correct, because his work for the young people of Parramatta is absolutely outstanding. That that might well be nullified by subsequent events late in his career is a matter for some regret. But I do not resile in any way from the defence that I offered at that time for Sergeant Jones. I am still a director of that police boys club and I will continue to remain a director. Mr CHARLES —I draw the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a situation that is occurring in Zimbabwe. Recently, six white Air Force officers in that country were detained and tried for treason. However, they were acquitted of all charges. Later they were redetained without the due processes of law taking effect. I am also informed that, since then, three officers have been released. What is-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is starting to give too much information. He should get to the point of his question. Mr CHARLES —I am about to do that, Mr Speaker. I ask: What is the position of the other three white Air Force officers? What action is the Australian Government taking in this case? Mr HAYDEN —This is a matter of very great concern to the Government. The previous Government was associated very closely with developments which led to Zimbabwe's independence. The initiatives of the leader of that Government, Mr Fraser, and the respective Foreign Ministers were applauded by the Australian Labor Party, then in opposition, and generally by the community. Therefore we have more than a passing interest in developments within Zimbabwe. Quite clearly, in the commitments then made and the general support given by all parties in this Parliament and by the community generally, is the expression, implicitly at least, of some sort of endorsement or commitment to the future of that country. Some few weeks ago, when this matter was first publicised-that is, after the six Air Force officers were charged and acquitted but then re-detained without the due processes of law being applied-this Government's concern was expressed to government authorities in Zimbabwe. Since then three of the officers have been released. Three have remained in detention without any indication that the due processes of law that should be properly applied would be pursued. Of course , we maintain a consistent monitoring of developments on this matter. But I put it on record that it is an issue that causes us very great concern indeed. I have discussed it with the Prime Minister. He shares my concern and has asked me to make it clear that this clearly is a concern of the Government. Mr Peacock —It is. Mr HAYDEN —I am sure, from the comment of the Leader of the Opposition, that it is a concern which is endorsed by the Opposition. The record would be unbalanced if I did not add that we are equally concerned about a reasonably large number of black Zimbabwean people who have been detained in similar circumstances-that is, political detention-in their case without the due processes of law being followed. As the occasion proves appropriate we will be expressing further concern on this matter. We should not be under any illusion that these comments will be missed in appropriate quarters. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Defence) —Pursuant to section 147 of the Defence Act 1903, I present the annual report on the Royal Military College of Australia for 1982. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of the House I present a statement on issues from the Advance to the Minister for Finance for August 1983. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr BARRY JONES —I do. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister may proceed. Mr BARRY JONES —In a Press release yesterday put out by the Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Anthony), the following statements appeared: Following a statement in Parliament on ANAHL by the Minister for Science and Technology on 6 September, I made an urgent inspection of the ANAHL complex at Geelong. My inspection and my later close examination of the Minister's statement and the issues involved have horrified me. I can only believe that Mr Jones is taking part in a deliberate campaign to sabotage this vital facility and to discredit the way in which the CSIRO has executed its development. In the course of his part in this campaign, he has made serious misrepresentations to the Parliament, ignored the advice of his highest scientific advisers, and is in serious danger of exposing some of Australia's most important industries, as well as Australians themselves, to grave risks. The Opposition will be pursuing this most serious matter in the Parliament this week with the greatest possible vigour. It believes the actions of Mr Jones must be brought- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister has received the call to explain where he has been personally misrepresented. He should confine himself to those misrepresentations and not the opinions of the Opposition that arise from it. Mr BARRY JONES —Mr Speaker, this is the nature of the misrepresentation. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I am quite able to comprehend English. The Minister is including the argument of the Leader of the National Party in the Press release. He is seeking to correct where he has been personally misrepresented. I ask him to come to that point. Mr BARRY JONES —Mr Speaker, with respect, given that the members of the Parliament will not understand what the allegations are, I simply make the point that I deny categorically the allegations made, whether known or unknown. My concern as Minister for Science and Technology is to ensure that ANAHL performs the widest possible range of appropriate functions as soon as practicable and at reasonable cost. The Chairman of CSIRO requested me in writing to set up a ministerial committee to recommend future policies on ANAHL as a matter of urgency. As the Chairman said in his Press release-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister is not entitled to debate the matter. He has stated that he has been personally misrepresented. He must correct that misrepresentation. The material he is giving us at the moment is not a matter of personal misrepresentation. Mr BARRY JONES —I simply say that I deny categorically the allegations made. Report and Ministerial Statement Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —Pursuant to section 9 (1) (c) of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981, I present the House Human Rights Commission Report No. 6: 'The Observance of Human Rights at the Villawood Immigration Detention Centre'. I seek leave to make a statement on the report. Leave granted. Mr WEST —I thank the House. Honourable members may recall that following receipt of a number of complaints concerning possible infringements of human rights at the Immigration Detention Centre at Villawood, the Human Rights Commission decided in December 1982 to hold a public inquiry into the conditions under which prohibited immigrants and deportees were being held at the Detention Centre. The Human Rights Commission has concluded its inquiry and a copy of its report will also be tabled by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in the Senate today. First, I emphasise that the task of ordering the detention and deportation of non-citizens is among the more unpleasant of my responsibilities. While accepting the necessity for these controls, I have directed that the task of apprehending and removing illegal immigrants must be performed with sensitivity. These people have not, in general, been convicted of any offence and they should not be subject to conditions of arrest or detention, which would be inappropriate even for convicted criminals. For this reason, I welcome the report of the Human Rights Commission and, in general, support its recommendations. I should mention that one of my first actions as Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs was to undertake a visit to the Villawood Detention Centre. I was , to say the least, very much distressed and disturbed to witness the conditions under which people were being detained there. Years of neglect by the previous Government and a shortage of custodial staff had resulted in this situation and clearly no overnight solutions could be found to solve completely the problems at the Centre. However, following the visit, I immediately directed that a number of improvements be made. Many of these improvements are incorporated in the recommendations of the Human Rights Commission. I therefore propose to outline the main recommendations of the Human Rights Commission and what has already been done following my directions under the main headings of Privacy, Legal and Access Rights of Detainees, Visitors, Messages, Property and Valuables , Recreation Needs and Welfare. Privacy The Commission recommended a reduction in closed circuit television surveillance by the removal of cameras from internal areas thus concentrating surveillance on the external boundaries of the Centre. Cameras have already been removed from some areas and privacy has been improved in other areas by the erection of screens. The remaining internal surveillance will be reduced as soon as practicable having regard to the need to ensure the safety of both detainees and staff. Rights of detainees A number of recommendations relate to procedures for ensuring that detainees and their families are informed adequately of their rights and have access to legal counsel and to grievance machinery. As a result of my first visit to the Centre, much has already been achieved in this area. A pamphlet, translated into 36 languages, setting out access to legal and consular advice is being distributed to detainees; another on the rules of immigration detention centres, currently being developed in Melbourne, will be adapted for Villawood and be available in due course. Interpreter facilities are available to detainees through the telephone interpreter service. On-site interpreters are now being used when necessary. Legal aid solicitors are visiting the Centre regularly. Those detainees who prefer a private solicitor of their choice can have access to such a solicitor. As to grievance machinery, detainees are made aware that they can consult either the welfare officer or the manager. Both these people were recently stationed at the Centre at my request. If any grievance remains unresolved, detainees have a statutory right of access to the Commonwealth Ombudsman. If complaints are against police officers, there are statutory mechanisms and procedures of which detainees are made aware. Visitors Several recommendations relate to visitors, including longer visiting hours, the lengths of individual visits, provision for contact visits and procedures for the issue of visitor passes. Visiting hours have been increased to six hours per day. The length of time individual visitors can stay is regulated according to the number of visitors who are waiting to see the same detainee. The very large number of visitors has at times overtaxed the available space as well as the staff available. Building alterations are already planned, but some limitations on visitors, especially contact visits, will remain until the proposed administrative building is completed. A review is being made of the arrangements for controlling visitor access through the system of passes. There has been some relaxation of the rules relating to gifts handed over by visitors to detainees, but the Commission agrees that some control is required to ensure that gifts posing a security problem do not enter the Detention Centre. Messages Some of the recommendations propose improved procedures for the receipt and despatch of mail, messages, phone calls and for the notation of occurrences affecting detainees. Detainees are requested to open inward mail in the presence of a custodial officer to ensure that no contraband enters the Centre. Arrangements to permit detainees to post outward mail directly into a sealed mailbox are under discussion with Australia Post. A number of practical difficulties are associated with the Commission's recommendation to have a pay phone installed at the Centre. Until these are resolved, detainees will continue to have access to telephones at Commonwealth expense. Access to occurrence and message books poses practical difficulties of preserving the privacy of detainees' messages and circumstances. Property and valuables Several recommendations refer to arrangements for the storage of and access to property and valuables. Personal lockers are being obtained to enable detainees to keep personal possessions, including valuables. Recreation needs The Commission recommended a number of steps to improve recreational facilities at the Centre. As a result of my visit earlier this year, the Centre has been provided with a wide range of indoor and outdoor recreational material, culturally diverse games, exercise equipment, a variety of newspapers, magazines and books in a number of languages. Welfare The appointment of a welfare officer to the Centre has brought about major changes. The welfare officer is responsible for ensuring that detainees are aware of their rights, that all due access is provided to legal and consular assistance, that the general welfare needs of detainees and any specific needs of individuals are met, including access to clergy for religious observances and access to medical treatment. I further directed that, as a matter of general policy, my Department is not to place in detention centres women known to be in the advanced stages of pregnancy, and children, for whom the Centre's facilities are clearly inadequate. Most of these improvements were initiated by me before the Human Rights Commission lodged its report, but the need for them was reiterated by the Commission. However, a number of matters remain of concern, both to me and the Commission-for example, limitations on contact visits, lack of access by detainees to sleeping quarters outside the silent hours, inability to remove all internal television surveillance and, most importantly, the continuing closure of the women's wing, except for sleeping. These problems are due to some extent to restrictions imposed by lack of space in an outmoded building, more seriously by an extreme shortage of custodial staff, especially female officers, and, most importantly, by reluctance to adopt progressive social reform. I believe that all of these are a legacy of the previous Administration. As the Commission has commented, many of the difficulties have arisen from a sharing of responsibilities between the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and the Australian Federal Police. The Commission has recommended that, in order to ensure clear lines of responsibility, control and the protection of human rights of each detainee, the administrative functioning of the centre should eventually be transferred to one responsible department. It suggests that , in the long run, the requirements of the United Nation's minimum standard rules for the treatment of detainees would be better met by the development of a separate custodial service within that responsible department. Honourable members will recall that, in May this year I outlined to the Parliament various amendments to the Migration Act specifically dealing with criminal deportation. At the time, I informed the House that the Migration Act would remain under continuing review. Among the issues to be reviewed are the status of prohibited non-citizens who have no serious criminal record, the provisions relating to search, arrest, custody, and legal and human rights while in detention. Honourable members may also be aware that the Human Rights Commission is currently calling for submissions for a report on the Migration Act. This report will no doubt address all of these issues. I am waiting to consider its findings and recommendations before proposing any further amendments to the Migration Act. But I want to assure the House that I am very much aware of the need to do so. During my short term of office, and the short term of office of this Government, I have set in progress some improvements. I admit that much remains to be done. I can assure the House that it will be done. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —by leave-I concede across party lines that when I read the report of the Human Rights Commission and the recommendations contained therein on pages 22 to 24 I was emotionally moved and, indeed, shocked. I commend the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) on the way in which he has responded to the problems at the Villawood Detention Centre and on the way he has handled his statement in the House today. I say on behalf of the Opposition that we agree with practically everything the Minister has said in his statement . Again, on behalf of the Opposition, I offer whatever assistance and resources we can provide, if the Minister is prepared to meet us on a bipartisan basis, in relation to such things as the documentation, the pamphlet, and the rules to which he adverted in his statement. I commend the Minister for the basic non-personification in his statement. He referred, as he was entitled to do, to the previous Government. I appreciate the fact that the Minister did not seek in his statement to pin personal responsibility on previous Ministers. I am sure the Minister would be prepared to let me say something on behalf of the three previous Ministers whom I know. The honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) was not the responsible Minister from 1979 onwards. I have spoken to the former Minister, the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee), and I have shown him the report. I have his authority to tell the House that he, too, is shocked by what this report has brought out. He wishes to make it quite clear that he would neither acquiesce in , nor approve of, such things. Indeed, the honourable member's reputation on human rights issues generally would stand him in good stead because I think he is regarded on both sides of the House as a very sincere and genuine man with a very genuine commitment to human rights. I have not been able to speak to the former member for Petrie. I do know-I think the Minister would be aware of this- that before the change of government the former member for Petrie was aware of the Human Rights Commission inquiry and had started to take some steps. But with the change of government it must be acknowledged-I would not, in my view, be acting honourably if I did not so acknowledge-that within days of his appointment the present Minister went to Villawood. He immediately made public statements expressing his shock and concern as to what he had observed at Villawood. He immediately directed that certain things be done and those things have been done. I see that the report of the Human Rights Commission went to the then Acting Attorney-General, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon. Lionel Bowen, on 20 June last. It is clear from the Minister's statement that the Government has not sat on the report, but has moved in the directions recommended by the Human Rights Commission. In closing, I again commend the Minister. I believe that we as a Parliament will be able to handle matters such as this much better if we adopt the approach which the Minister has adopted; of saying: 'There is the problem; there is what must be done and we will do it'. I assure the House and the people of Australia that the Opposition will support in every respect moves by this Government to improve the human rights situation of people such as those who are awaiting deportation. The Minister has pointed out that the overwhelming majority have not been convicted of anything and are not to be treated as criminals or to be regarded as less than human. It is on that basis and with a spirit of co- operation that I hope I demonstrate to the Minister that there are people on this side of the House who share the concerns he has had in relation to Villawood. We offer him every support on a non-political and totally bipartisan basis to ensure that whatever happened in the past will not happen again. Report and Ministerial Statement Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Committee of Review of the Role and Functions of the National Capital Development Commission. I seek leave to make a statement concerning the report. Leave Granted. Mr UREN —I table for the information of honourable members the Report of the Committee of Review of the National Capital Development Commission. The Committee was appointed on 27 July 1982 by the then Minister for the Capital Territory to conduct a review of the National Capital Development Commission. The appointed members of the Committee were Mr George M. White, Architect of the Capitol, Washington, DC, Professor Max Neutze, Director, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University, and Emeritus Professor Sir Rupert Myers, KBE, formerly Vice-Chancellor and Principal, University of New South Wales. I wish to place on public record my appreciation of the Committee's work and my high regard for its report. The Committee was required to report on- (a) the appropriate balance of responsibility between the public and private sectors; (b) the responsibilities appropriate to the NCDC; (c) the appropriate allocation of functions between the NCDC and the then Department of the Capital Territory; (d) the extent of regulation of land use and design and siting; (e) any special planning considerations which should apply to Canberra because of its role as the national capital and seat of government, and having regard to the fact that all land is owned by the Commonwealth and developed and administered under the leasehold system. In the course of its inquiries, the Committee considered over 100 written submissions from organisations and individuals and conducted public hearings between September 1982 and March 1983. Informal discussions were also held with a number of people who have special knowledge and experience in relevant areas. The change of government took place before the Committee finalised its report. The Committee was thus able to take into account the stated policy objective of this Government, as clearly articulated in the Governor-General's Speech of 21 April, that there be a transition to self-government in the Australian Capital Territory. I have already taken preparatory action fo the establishment of a task force to implement self-government in the Australian Capital Territory. I shall make an announcement on that in due course. The Committee's report and the report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission's inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances will also bear on the Government's decisions on self- government in the Australian Capital Territory. The Committee's recommendations cover matters relating to land use and planning , the physical, social and economic development of Canberra and urban administration in the Australian Capital Territory. The principal recommendation in the report is that the planning and development of Canberra should remain the responsibility of a single organisation; and that, subject to significant changes to the structure, functions and operating style of the National Capital Development Commission, a restructured Commission should continue to pay a broad and major role in planning and developing the national capital. The Committee recommends against the introduction of a statutory planning system similar to those which apply in the States. Instead, a series of recommendations aimed at achieving more open decision making, participation and accountability in the planning process were made. In this connection a wider role was proposed for the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. In the area of land administration the Committee recommends that for the continuing protection of the national interest in the national capital, land ownership and control should remain a Commonwealth responsibility. The Committee further recommends that the estate management function should be integrated with the planning and development functions under the control of a restructured Commission. Some of the Committee's recommendations are far-reaching with implications outside the Australian Capital Territory, for instance that the restructured Commission should be empowered and directed to consider regional matters and to undertake regional planning studies when so required. Others are more detailed and relate to administrative and procedural matters. Others still raise fundamental policy questions such as the relationship between the Minister and the restructured Commission. These are all matters for careful consideration by the Government. I believe also that the citizens of the Australian Capital Territory should be given every opportunity to exercise their democratic rights, and I am taking steps to encourage wide consideration and public comment on this report. I believe that the House of Assembly, as elected representatives of the people of this Territory, should have a central role and provide a focus for public comment and representations to the Government. There are, however, three matters central to the Committee's report on which I believe that the Government must now take a position to limit uncertainty and delineate debate. The first of these arises from recommendation 1, that, subject to changes to the structure, functions and operating style of the National Capital Development Commission recomended in the report, a restructured Commission should continue to play a broad and major role in planning and developing the national capital. I wish to make it clear that the continued existence of the National Capital Development Commission is not being questioned , nor was it an issue contained in the White Committee's terms of reference. What the Government is looking for, however, is public comment on the scope and effectiveness of the Commission's powers, their appropriateness in the light of future changes-such as the advent of self-government-and the various ways in which the Commission might be restructured in the light of a changed role. These are the far-reaching issues on which the White Committee has made recommendations and it is important from the Government's viewpoint that they be tested by public debate. The second arises from recommendation 35, that, for the continuing protection of the national interest in the national capital, land ownership and control should remain as primarily Commonwealth responsibilities with the Australian Capital Territory community participating as a partner through its representation on the restructured Commission. Without commitment to the specific nature of the restructured Commission, the Government accepts the thrust of this recommendation that land ownership and control and land servicing in the Australian Capital Territory will remain as primarily Commonwealth responsibilities. The third arises from recommendation 50, that national capital open space should remain a Commonwealth responsibility in the event of self- government for the Australian Capital Territory. The Government accepts this recommendation in principle. National capital open space does not include local playing fields, parks or local open space areas. It refers mainly to the river corridors, hill areas and the distant natural landscape and water catchment areas. There will, however, need to be a clear definition of the actual areas involved and in arriving at this definition it will be necessary to consult the local community. The Government has not reached a position on the Committee's other recommendations. As I have already indicated, there must be a process of public debate before final conclusions are reached. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas) —by leave-This is a very important report for Canberra. It is a report dealing with Canberra's planning and its future. It is the report of the Committee of Review of the Role and Functions of the National Capital Development Commission, known as the White Committee report. Last evening the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) was good enough to make a copy of the report available to me. I thank him for that courtesy as I did very much appreciate it. It certainly gave me the opportunity to examine what is a very lengthy document and I hope it makes the comments I intend to make today on the report and the Minister's statement a little more meaningful than they otherwise would have been. I join the Minister in thanking the Committee for the task it has undertaken. It was a very distinguished group of people. The appointed members were Mr George White, Architect of the Capitol, Washington, DC; Max Neutze, Director of the Research School of Social Sciences of the Australian National University; and Emeritus Professor Sir Rupert Myers, KBE, former Vice-Chancellor and Principal of the University of New South Wales. The two last mentioned gentlemen are known to us as very distinguished Australians. I want to reiterate some comments I have made before, mainly in the Press, in relation to the delay in the tabling of this report. The report has been in the Minister's hands since July. When I was first told of the fact that the Minister had the report in his hands I was asked whether I was going to call for its immediate release. I said: 'No, he needs a reasonable time to look at it and examine it and to be able to consider the way in which it ought to be handled'. But after a time I became somewhat alarmed that the report had been in the hands of a number of people in the National Capital Development Commission and in the hands of officers of the Minister's own Department, and there were suggestions that recommendations were becoming widely known. I was concerned about that. I was concerned particularly at the way in which the matter was being handled because the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), had made the report of the Task Force Inquiry into A.C.T. Health Services, the Molony report, available before Parliament resumed in order that there could be public comment on it. I was particularly concerned that the Minister when he tabled the report may attempt to foreclose public discussion in some areas. Of course, that is what the Minister has done today. He has brought forward Government comment and recommendations on three of the recommendations in the review. I was particularly concerned at this, and in my Press statement I had this to say: The only assumption I can make from the Minister's reticence in tabling the report is that he is seeking time for a major address rather than simply tabling the report for public comment. I suspect now that he was seeking time to get the concurrence of his colleagues to some of the recommendations of the review. I think this is a most inappropriate way to handle a report of this sort, and it will be seen as such by the people of the Australian Capital Territory. The two aspects of the report which will be disappointing to Canberrans, I submit, are firstly that this report is a signpost to the directions the Government might be taking in relation to its development of self-government proposals. The report particularly strengthens the role of the National Capital Development Commission. It adds to its functions. It places all national development functions in the hands of the National Development Commission. There will be no planning role for the House of Assembly in a situation where it assumes some self-government. In fact, the only area of control that the Assembly will have will be over aspects of building designs outside of what one might call the national capital areas. One of the most insidious aspects of this report and of the three decisions that have been taken is, in my view, the limits that the Minister and the Government, by announcing decisions at this time, have put on the task force considering the shape of self-government. They have also put very significant limitations upon the way in which the people of the Australian Capital Territory might be able to comment on this report. Of course, the recommendations in this report also place in the Department of Territories and Local Government some functions for Canberra in order that they might at a later stage be given to the House of Assembly. I want to emphasise that this puts all planning for Canberra into the hands of the National Capital Development Commission. Only one area is effectively left, that is, the expanded parliamentary zone which is envisaged, where the Parliament itself might have a say. I want to make it clear, particularly to those people who have served upon the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, that one of the recommendations of this report effectively guts that Committee, effectively takes away from it any role. The Minister mentioned that the recommendation expands the Committee's role in reviewing policy plans, and of course the review put an emphasis on that. That role has been assumed by the Committee in recent years. It is the way in which the Committee has functioned, although not authorised, because it has used its sanction-that of the veto of road gazettal changes-as the basis for having an influence on planning in the Australian Capital Territory. It has that role now, but the review has recommended that the very little basis upon which it has formed its ability to have a say in relation to the Australian Capital Territory-its veto of road gazettal changes-be removed from it. That would effectively gut the Australian Capital Territory Committee of this Parliament, and I think that needs to be understood. The second point I want to make is that, notwithstanding the Minister's stated objective of encouraging private sector development in Canberra by accepting enhanced NCDC powers in planning and control of all land uses he has given that body the most draconian powers over land use, development and planning anywhere in Australia. The report describes this as estate management. I would like honourable members to have regard to the report and what it means when it talks about estate management. Page 73 of the report states: The term estate management emphasises that Canberra land is owned by a single landlord who must manage the estate as much as a private landlord would. The Committee believes that this emphasis is a useful reminder of the special role of the Government in relation to land in Canberra. Some people in the Australian Capital Territory have been anxious that the Territory might move towards a form of perpetual leasehold. I think that the acceptance of these recommendations effectively puts such proposals very much at risk. The private sector role in Canberra is very important. I should like to emphasise the role of the Canberra Development Board. I have said in public comment I have made before that this important body, headed by a very distinguished Australian, Sir Laurence Muir, has contributed significantly to bring private sector investment to Canberra. Labor Party and Liberal Party members have commented on the success of that Board and on its eminent leadership. It needs to be noted that the report recommends that the National Capital Development Commission is to carry in future the responsibilities that are now carried by the Canberra Development Board and to supervise its functions . According to this report, the Canberra Development Board will have only a delegated responsibility from the National Capital Development Commission. Under the recommendations, the Board is to be restructured and is to be totally dependent upon the National Capital Development Commission for its resources. I think we now understand the reasons why the executive officer of the Canberra Development Board was not re-appointed. Honourable members will understand that the way in which this review has made its recommendations in relation to the Canberra Development Board is an implicit criticism of the Board and the way in which it operates, and I very much regret that. Mr Uren —That is nonsense. That is a disservice to Muir and his colleagues. Mr RUDDOCK —It is implicit because it takes away from the Board any independent existence. I acknowledge the Minister's interjection because I think it is important that Australians know that the Minister very highly regards Sir Laurence Muir and the comments he has made. I hope that when the Minister considers these recommendations he will also have that very outstanding record in mind. The planning recommendations will have some very important effects on the Australian Capital Territory. The National Capital Development Commission will have an expanded role, notwithstanding the criticism of the Commission at public hearings by planners, departments, local representatives and residents of the Australian Capital Territory. It is very commendable that the National Capital Development Commission, through the very effective rear-guard action taken, as I recall, by Commissioner Powell in regard to the review, has been able to obtain for itself this very expanded role. Commissioner Powell appeared three times to meet the criticisms that were being made of the Commission. While the Committee has recommended procedures for planning policy involving public participation, which I very much welcome, these procedures sit very uncomfortably with some of the other representations made by the review. It is suggested that the procedures for planning policy should involve formulation, public notification, public exhibition, public consultation, consideration of objectives, finalisation of plans, adoption and ministerial noting. While those recommendations have been made the functions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal have been very much criticised by the Review because of the way in which that body has made recommendations. The review sees the Administrative Appeals Tribunal as being slow and too formal. It suggests that the Tribunal should be restricted to reviewing only procedural irregularities. Policy matters are largely excluded. While consultative procedures, as I have mentioned, have been provided, no provision is made for third party appeals against land use, lease design, siting , building and valuation decisions. Yet this is an area, as the Minister, being a New South Welshman, would know, where in the States of Australia public demand has been for third party rights to be entertained, for people who are affected by planning decisions to be able to appeal against decisions that are reached, even after the consultative procedures that have been outlined for the NCDC. This is an area that is being highlighted in the Australian Capital Territory now. I suggest that honourable members keep in mind the arguments being raised about town house development proposed for Mugga Way, Red Hill; and, lest it be thought that I am being in some way elitist-- Mr Uren —Don't say that. Mr RUDDOCK —Lest it be said-also the comments of residents of Ginninderra from time to time about possible foreshore development plans. Mrs Kelly —The Minister has fixed that. Mr RUDDOCK —The Minister may have fixed it. But the point I am making is that these recommendations specifically take away the right to third party appeals in the Australian Capital Territory. The prospect of third party appeals, which are being very much sought after in Australia, will have no place in the Australian Capital Territory. I want it to be noted that in planning terms residents of the Australian Capital Territory will have less say after this report is adopted by the Government than most Australians enjoy in local government throughout Australia. The local community is not to have a say in planning matters in the event of self-government. The only element is the power to nominate two out of five representatives on the National Capital Development Commission. Until self- government, these two nominated representatives are to be appointed by the Government-that is, by the Minister. It should be noted that the NCDC is now to perform the dual role of planning and development and what is called estate management. I am not being totally negative in my comments. I see that the Minister is surprised at that statement, but I found some very positive elements in the report. Whilst I shall not produce a comprehensive list, I shall mention some of them. I very much note positively the land use data bank that is being suggested , because this will create certainty, particularly for purchasers of conveyancing situations. The open space emphasis is welcome. While not commenting on the responsibility that has been suggested, which the Government has accepted, I think it is important to recognise that there are open space areas, particularly the hilltop reservations, that require proper management and financing for maintenance. I welcome the proper planing that has been suggested, involved the NCDC in consulting the Commonwealth and its authorities when they endeavour to build their own buildings in the Australian Capital Territory and the suggestion that NCDC concurrence in all proposals will be required. In the light of future energy needs and the growing prospect of a new oil crisis at the end of the 1980s, I am particularly pleased to see the recommendation that there be a re-assessment of the Y plan for Canberra. I also pick up the recommendation that Canberra have a role in planning for the sough- east region of New South Wales. The establishment of a joint steering committee of Commonwealth, State representatives of New South Wales, local government and any territory government is particularly welcome. The recommendation that the NCDC, with the Minister' concurrence, may undertake planning and development outside the Australian Capital Territory is another matter that I see as being quite welcome. Obviously, the Commission had to have a role in planning in New South Wales when the Googong Dam was planned. I think that people would welcome the fact that the Tanzanian Government has sought advice from the NCDC in the planning of its capital and sees the NCDC as an expert body. I should like also very much to applaud the suggestion that the Commonwealth Bank model for resolving conflicts between the NCDC and the Minister be endorsed . The report sets out that the NCDC would, on matters where decisions are required, form a view of the public interest. The Government has ultimate responsibility for determining policy, it suggests. It says that if there is any disagreement, the Minister must give directions to the authority publicly and table them in the Parliament, so that we would all be aware of any disagreements of such major proportion. The report also recommends that an Australian Capital Territory Environment Protection Authority be created to administer Australian Capital Territory environmental legislation, particularly the heritage legislation and that in relation to nature conservation and public parks. The report fails to condemn the lack of water, air and pollution ordinances and ordinances on noise abatement. I should like to note that it will be particularly important in Canberra's future that concern be not only expressed but evidenced in relation to the sort of developments that will affect the Murrumbidgee River, and I emphasise particularly the importance of bringing into Canberra a hazardous chemicals ordinance. Obviously, whilst it may well be timely that we have an Australian Capital Territory Protection Authority, it will be more important that legislation in the areas that I have identified be brought in as quickly as possible. I hope that the Minister has taken those points on note. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The uncertainty and concern in the Australian defence forces resulting from Government decisions affecting service morale, conditions of employment and force capability. 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 SINCLAIR(New England)(3.35) —In the brief period that the present Government has been in office, it has progressively set about placing different emphases on areas of government expenditure. One area that has suffered more than any is that of the defence forces. Of course, it is easy to say, as the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) no doubt will say in a few moments in his explanation to us , that this year there is to be a 4 per cent real increase in defence funding. In a few moments I hope to address that matter. But I think that what we need to recognise is that the terms of this matter of public importance-namely, the uncertainty and concern in the Australian defence forces resulting from Government decisions affecting service morale, conditions of employment and force capability-are all a deliberate product of the actions of this Government and the present Minister. There is little doubt that over the course of the last few months, uncertainty has certainly been generated because of the 'on again, off again' approach of the Minister and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on the question of DFRDB, defence forces rehabilitation and defence benefits, commutation. There is equally little doubt that the fact that the Services because of their premature retirement, have uniquely different terms and conditions of service from those of almost every other sector of this community, is one that the Minister and the Treasurer say they accept but, in the next moment, say they are not prepared to do anything about. The result is that a very large percentage of servicemen, as we all know, retire before the age of 55, yet the Government in that much flaunted modification to the changed tax arrangement for DFRDB, decided that those who retired before the age of 55 would still bear that full 30 per cent of tax on commuted superannuation. It is equally true that the very nature of the effect of DFRDB changes on the servicemen concerned is completely contrary to the firm undertakings given by the man who sits at the table as the Minister for Defence, on 3 March, only two days before the 5 March election, when he saw fit to send a telex around the defence installations of Australia telling every serviceman that in no circumstances would the Australian Labor Party in government prejudice the entitlement of servicemen to DFRDB. Then he had the hide to come into this place and say: 'But we did not do that; it was the Treasurer. The tax changes that are imposed in the course of those modifications affect every citizen of this country'. That might be so, but as far as servicemen are concerned, they operate under different terms and conditions of employment from those of everyone else, and secondly, they certainly had a right to expect that the man who is the Minister would do something to honour that undertaking. Although that undertaking, he well says, affected the terms and conditions of DFRDB and not the tax imposed on it, the impact on the individuals concerned is nonetheless most severe, most selective and most detrimental to what they had a reasonable right to expect. As if that were not bad enough, as in a number of other instances about which I want to talk shortly, the Minister then says: 'Don't worry, boys and girls; we are going to have a re-examination of DFRDB'. That has really only heaped coals on the fires of Newcastle, for the product of an inquiry into DFRDB is not the certainty that, as the Minister might well say at some time in the House or in a public place: 'If there is to be a change, we shall ensure that the conditions are no worse than they were, in net benefit, to servicemen before 5 March'. He has made no such statement. What he has done is to create complete uncertainty as to the character of the changes that will follow this inquiry into defence forces rehabilitiation and defence benefits. I believe that the result of those two changes alone has been the principal catalyst behind what we were told only this week and the week before is leading to increasing rates of premature resignations in the services. If that were not bad enough, there have been a number of other direct attacks on the terms and conditions of employment of this particularly vulnerable section of the Australian Public Service. It is incredible. We have a party that, in one theatre, seems to be listening to the radical cries of the Carmichaels and the Halfpennys of this world- Mr Hodgman —The marxist-leninists. Mr SINCLAIR —As my colleague says, the marxist-leninist philosophers of the trade union movement, who have greater influence on this Government than any of those responsible servicemen whose loyalty and adherence to duty and whose obligations deny them the voice that the more radical left wing trade unions assert as being a matter of right. The sad part about it is that we all know that one of the much flaunted features of the economic policy of the Australian Labor Party is its prices and wages accord. Let us look at the prices and wages accord for servicemen. Since the Labor Party has come to government it has meant a progressive reduction in a serious number of matters affecting their conditions of employment. On top of that we have already the announcement of a number of reductions in numbers of people in the services. Amongst those reductions in numbers we have selectively the fact that the people who will be most hurt will be the apprentices and those who could well have received training which would have enabled them to go into the civilian work force and make a positive contribution to better their own lifestyle and to make a contribution to our society. The Government has deliberately affected numbers. Apparently it is going to do that to an even greater degree. Whether or not that is so, we need to recognise that the Government has also announced that it is going to reduce the numbers in the reserves. Of course, the Government has removed the tax exemption for serving personnel in the reserves. I want to go down the track to look at those decisions and the impact of them. I think it might be worth while to start by looking at what seem to be the totally contradictory statements of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) in their acceptance of these matters. We can look at the statement by the Prime Minister at the National Press Club in Washington which was reported in the Canberra Times of 17 June. In that statement he accepted that the most effective contribution by Australia to global defence considerations would be, he said: . . . by ensuring that we- That is, Australia- accept an appropriate burden in our own area in respect of any foreseeable threats that may arise . . . in the future. We had the statement on ANZUS made by the Foreign Minister in the House only about three days ago in which he said: . . . agreement was explicitly reached as to Australia's prime defence role, namely, as one of building our self-defence capability within our regional context . . . We have the Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister both saying: 'Sure, we have to build up our defence forces'. The Foreign Minister has said that he believes it is necessary that we have an independent naval patrol in the Indian Ocean. That would be a wonderful achievement. We would all be delighted to see us be able to do that. But if we are going to undertake that sort of responsibility we can do so only if the sinews of financial support, manpower, operating costs and equipment are available to the forces. The deliberate product of this Government 's Budget is to ensure that the funds will not be available. It is true that the provision of adequate funds for defence forces is a matter of extreme difficulty. There are inordinate expenses in a number of areas. For example, we all accept that the FA18 purchase has escalated in price not because of any action of the Australian Government, officials or personnel but because of the changing price relativity of the United States dollar to the Australian dollar, the changing inflation product and the impact that has made on that single purchase. but it is no use the Government looking only at those items of defence equipment and raising its hands in horror. In looking at the funds provided we need to recognise the content of the Budget and see its implications for the future. While I want to talk about these things in another debate in this place, I think it is essential, if we are having a look at these three aspects of direct and deliberate attack on service capability by the Government, to wit decisions affecting morale, conditions of employment and force capability, that we realise that the Government said in the Budget that it has provided a real 4 per cent growth. Mind you, if one looks at the Budget Papers one sees that they show 2.2 per cent. If one goes through the Budget one will see that that is all predicted on inflation being no more than 6.4 per cent over this financial year. Anybody in his right mind would accept that a 6.4 per cent inflationary figure is totally unrealistic. Certainly if the prices and wages accord continues to blow out as it seems to be significantly at the moment, there is absolutely no chance of that figure being achieved. The product of that, therefore, is that there will have to be further reductions. It is also true that there are a number of major items of defence equipment which, in government, we committed the Government to buying because we believed it was necessary to upgrade the technical capability of the Australian Armed Forces. Indeed, that it is necessary so to do is universally accepted. I think it is worthwhile my commenting briefly on several recent articles appearing in the Pacific Defence Reporter. One article was written by Major-General J. D. Stevenson. He referred to the fact that it is essential that the Australian Armed Forces: . . . maintain a high level of expertise in the technological field . . . but this does not require purchase of high performance equipment on a large scale. There can be a 'state of the art' purchase sufficient to maintain technological expertise and capability for expansion in the relevant field when strategic circumstances dictate the necessity. Above all else it is essential that the Government provide enough money within the five-year rolling capital equipment program to ensure that we will be able to expand and that that capital equipment will be available for the future. There will certainly be an absolute necessity to increase the amount of money within the defence vote to maintain and expand our defence equipment in the future. I suspect that the Minister for Defence and I have very many similar objectives in trying to achieve that objective. But I am afraid that it is not sufficient just to have good motivation, for the product within the present defence vote is that a greater sum is committed for the future than in the whole of this year's defence vote. I believe the product is that there will be very serious cuts in the other two components of the defence vote unless something can be done to provide additional money for that purpose. Certainly in the field of manpower and operating costs we see the impact of this Government's actions more than anywhere else. As far as manpower is concerned, it seems that the Government is deliberately setting about reducing the number of trained and well-motivated manpower within the Services. I have mentioned already cuts in numbers in both the permanent and reserve forces which , if they were to occur in the civilian sector, would be roundly condemned by Labor Ministers. Instead, within the Services the Ministers not only say nothing about them but also they advocate them. They are the ones who are implementing them. Certainly, the changes in the reserves will reduce the capability of the Australian reserves to play the role for which they were designed-namely, allowing a reasonable augmentation of our defence capability in the circumstance of a defence threat developing. The problem in the whole field of operating costs is perhaps even more intense. On the presently available figures it seems that the amount of money available is something like 10 per cent greater than the figure for last year. I have no doubt that the Minister will refer to the product of that increase. But he has failed to allow for the fact that a very big percentage of those figures is to cover the real costs in inflationary terms of the fuel and equipment necessary to maintain the level of Service operations. The difficulty is that in the operational field there will in fact be less than a real increase. The inevitable result of that will be that there will be a lower level of activity, as we have already begun to see, in the number of exercises that are being curtailed and the number of steaming and flying hours which are prejudicing the operations of both naval ships and aircraft of the Royal Australian Air Force. However, the one area that I think has been hit as hard as anywhere is the reserves. In the few minutes available to me I want to try to identify three areas of concern. This is, of course, regardless of any changes that I am told the Government is about to introduce to the Australian cadet services within the schools. We all know of the Government's attacks on the educational system. The Minister, before the election, committed the Government to pulling out the cadets. Let us look at the reserves. The overall strength is to be cut by 1,572. We are told that the allocation of permanent forces to reserve and cadet units is to be reduced. The general change in the number of training days from 38.25 to 36 will reduce the level of capability of those who are serving in the reserves. Finally, we have the tax exemptions for persons serving in the reserves which are to be phased out. The product of all this is that the number of personnel serving in the reserves will be reduced because of both the deliberate act of the Government and the lack of incentive to participate. The whole character of the Australian reserves is to encourage people in the work force and in the community to participate and to supplement those who are in the Australian regular services. The numerical reductions will be very serious. The lack of incentive to serve, however, will reduce the whole meaningfulness of the opportunity to make an alternative career, which so many have sought to do over recent years. In the course of the short period in which the Government has been in office it has taken steps which are already reducing Service morale. Conditions of employment, unique amongst this important sector of the work force, have been reduced and are now at a lower level than they were six months ago, while Force capability, because of the lack of provision of adequate funds for the future, will certainly lead to significant difficulties. Sure, this will happen down the line but defence is not something that can be measured in terms of pluses and minuses on day 1. What happens at the end of the long lead time is important. The product of Labor in government, regrettably, in 1983 as it was from 1972 to 1975, is that defence will be called on to pay the price and without doubt Australia's defence forces will be reduced significantly because of the deliberate actions of this Government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Defence)(3.52) —Mr Speaker-- Mr Hodgman —The man who hates Tasmania. Mr SCHOLES —When a man who is so incompetent that he does not know that a government of which he is a Minister is planning an attack on his own State he should not interject, expecially not from another member's seat in the House. I do not think I have heard a poorer and more misleading presentation of a case on defence matters in this House. I think, unfortunately, that it sets the scene; the Opposition's activities will be the same as they were between 1972 and 1975. It is quite clear that the Opposition intends to use any device necessary in order to reduce morale in the defence forces, to mislead the Australian public into believing what is not true and to score cheap political points from the defence debate. I think I should deal first with some of the major assertions which have been made by the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair ). The substance of his remarks, as I understand them, comes from newspaper articles, which are at best unreliable sources of information. He stated categorically that the Government has announced a decision to reduce the number of people in the reserves. I challenge the right honourable member to substantiate that statement. It is untrue. Yet that is the basis of an attack on the defence policies of this country. The number of persons authorised for the Army Reserve when we came to office was 30,000. The authorised strength of the Army Reserve now is 30,000, as set out in the Budget. The number in the Reserve is set at a maximum of 30,000. The authorised strength for recruitment and maintenance of efficient personnel in the Reserve is 30,000. Mr Newman —Orders are being issued in Tasmania today to reduce the strength of every Reserve unit and its hours. What do you say to that? Mr SCHOLES —We can have only one debate at a time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! Honourable members will cease interjecting. Mr Hodgman —What about spy flights over Tasmania? Mr SCHOLES —Perhaps I should sit down while the honourable member makes a fool of himself. The number of reserves in the Navy this year will increase by about 48. That is not a cut. Mr Sinclair —Tell us about the Army Reserve. Mr SCHOLES —I have just said that the authorised strength of the Army Reserve is exactly what it was when the right honourable member's Government left office. The reserves of the Air Force will increase by 390 this year. That does not seem to be a cut. If the right honourable gentleman checks the statement relating to training days that was made in the post-Afghanistan situation he will find that it was stated in this House on that occasion that there would be an increase of two in the number of training days for a period of two years in order to cater for the increase from 24,000 to 30,000 in the number of reserves who would be authorised. As with all elements of the defence forces, because of the low rates of resignation that have taken place and the attractiveness of the additional income to people on low incomes and the unemployed, all sections of the defence forces have been running over their authorised strengths. This has caused a slow down in recruiting because it is not practical for people to be automatically removed from the Force before they have reached the age of retirement. It has caused some difficulties in recruiting establishments. The situation is being redressed. The reserves, similarly, have been over-strength because of greater anticipated inefficiency than did occur with the result that there has to be a slow down in the numbers recruited in order to achieve authorised strengths. I reiterate that there has been no change in the authorised strengths. The basis of the right honourable gentleman's argument is fallacious. He has presupposed in order to make an argument-the old aunt sally activity-that there have been changes to the detriment of the defence forces and decisions made to reinforce them. Again, he relies on the newspapers which are not always accurate. Tax measures on superannuation were changed. I invite the right honourable member to tell me of one occasion when the Government changed a tax measure and exempted the military forces. Mr Sinclair —So they are better off than they were when you came into office? Mr SCHOLES —The right honourable member has presupposed that they will not be better off in order to cause problems in the defence forces and to cause a drop in morale so that his predictions can be proven right at the cost of the defence forces. In the short time I have available let us look at the real record of the so-called defenders of the defence forces opposite. I refer to the fourth report of the Committee of Reference for Defence Force Pay. It stated: In these circumstances it is essential that a review of Defence Force remuneration commence, and be in a position to be completed, by the end of 1982. The Committee of Reference for Defence Force Pay was able to operate under the existing law only by the approval of the Minister. Did the previous Minister, who is now sitting at the table, grant that recommendation? No, he did not. He refused to make the reference so that the review of Defence Force pay which was recommended by the Committee of Reference could take place. He said he refused to make the reference because the current salaries of members of the Defence Force were adequate. They had waited for the Government of members opposite from 1972, when a reference on working conditions was made, to 1980 before their work value cases were reviewed. Because of the cumulative effect of that this Opposition saviour of the defence forces who gutted their conditions when in government said that members of the forces were paid too much and that he would not review the matter. Mr Sinclair —So you reduced them further. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —The Deputy Leader of the National Party was heard in silence. I ask him to extend the same courtesy. Mr SCHOLES —He cannot take it; that is his problem. This man refused to allow the conditions of the defence forces to be examined by the independent tribunal with the result that they were not granted the cost of living increases before the wages freeze was applied. Let me say something else about the saviours of the Defence Force. When they had the opportunity to do something they rejected in this House an amendment which would have ensured the independence of that tribunal to act on behalf of the defence forces in respect of pay and conditions if it considered that they had deteriorated. This Government will introduce legislation into this House to guarantee that an independent tribunal will examine and determine the salaries of members of the defence forces for the first time ever and will provide, at Government expense, a professional advocate to present argument to that tribunal on their behalf. There was no shilly shallying from us in opposition and there will be no running away in government. The Opposition's record is atrocious. For example, submariners were forced almost into mutiny in order to have their allowances paid. They refused to see the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) when he was overseas in Hawaii because of the shabby treatment given to them by the Liberal Government in 1980. That is the type of treatment the Opposition gave servicemen . I think that when the Opposition talks about the pay and conditions or the general situation with regard to the defence forces, it may be a good idea if it forgets about trying to cause problems in the defence forces and stops trying to upset or frighten members of the defence forces for shoddy political gain. Members of the defence forces have not lost anything at this stage with respect to commutation. We have not even seen a Bill go through yet. They have lost nothing with respect to commutation. I suggest that, before the right honourable gentleman goes public and tells people what the newspapers tell him is true, he waits until a decision is made on the matter. When a decision is made it will be announced in plenty of time so that it will not have an effect on any condition of service which exists now other than that which is contained in the decision. A number of other matters have been raised in this debate. The right honourable gentleman delivered a tirade about the proposed reductions in the defence forces that have been announced. A Canberra journalist is not the spokesman for the defence forces. Mr Sinclair —Who said that I was quoting him? Mr SCHOLES —The right honourable gentleman said that they have been announced and he quoted an authority. Every other statement he made came from that source. There are planned reductions in the Navy, which were announced at the time of the tying up of the Melbourne, and which are added to by the discontinuance of fixed wing operations. There are no proposed reductions outside the discontinuance of those operations within the Navy. Mr Sinclair —There will be none? Mr SCHOLES —There are no reductions. The right honourable member is dumb and deaf-I think he is stupid-and he is certainly trying very hard to sabotage the defence of the country. Mr Sinclair —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take exception to that remark and ask the honourable gentleman to withdraw. Mr SCHOLES —I withdraw the remark. I have suspicions about people who deliberately mislead the House in a way which is designed to create a drop in the morale of the defence forces by producing supposition, rumour and lack of fact. I shall return to the point I was making. The right honourable gentleman said that there are planned reductions. In fact if he reads the Budget Papers he will find that the strength of the Air Force is authorised to be increased by 200. There will be a reduction in manpower of 100 in the Army and there will be reductions in the Navy by way of wastage in fixed wing and carrier operations. If the right honourable gentleman reads the Budget Papers and the detailed estimates which have been distributed he will be able to ascertain that no other reductions are planned. I can say that I have not approved and will not approve any forward reductions outside those announced in the Budget for the defence forces. The suppositions on which the right honourable member makes this attack on the Government and the defence forces are totally false, as are most of his other arguments. Mr Groom —What about the hours? Mr SCHOLES —I responded to that matter a moment ago. Mr Newman —Incorrectly. Mr SCHOLES —I suggest that the honourable member reads before he talks. He did not do too well in regard to the Kamaria and Orangeland matters which I think formed the start of this debate. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! I ask that the Minister ignore the interjections. Mr SCHOLES —There are a couple of things that I should say to the House in order to try to repair some of the damage which has been done by the irresponsible presentation made to this Parliament today. The proposal that Defence Force personnel have suffered as a result of the tax on superannuation payments is untrue. Mr Sinclair —Grow up. Mr SCHOLES —I ask the right honourable member to tell me of one person in the defence forces who has lost anything. He said that they have suffered. I said that no person has suffered, and no person should anticipate that anyone will suffer until he hears the decision which has not yet been made. Honourable gentlemen have to get their political points before the truth is known because their points will not stand up when they are examined. I turn now to the matter of reductions because of resignations. The four year average for resignations in the defence forces is 190. Last year it was exceptionally low at 148. It is running below that level this year. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(4.07) —I think the first thing that has to be said in this matter of public importance is that it does not do the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) or the Government much credit to attack the policies of previous governments or Ministers. He should tell the defence forces and the servicemen and women of this country what he is doing for them because he knows as well as I do that in the three Services in Australia there is mass confusion and mounting unhappiness about the conditions of service and about what this Government is doing or intends to do about them. I do not blame the Minister in particular for that. I believe that he does try in Cabinet but the fact is that he gets rolled every time he goes there. Australia's defences are running down. It is not an exaggeration to say that this country is in danger-not today and not tomorrow but in the long term. Once we run down our defences to an unacceptable level it will take years and years to build them up. That rundown will encourage overseas adventurers and land acquisition experiments by countries which might be tempted to try to take something that is now ours. At a time when Australia should be more independent and should be stronger, as announced by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), and playing a more independent role, the plain fact is that we are becoming less independent and more dependent on other countries. For six months there has been a continuous assault on the armed forces of this country. Firstly there was the cancellation of the new aircraft carrier and, secondly, the abolition of the Fleet Air Arm. Now we see, whether the Minister likes it or not or whether it is planned or not, a manpower reduction in the Services. I find it very curious when people argue that it is not really a manpower reduction in the Navy because we have not bought a carrier or because we have abolished the Fleet Air Arm. On that sort of logic, all we need to do, if we are to continue the reduction in manpower, is to decommission a few more ships. Then we could say that we are not reducing manpower that we are reducing the number of ships. There has been a fuel reduction across the board in all the Services, particularly in the Navy. There has been a reduction in the number and scale of exercises. There is to be an assault on the pay of the Army Reserve and all regular servicemen by way of taxation. The proposed review will cause their pay to go down, not up under the Defence Force retirement and death benefits scheme. The loss of confidence and drop in morale in the services is massive. Servicemen are rightly asking: What is the plan for the Services? What is the Government's policy? They are asking themselves: 'My God, what am I doing here?' It is silly for honourable members to say that there is no concern in the defence forces. We have only to look at Air Force retirements in the last month or so. I think it is pertinent to ask: What are the Government's objectives? I must confess that I do not know, and I suspect that the Government itself does not know what are its longer term objectives for the defence forces of this country. I do not know what the objectives are but I can tell the House what is happening . We are losing our capacity to assist any friends and allies we might have in the immediate area. We are becoming a joke amongst the Association of South East Asian Nations countries, ANZUS, and the 36 countries within some 3,000 miles of our shores, most of whom look to us for some assistance in defence matters. It is a joke that the Minister for Foreign Affairs sees ANZUS as no automatic safeguard for Australia. He proposes a more independent role for this country and advocates, as the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) has outlined, an increased presence in the Indian Ocean. What a joke! What will the Government do it with? The Government makes these grand statements: 'We will do this. We will take a more independent stand', but at the same time it runs the Services into the ground. Specialists in all services are leaving. Mark my words, others will follow if the economic situation picks up. If honourable members opposite want to talk about a reduction in manpower they should look at the Budget Papers, where the service projections for manpower are down by 700, I think. The number of civilians, and there are already 21,000 in the Department of Defence, is projected to rise. In many areas our equipment is being run down. In short, our armed forces are becoming a very second rate home- based service without the capacity to intervene or assist any friends overseas. Unfortunately, the problem is that the Australian Labor Party, as it did before, thinks of the armed forces as it might think of a car factory, perhaps. If more people are needed the employer goes out on the streets and gets a few more to put on. Then when he does not want so many he just puts a few more off. I should have thought that, at least after the experience of the last few years, the Labor Party would have learnt that the defence forces cannot be turned on and off like a tap. It has taken something like 40 years to get the Fleet Air Arm to the strength and level of expertise that it had achieved, and this Government abolishes it overnight. Referring to the Army, as of yesterday it has stopped recruiting, despite what the Minister might think. It is not taking any applications at the Brisbane Office. It is reducing manpower. There is a reduction in units and there may be a reduction in bases. What is to happen to the one regular division we have in this country? There has been a review to consider reducing the number of brigades from three to two. As I understand it, that will not happen. By maintaining three brigades, of course, we must inevitably spread out the manpower amongst the fighting units in all those brigades. Already the manpower is dangerously thin. We are developing in the Army not only an Australian home base mentality but a mentality that says: 'Stay in your bases, boys. Do not cause us much trouble. We need active men in the Services but we will not give you enough money to do some decent exercises'. Why should they stay? While our operational deployment force, which is based in Townsville, north Queensland has the bones of an effective force, it has very limited mobility; none within the brigade itself. It has no amphibious capacity and none, or maybe a very limited, parachute ability and a limited number of armoured personnel carriers. We must ask: What can it do and where can it go without a lot of warning and a lot of lead time? Let us consider the Royal Australian Navy. It has no carrier. On that basis it has no capacity to intervene overseas. It has to rely on another service for air cover. There has been a reduction in fuel. In order to save a few paltry dollars the Government has reduced training capacity and mobility, and certainly there is no naval presence in many areas where Australia should be showing a presence. The Kangaroo 83 exercise has been greatly reduced. Referring briefly to the Fleet Air Arm, it has had 40 years of specialised training. Why do we run down and abandon the A4s before we even have the F18 aircraft? There is no logical reason. The trackers could well have gone to a surveillance role. This is a joke in north Queensland, and I have spoken about this matter before. The Government promised to maintain the base at Nowra. What a joke! Sixty people have already gone out of the service and others are waiting to go, not to Australian forces but to forces in the United Kingdom and Canada. As far as I know none has gone to the Air Force or the Army. The Government promised also that there would be no base reduction. Already the number is down by 300 since that promise was made and there are more to go. The parachute unit which is to make up the numbers, is a unit of less than 200 and is not scheduled to go there until 1985. The Deputy Leader of the National Party has already covered the defence force retirement and death benefits scheme. What a joke! Each year 7,500 service men and women leave the Services. Six thousand get no benefits and 1,500 might become eligible for benefits. The lump sum of $40,000 which they need to re- establish themselves in civilian life is under threat of being taxed, or will be taxed. The average service pension is something like $8,000. If this Government is going to assault these special conditions of service of people who must leave the forces before they are 55-a handful would stay on over the age of 55-it must expect that confusion and uncertainty will exist while it is in government. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CROSS(Brisbane)(4.17) —I am sorry that the Opposition has introduced this rather irresponsible matter of public importance because its purpose is to create uncertainty and concern in the Australian defence forces about which the Opposition allegedly expresses concern. Australia is not a military power. We operate against the background- Mr White —You are right there. You got that straight. Mr CROSS —I will be right for a little longer. We operate against the background of no immediate threat with a defence force which has not shown any significant growth over recent times except that, because of economic circumstances, it is over its establishment in civilian employment. At a time when the greatest single problem in Australia is creating jobs and getting the economy going again , nobody in his right mind would suggest that we should have a massive increase in the Defence Force. Improvements in employment have to be made elsewhere, but a successful and efficient defence force is brought about not only by the capacity of the force to retain serving personnel but also by its capacity at the other end to recruit personnel in order that they might be trained. I was interested to hear the comments made by the honourable member for Macpherson (Mr White) about the alleged changes to be made in the Defence Force retirement and death benefits scheme. I remember when the McMahon Government appointed an inquiry into the Defence Force retirement benefit arrangements. The vice-chairman of the Jess Joint Committee was the former member for Melbourne Ports, the Hon. Frank Crean. The report brought down suggested a more generous and more reasonable Defence Force retirement benefits scheme, but that was rejected by the Liberal Government at that time. In 1972 the Australian Labor Party adopted that Defence Force retirement benefit scheme as part of its policy and said that it would implement the scheme if it were elected at the general election at the end of that year. When the Labor Party was elected that scheme was introduced and it has served the Australian Defence Force well since that time. As the Government has now decided that it will have a review of the Defence Force retirement and death benefit scheme the suggestion is around that that review will be an adverse one. Mr White —That would be right, too. Mr CROSS —That is interesting because the honourable member's Party opposed the introduction of this scheme. It made a deliberate decision in Cabinet-nobody is denying it-that this scheme was too generous for the armed forces of Australia. Mr White —Is that what you say now? Mr CROSS —No, I do not say that at all. I did not say it then. The honourable member's side of politics said it then. Mr Sinclair —Why did you reduce its value if you do not think it is too generous ? Mr CROSS —We are not reducing its value. The right honourable member's crystal ball-- Mr Sinclair —You are not going to introduce the legislation? Mr CROSS —Everything comes out in time. I do not want to be distracted from the point I am trying to make, which is that the DFRDB scheme is one which was rejected by the Government of honourable members opposite, one which Labor introduced and one which by now needs reviewing so that it might be improved. Mr White —Improved? Mr CROSS —Improved. Mr Sinclair —It has to be because you have reduced its value. Mr CROSS —Let us look at that in a minute. Another matter raised by the honourable member for McPherson was the abolition of the Fleet Air Arm. I suppose that one ought to ask him: Which Government mothballed the Melbourne? It was his Government that mothballed the Melbourne. Having decided to dispose of Australia's only aircraft carrier, it seems a rather novel proposition still to have the Fleet Air Arm. Mr White —Who took the decision not to buy the carrier? Mr CROSS —The Labor Government took that decision, taking into account documents which were prepared for the previous Liberal Government but because of the election were not the basis of a decision. The honourable member's Government would not have bought that carrier. Mr White —How do you know? Mr CROSS —I am not sure whether the honourable member for McPherson was privy to the Cabinet documents of his Government but his Government would not have bought that carrier. Mr Sinclair —That is not necessarily true. Mr CROSS —I am sorry that the former Minister was unable to persuade his colleagues to make the decision. Given that situation, it is a good thing for the future of the Australian Defence Force and the defence of Australia that that carrier was not bought. It lays open the way for this Government to look at how the best interests of the Forces are to be served in the future. The point has been made that there has been no growth in Defence Force personnel this year , for the very obvious reasons that the Fleet Air Arm is being scaled down and the Canberra bombers are being retired. That would have happened under the previous Government. There is a massive increase of 18.2 per cent in expenditure on defence equipment and stores. We are not claiming any credit for that. Every person who knows anything about defence knows that there is a long lead time in such matters. The defence Budget of this Government is predicated upon decisions that the former Government made in these matters. In the Estimates there is almost $500m for the new tactical fighter. The right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) mentioned that in his speech; it is a fact of life. The Labor Government, on taking office, was in a position not dissimilar to the position of the Labor Government which took office in 1972. At that time we were approaching the end of the Vietnam war. Honourable members will recall that it was Labor that withdrew our forces from Vietnam. They would not have been there very much longer anyway because the Americans were about to withdraw. At that time the equipment programs of the Defence Force were run down in an absolutely scandalous way. Over a period we had to make those decisions which were the basis of some of the expenditure of the former Liberal-National Party Government . For example, we looked at the alternatives for the replacement of the Neptunes out of Townsville. We decided to buy the Orions. Having looked at the Nimrod, the Orion seemed to be a better aircraft. We ordered the new tanks and a substantial amount of eqipment. This is the position that the Defence Force is in today. Over the next couple of years a massive commitment will be made to the new tactical fighter. There is a long lead time in looking at the equipment program for the future. Work is being done on that very carefully to ensure that the most effective decisions are made in the best interests of Australia and for the efficiency of the Defence Force. Much has been made about the alleged effect of the new superannuation arrangements on the DFRDB scheme. All honourable members would be aware that the Minister for Defence, Mr Scholes, has made a submission on that matter which has not yet been determined, but the argument about the taxing of Reserve Force pay, which has been mentioned today, does not take into account the submission to the Committee of Reference for Defence Force Pay which was made at the same time as the Budget was brought down. This matter of public importance is premature. The Labor Government has nothing to be ashamed of. We have been in office for six months. Let the Opposition bring on a matter of public importance in a year or two when our policies and the sound administration of the Minister are better able to be shown. Most of the problems of the Defence Force today-I think particularly of Defence Force housing and accommodation-are the fault of the former Liberal-National Party Government. The purpose of the matter of public importance is to disguise the shocking neglect of Australia's Defence Force over many years by parties which now rightly sit on the Opposition benches. In a year's time it will be a different story. We will be in some measure along the way in that slow process of improving the Defence Force which has always been the lot of Australian Labor Party governments. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The discussion is concluded. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(4.27) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to increase the limits imposed by the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Act 1972 on the amount of levy which may be imposed on the production and sale of whole milk and butter fat, for the purpose of promoting the sale of dairy products in Australia. The actual amount of levy imposed is set by regulation and is known as the operative rate. The proceeds of the levy are paid into the Dairy Produce Sales Promotion Fund from which the Australian Dairy Corporation draws funds for its domestic promotion activities. At present the Act provides that the operative rates of levy for promotion purposes may not exceed 12c per 100 litres of whole milk and $3 per 100 kilograms of butterfat. The operative rates are currently at those levels. Earlier this year the Australian Dairy Corporation and the Australian Dairy Farmers' Federation recommended that the maximum limits be increased to 24c per 100 litres of whole milk produced and $6 per 100 kilograms of butter fat produced. In doing so the Corporation and the Federation argued that with significant falls in returns on the export market and with every prospect of those returns continuing to fall, there should be much more active promotion of Australian dairy produce on the domestic market. The Corporation mentioned cheese as being a particularly suitable candidate for increased domestic sales if it were more extensively promoted. I accepted the recommendations and on 17 June 1983 was pleased to announce the Government's decision to present legislation to increase the maximum rates at the earliest opportunity. The result is this Bill. Honourable members may be interested to know that, since then, the Australian Dairy Corporation has, in accordance with sub-sections 13 (3) and (4) of the Act, recommended to me, after consultation with the Australian Dairy Farmers' Federation, that the operative rates of levy for promotion purposes in respect of whole milk and butter fat be increased to 19c per 100 litres produced and $4.75 per 100 kilograms produced respectively. On the assumption that the recommended operative rates apply on and from 1 November 1983, and based on present projected production figures for 1983-84, total income from the levy for 1983-84 would be in the order of $9.2m. By comparison, last year's income was $6.5m. The industry's view, as I understand it, is that the revenue from increased domestic sales resulting from greater promotion of dairy products will more than offset the cost of the levy to farmers. I stress that the industry itself has requested the increases in the maximum and operative levy rates. I also note that there are no Commonwealth contributions in respect of the levy for domestic promotional purposes and no financial implications in the Bill for the Commonwealth. As for the remaining clause of the Bill, the opportunity is being taken to correct an anomaly in the Act. Paragraph 9 (1) (a) of the Act refers to gallons while the remainder of the Act is in terms of litres. The Bill will correct this minor inconsistency. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(4.31) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is twofold. First, it corrects an anomalous situation whereby levy was not payable on the dairy product content of certain mixtures. Secondly, it provides that, under certain circumstances, levy may be refunded in respect of dairy products contained in other products that are exported, thus removing doubts about whether levy could be refunded in those circumstances. The Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Act 1977 imposes a levy, with certain exceptions, on dairy products, defined by the Act, produced at a factory. The levy does not have to be paid until the products are sold and is payable by the proprietor of the factory at which the products were produced. The proceeds of the levy are used to finance a dairy produce price stabilisation scheme whose purpose is to protect the domestic price structure for leviable products by providing manufacturers with equalised returns from their domestic and export sales of leviable products. The first of the proposed amendments will ensure the leviability of the buttermilk powder and whole milk powder content of certain products produced by the removal of water from a mixture of buttermilk or whole milk and one or more other substances. Under the revised definitions of buttermilk powder and whole milk powder inserted by clause 3 of the Bill the buttermilk powder or whole milk powder content of such products, provided it comprises at least 25 per cent of the product, will be subject to levy. The proposed amendment will correct the current anomaly that levy is paid when a mixture is made by combining ingredients in their dry state, but not paid on a similar mixture made by combining the ingredients in a liquid state and drying the resulting product. By virtue of sub-clause 3 (2) levy will only be imposed on these products on and from the first day of the month following the month on which the Act receives the royal assent. This limitation is necessary as levy payments are calculated on a calendar month basis. The Act presently provides for levy to be refunded on dairy products that are exported. If the levy were not refunded the export competitiveness of the products would be reduced. Under the Act as it stands, however, it is not possible to refund levy paid on dairy products that are mixed with other substances to produce other products that are exported. Clause 4 of the Bill will correct the situation. Honourable members will realise , however, that, given the range of products that contain dairy products, it would not be feasible or realistic to provide for refunds of levy in every case. It was therefore considered desirable to place some limits on the circumstances in which a refund of levy will be available. Proposed new sub-sections 6 (3A) and (3B) provide that a refund will not be authorised where there is less than 50 per cent of dairy products in the product which is to be exported. Regulations may be made to vary the minimum requirement , but they may not require there to be more than 75 per cent of dairy products in the product. The proposed new sub-sections also provide that a refund will not be authorised unless the application for refund is made in respect of a consignment of 15 tonnes or more. The consignment may consist entirely of products containing at least the minimum percentage of dairy products or may also include ordinary dairy products. Sub-clause 4 (2) simply ensures that the amendments concerning refunds only apply prospectively. For the information of the House I note that the Bill will have no significant financial impact on either the Commonwealth or the dairy industry, other than that in relation to certain producers and exporters of mixtures to which I referred earlier. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(4.35) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill contains amendments to three Acts, the first of which is the Dairy Produce Act 1924. That Act establishes the Australian Dairy Corporation and also contains the legislative framework for the dairy products export return pooling scheme. The other Acts affected by the Bill are the Dairy Industry Stabilization Act 1972 and the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Collection Act 1972. These Acts contain the administrative procedures for collecting, disbursing and accounting for receipts under the Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Act 1977 and the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Act 1972 respectively. I have explained the purposes of these Acts in my earlier second reading speeches on amendments to the Acts. The amendments to the Dairy Produce Act 1924 are intended to bring up to date the Corporation's powers over contracts for the carriage of dairy products by sea to places beyond Australia, to provide a legislative basis for the manner in which the Corporation administers certain provisions of the export return pooling scheme and to make other minor adjustments to the scheme, to require the Corporation to credit any surplus or debit any deficit incurred by it in respect of its export sales of dairy produce to accounts maintained under the export return pooling scheme, and to bring into line with current levels the penalties for offences under the Act. The first clause of note is clause 4. This clause substitutes a new section 19 dealing with conditions relating to contracts for the shipment of dairy produce overseas. Under the existing section 19 it was necessary either for the Corporation to determine conditions relating to contracts for the shipment of dairy produce or for such contracts to be made only by the Corporation on behalf of exporters. It recently came to attention that the Corporation had not approved any conditions, yet exporters were entering contracts directly, not through the Corporation. The Corporation indicated that it did not wish, at this stage, to involve itself in the making of shipping contracts. As the Corporation might, at a later date, need to be able to impose conditions, for example in relation to freight rates as part of an agreement with a shipping conference, it was decided that a revised section 19 providing the Corporation with discretionary powers in relation to shipping contracts should be inserted in the Act, rather than simply repealing the existing section 19. Accordingly, proposed new sub-section 19 (1) provides that the Corporation may approve conditions relating to contracts for the carriage of dairy produce by sea to a place beyond Australia. Proposed new paragraph 19 (2) (a) requires the Corporation officially to notify licensees of any such conditions. Incidentally, all persons wishing to export prescribed dairy produce from Australia must be licensed to do so by the Corporation. Proposed new paragraph 19 (2) (b) requires licensees to comply with any such conditions while proposed new sub-section 19 ( 3) makes failure to comply with the conditions grounds for revoking a licence to export dairy produce. Proposed new sub-section 19 (4) makes it clear that failure to comply with conditions approved by the Corporation does not mean that a contract so made will be void or unenforceable. This is in direct contrast to the existing section 19 which provides as a sanction for failing to comply with conditions that such contracts are void. Such a sanction has proven not to be effective, and in any event, if relied upon, could have undesirable consequences for the international marketing of dairy products. The new sanction of cancellation of a licence is considered to be more appropriate and effective and is consistent with the approach taken in such provisions in other similar legislation. Clause 5 of the Bill is concerned with revisions of the export return pooling scheme established by section 20AB of the Act. New sub-sections (4AA) and (4AB) will require more detailed notification arrangements where the assessed export price or the minimum export price is fixed or varied. These prices are part of the mechanism by which the amount that is to be contributed by or paid to the exporter under the export return pooling scheme is determined. The amendments made to section 20AB (5) by paragraphs 5 (B), (C) and (D) of the Bill will correct an anomaly which arises from the fact that the Act is silent as to pooling requirements at times when an export sale takes place at a price which obtains a return below the minimum return in circumstances where the minimum return exceeds the assessed return. As a result, it is presently possible for an exporter selling at the minimum price to receive a lower net- after contribution to pool-return than an exporter who sells below the minimum price. Current administratively desirable practices of the Australian Dairy Corporation in relation to the export return pooling scheme will be given legislative authority by the amendments effected by paragraph 5 (E) of the Bill. In essence the amendments will provide, in contrast to the existing legislation which is administratively unworkable, that exporters will receive direct the proceeds of their export sales and will then have to remit to the Corporation any required contribution to the export return pooling scheme. Proposed section 20AB (8A) will facilitate the recovery from exporters of amounts which they are required to pay under the export return pooling scheme but which they have not forwarded to the Corporation at the required time. Honourable members may be aware that the Corporation, acting pursuant to the power conferred on it by section 15 of the Dairy Produce Act 1924 to buy and sell dairy produce, is a significant trader in dairy products on the export market. Clause 6 inserts section 24A into the Act. This section will provide legislative authority for a current, appropriate, practice of the Corporation by requiring it to credit any surplus made by it in a particular financial year as a trader on the export market to accounts kept under the export return pooling scheme. Similarly the section will require the Corporation to debit any deficit incurred by it in a financial year as a trader on the export market to those accounts. The basic requirement will be to credit or debit amounts to pools maintained in the production year to which the exported product relates; that is , if product produced in 1981-82 is sold and exported in 1982-83 any surplus or deficit resulting from the export sale is to be credited to or debited from the appropriate 1981-82 product pool, not the 1982-83 pool. However, it may not always be appropriate or administratively feasible for the Corporation to carry out the transfer as required. For example, should a deficit occur on a sale of a product produced in 1981-82 but sold in 1983-84, at the time the deficit comes to light insufficient funds may remain in the 1981-82 pool to fully meet the deficit. A mechanism has therefore been included in proposed section 24A whereby the Minister may direct the Corporation to credit or debit surpluses or deficits to the most appropriate production year pool or pools. It should be noted that equity considerations may also influence any such directions as individual manufacturers may not contribute equally to the same export pools each year. Proposed section 24A(7) provides that in making a decision on this matter the Minister may receive advice from the Corporation which in turn is required to consult with the Australian Dairy Industry Advisory Committee, the body established under the Dairy Produce Act 1924 to advise the Corporation in the performance of its functions or the exercise of its powers. Proposed section 24A(6) provides for the Corporation to take into account amounts, if any, credited to the export pooling scheme as a result of its trading activities-the Corporation is regarded as an ordinary exporter for the purposes of the scheme and thus must contribute or receive payments accordingly- in ascertaining whether a surplus has been made by it or a deficit incurred. This provision does not affect costs which would normally be taken into account, such as ordinary costs associated with exporting such as storage, insurance and shipping costs; and payments to producers in the nature of premiums in respect of dairy products which the Corporation purchases made pursuant to section 20AB( 4A). Clause 8 inserts a new section 8A into the Dairy Industry Stabilization Act 1977. The proposed section provides explicit legal standing for an already established procedure by requiring proprietors of factories who obtain a refund of levy to pass on the benefit to the exporter. The background to the provision is that the price paid for leviable dairy products takes into account the amount of levy payable on those products, including where the purchaser intends to export the products rather than sell them on the domestic market. Where a leviable product is sold on the export market it is appropriate to refund the levy and the person who is legally entitled to the refund is the person who has paid the levy. However, if exporters did not in turn receive the benefit of this amount they would be obliged to pass on the cost in their prices and the export competitiveness of the products concerned would be reduced accordingly. This amendment will ensure that this does not occur. The amendments to section 21 of the Dairy Industry Stabilization Act 1977 made by clause 10 and those to section 10 of the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Collection Act 1972 made by clause 15 insert a standard provision requiring warrants to contain a date on which they will cease to have effect and omit the offence of obstructing an officer in the course of his duty as the offence is adequately covered by section 76 of the Crimes Act 1914. Clauses 7, 12 and 17 provide for the revision, in accordance with current standards, of penalties for offences under the Dairy Produce Act 1924, the Dairy Industry Stabilization Act 1977 and the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Collection Act 1972 respectively. Clause 14 brings up to date section 7 of the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Collection Act 1972 by increasing the amount of penalty for late payment of levy that may be remitted by an authorised person from $10 to $100. Clause 16 provides that an appeal from a decision to refuse to remit an amount of penalty may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and inserts a provision requiring notice of appeal rights to be given at the time the original decision is notified. Clause 11 inserts a similar appeal provision in section 24A of the Dairy Industry Stabilization Act 1977, which will apply to section 6, the section in that Act dealing with penalty payments and their remission. It is worth noting that an appeal will lie not only from a decision of an authorised person, but also from a decision of the Minister, who is authorised to remit any amount of penalty. Clause 11 also inserts a notification of appeal rights provision in relation to the existing appeal mechanism applying to determination of production quotas under section 11A of the Dairy Industry Stabilization Act 1977. I point out that the amendments contained in this Bill have no direct financial implications for the Commonwealth. The proposed section 24A of the Dairy Produce Act 1924 concerning the transfer of surpluses and deficits resulting from the Corporation's trading activities to relevant export pools will have implications for the dairy industry. It is not possible to quantify that impact as it will depend on future surpluses or deficits resulting from the Corporation's trading activities. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. (Budget Debate) Debate resumed. Mr GROOM(Braddon)(4.48) —I welcome this opportunity to participate in this debate on the 1983-84 Budget. The people of Australia want leaders whom they can trust. They want their leaders to have integrity and they want their leaders to be honest people who keep their promises. People who have watched the performance of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and a number of his Ministers-not all of his Ministers but a number of them-must be very disappointed at what they have seen and heard since this Government was elected. I want to remind the House of a question which was put by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) to the Prime Minister. It was the last question of the previous parliamentary session. He asked: Does the Prime Minister recall his promise to provide immediate reductions in income tax, his promise to retain the tax rebate for home loan payments, his promise to introduce a first home ownership assistance scheme as 'an option to the existing deposit assistance scheme which will be retained', his promise not to increase tax on lump sum superannuation, his promise not to take money out of the weekly pay packet, his promise not to take money out of the pensioner's cheque, his promise not to abandon the Alice Springs-Darwin railway, his promise to extend desperately needed public capital works and services, his promise to continue the Government's major airport development program- That includes the upgrading of airport facilities in Brisbane. I might mention that the upgrading of Hobart, Launceston and Wynyard airports were all additional promises that have not been kept. The Leader of the Opposition continued: his promise to provide 'a major new concession to the small businesses of this nation', his promise to reduce the price of petrol by 3c per litre- a particular concern of the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) who has raised this matter so many times in this House- his promise to achieve fixed term four-year parliaments and his promise to retain the health insurance rebate until the introduction of Medicare? The Leader of the Opposition said: Will the Prime Minister tell the House from whom he received a mandate to break these promises? This is a sorry story that we have had. All of these promises were made. The Prime Minister went all around the country willy-nilly telling the people he would do this and he would do that. What has happened? So many promises have been broken-a slap in the face to the people of Australia. I want to refer particularly to the policy speech of the Prime Minister when he launched the Federal election campaign for the Australian Labor Party at the Sydney Opera House on 16 February 1983. Mr Goodluck —An appropriate place. Mr GROOM —As the honourable member said, an appropriate place for the Prime Minister to perform and to act out this dishonest story. I want to refer particularly to his promise relating to taxation. This was a specific promise made to the people of Australia by the now Prime Minister on 16 February 1983. I quote from page 12 of the official document of the Australian Labor Party: Our Government's total income tax package is being released concurrently with this speech. Its key elements include immediate reductions- I repeat the words, 'immediate reductions'- in income tax for almost six million Australian taxpayers, with the greatest tax cuts going to those on the lowest incomes who have suffered most- the then Leader of the Opposition said- under Mr Fraser's policies. A taxpayer without dependants earning $225 a week, for example, will get a tax cut of $4.76 a week. The now Prime Minister went on to say: The major points of Labor's tax reform will be: a new six step tax scale to restore the progressive nature of the tax system- What has happened to that? The second point was: -a lift in the tax threshold to $5,000 which will free tens of thousands of low income earners from all tax- we know what has happened to that- -a lift in the tax threshold for pensioners of $465 to $5,893; The Labor Government has caused a great deal of damage to pensioners in a number of respects, including the assets test, which I will get to in a moment. The then Leader of the Opposition also promised increases in the spouse rebate and sole parent rebate which would result in additional tax cuts of $2 a week to families. All of these promises were made and almost all of them have not been honoured. He also promised: Increases in zone allowances by 25 per cent for taxpayers in remote areas. What has happened to that? The Prime Minister went down to the west coast of Tasmania-one of the zones involved-kissed a few ladies and shook hands with one or two people. The press completely and totally misrepresented that visit by the Prime Minister. That visit by the Prime Minister to the west coast of Tasmania was a total disaster. Everyone on the west coast knows that. If any Prime Minister worth his salt who was respected by the people went down there he would be swarmed by thousands of people wanting to come up and shake his hand. A lot of the local people- Mr Goodluck —He said I was ashamed to be a Tasmanian. Mr Cunningham —Are you ashamed to be a Tasmanian because of it? Mr GROOM —Who is the honourable member saying that to? That comment has been mentioned a number of times in respect of the honourable member for Franklin. In the heat of the moment, when there was a great deal of conning going on within Tasmania the honourable member for Franklin made that comment. But I defy anyone to say that the honourable member for Franklin is not a decent Tasmanian through and through. No one has fought harder for Tasmania and for the people of Tasmania than has the honourable member for Franklin. He was born in Tasmania, he went to school in Tasmania, he worked hard in Tasmania to earn a living and he has been elected by the people of Tasmania to come to this place. He is a good, genuine, decent, fair dinkum Tasmanian. I tell honourable members opposite now that if Bob Hawke keeps repeating that statement in Tasmania he will do himself a lot of damage. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Would the honourable member please refer to the Prime Minister as the Prime Minister? Mr GROOM —I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the Prime Minister keeps repeating that statement in Tasmania he will finish up like Dorian Gray. He will regret that very much. But that is a sideline. I will get back to what I was attempting to say. I was referring to the speech by the now Prime Minister and to all of the broken promises that have been made. The Prime Minister stated that all of these tax cuts would be forthcoming and ordinary decent Australians would receive these terrific tax cuts. Mr Hodgman —Immediately? Mr GROOM —Immediately and nothing has happened. The Prime Minister had the audacity to produce at the back of his policy speech the new tax scales that would apply immediately. The word immediately was used. For taxpayers without dependents, according to the tax scale, there would be a saving of $2.41 for a person earning $100 a week. For a person earning $125 a week there would be a saving of $2.91-that is, a person without dependents. With a dependent spouse and children the Prime Minister said that, for example, for a person on a weekly income of $175 there would be a saving of $5.91. These figures are all set out in these tables. What has happened to that promise? Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to have these tables incorporated in Hansard. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I believe that the Speaker has made a ruling that tables are not to be incorporated in Hansard. Mr GROOM —That is not so, not if they are brief. They are part of the policy speech. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The documents can be incorporated if they are tables. Would the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) have a look at them please? Mr Beazley —They are tables. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- TAX CUTS FROM LABOR'S NEW TAX SCALES (1) Taxpayer without dependents Tax (1983-84) Tax change Govern- Weekly ment's Labor's income Tax Tax Per week Per cent $ $ $ $ $ 100 3.49 1.08 -2.41 -69.1 125 10.99 8.08 -2.91 -26.5 150 18.49 15.08 -3.41 -18.4 175 25.99 22.08 -3.91 -15.0 200 33.49 29.08 -4.41 -13.2 225 40.99 36.23 -4.76 -11.6 250 48.49 44.23 -4.26 -8.8 275 55.99 52.23 -3.76 -6.7 300 63.49 60.23 -3.26 -5.1 350 78.49 76.23 -2.26 -2.9 400 97.49 95.06 -2.43 -2.5 450 120.49 118.06 -2.43 -2.0 500 143.49 141.06 -2.43 -1.7 600 189.49 187.06 - 2.43 -1.3 700 237.14 236.83 -0.31 -0.1 800 297.14 296.83 -0.31 -0.1 900 357. 14 356.83 -0.31 -0.1 1000 417.14 416.83 -0.31 -0.1 1200 537.14 539.13 +1.99 +0 .4 (2) Taxpayer with dependent spouse and children 100 . . . . . . . . 125 . . . . . . . . 150 . . . . . . . . 175 6.18 0.27 -5 .91 -96.6 200 13.68 7.27 -6.41 -46.9 225 21.18 14.42 -6.76 -31.9 250 28.68 22 .42 -6.26 -21.8 275 36.18 30.42 -5.76 -15.9 300 43.68 38.42 -5.26 -12.0 350 58.68 54.42 -4.26 -7.3 400 77.68 73.25 -4.43 -5.7 450 100.68 96.25 -4.43 -4.4 500 123.68 119.25 -4.43 -3.6 600 169.68 165.25 -4.43 -2.8 700 217.33 215.02 - 2.31 -1.1 800 277.33 275.02 -2.31 -0.8 900 337.33 335.02 -2.31 -0.7 1000 397. 33 395.02 -2.31 -0.6 1200 517.33 517.33 - - Mr GROOM —He is a good Minister. Thank you very much. I just make the point that those are the promises that were made. The public of Australia should look at those promises and note that the Prime Minister said that they would be introduced immediately. Nothing has happened. in fact, we have had an increase in taxation in so many respects. One of the most disastrous taxes ever introduced is the prescribed payments system of taxation introduced by the Treasurer, Mr Keating. Mr Cunningham —It is your tax. Mr GROOM —It is your tax and you have to live with it. It is the most socialist tax that we have ever had introduced in this country. What an imposition on the small business people and the small business women-that is the sexist phrase used these days-around Australia. Again I seek leave, Madam Deputy Speaker, to have all these documents incorporated in Hansard. They are documents I particularly want to see incorporated because they will show to the people the great burden that this Government has placed upon small business people all around Australia who have to fill out all these forms so many times each year. The Deputy Commissioner of Taxation came along to a meeting in one of the Senate Committee rooms and said that one building firm in Australia would have to fill out enough forms to fill, I think, two committee rooms in one year. This is what is destroying business. So I make a particular plea to you, Madam Deputy Speaker , in your wisdom to allow these documents to be incorporated in full in Hansard to make the particular debating point I seek to make. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I suggest to the honourable member for Braddon that the Speaker was fairly clear in his ruling-I am not able to make a ruling, I must carry his rulings out-that the tables have to be tables in the visual sense. Mr GROOM —I would not wish to oppose Mr Speaker's ruling. He has already ruled against me once today, although I felt that there was an argument in my points. With all due respect to Mr Speaker, I would accept his ruling. However, Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask whether I might have these documents tabled and then whether you could confer with the Speaker and jointly decide whether they should be incorporated. I make a special plea that they should be incorporated. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the honourable member seeking leave to have the documents tabled? Mr GROOM —No, incorporated in Hansard. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —No, Mr Speaker would not have them incorporated in Hansard . The honourable member is seeking leave now to have them tabled and to confer with Mr Speaker as to whether they can be incorporated? Mr GROOM —If that is the appropriate approach to be adopted, Madam Deputy Speaker, I accept that guidance from you. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is leave granted? Mr Beazley —Leave is granted to table the documents. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Leave is granted for the documents to be tabled. Mr GROOM —What about incorporation in Hansard, Madam Deputy Speaker? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —As to their being incorporated in Hansard, it would be for me to discuss it with Mr Speaker and for Mr Speaker to give his ruling. Mr GROOM —Madam Deputy Speaker, perhaps you would need also to have the Minister 's leave noted first, before you discuss it. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister has given leave for the papers to be tabled. It is not for the Minister to give leave for me to discuss it with Mr Speaker. Mr GROOM —I accept that ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. If I could go on further into the policy speech made by Mr Hawke, on petrol prices he made this promise-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Could I once again suggest that the honourable member refer to the Prime Minister as the Prime Minister? Mr GROOM —He was then not the Prime Minister. He is now the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke. I quote from page 14, where he said: As part of Labor's anti-inflation package and in recognition of the burden of extra taxation levied by the Government on people afflicted by the wage freeze, Labor will reduce the price of petrol by cancelling the January 1 oil price increase of $3.23 per barrel. This will have the effect of reducing the price of petrol by the order of 3c a litre. It will also reduce the Consumer Price Index by half of one point. What has happened to that? What has happened to petrol prices around Australia? I could go on and on through all these promises. I recall very well the Prime Minister saying in this House, when we were on the government benches and he was then Leader of the Opposition, 'Liar, liar, liar'. I have never called anyone a liar in this chamber and I do not intend to call anyone a liar now, but one could doubt the Prime Minister's honesty when he makes all these promises and none of them is kept. On the housing issue he goes all around Australia saying: 'You will get tax deductibility on interest for your housing loan repayments'. All around Australia he looked people straight in the eye, saying: 'You need not worry. I am an honest man. I am full of integrity'. What has happened to this man's integrity and honesty? The fact is he is a man whose word is worth nothing . He keeps breaking his promises to the Australian people. That is a matter of great regret. We have a sorry story in Tasmania. The Prime Minister came to the west coast and tried to con the local people. As I say, it was a disastrous visit to the west coast. Normally, thousands and thousands of west coast people would have gone out with warm hearts and open arms to embrace a visiting Prime Minister. That would have happened if Mr Fraser had visited the west coast, but when the present Prime Minister went there, what happened? He arrived at Strahan, and about 20 or 30 greenies were there to give him a few huon pine objects. Then he went to Queenstown. It has not been commonly noted, but there was a coffin in the park opposite the municipal chambers, which you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker. The coffin was not for the Prime Minister; it was for the death of States rights. What was not generally noted was that the women who attended that function-only half of those invited attended-almost all wore black and many of the men had black on their lapels to indicate the death of States rights. The Prime Minister has not done the right thing by Tasmania. He has failed. We sought a meeting for weeks and weeks, and then he telephoned, at some convenient time to him, and said: 'Yes, we will meet you in the Cabinet room'. I was amazed that we went into the Cabinet room. I had thought that we would have gone into the Prime Minister's office. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) did not wish to attend that meeting, and I respect his view on that subject. However , other honourable members decided that we should go along and put the Tasmanian point of view. That view was put strongly. The honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) put a very strong point of view to the Prime Minister. The honourable members present-the member for Bass, the member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) and the member for Wilmot (Mr Burr)-well remembered that the Prime Minister made a promise to us that he would get back to us. That was weeks and weeks ago. What has happened to that response? There has been no response at all; nothing. This man's integrity is in serious question already, he having been in office for such a short space of time. The people of Tasmania are not fools. The people of Australia are not fools. As regards unemployment, I do not know what has happened to the Caucus but its members must be pretty weak because the Prime Minister has walked all over them on a whole range of issues. He has said in this House: 'I know what is going to happen. I believe that this is what will happen.' What has happened to he old Labor Party? Where are the people with the guts and courage to stand up? Where are they? They have gone to water. Where are the people who are concerned about the workers of this country? The people who are worried about the workers are on the Opposition side of the House, not on the Government side. Honourable members on the Government benches are all academics, intellectuals and left wingers. That is all that is left. Where are they now? Mr Cunningham —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We are dealing with Appropriation Bill (No. 1), and I suggest that the honourable member is attacking other members of the Party outside-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr GROOM —I can understand the honourable member's sensitivity on that point, but that is the fact, and it is the same in Tasmania with the great white hope, Mr Wriedt, who did nothing at all to protect the interests of Tasmania when he had an excellent opportunity to put in a strong argument for Tasmania. He has let Tasmania down. He has betrayed the people of Tasmania and hoisted the white flag on behalf of the Australian Labor Party within Tasmania. I believe that unemployment is the great social issue of the day. I am amazed how weak Government members are on this issue. I should like to refer to Budget Paper No. 1. Honourable members should not worry about the Budget Speech; that is political. Let them look at the Budget Papers. Honourable members on the Government benches might laugh about unemployment. Mr Gear —We don't laugh; that is why we are sitting on the Government side of the House. Mr GROOM —The honourable member should read Budget Paper No. 1 in the Budget of 1983-84, circulated by the Hon P. J. Keating, M.P., Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia, and the Hon. John Dawkins, the little thief from the west. I refer to page 65 of that document. Mr Goodluck —You gave him a serve. Mr GROOM —I was thinking of Dickens; there is a little Johnny Dawkins in Dickens . The paper states: a moderate growth in employment during the course of the year and an edging up in unemployment. On financial markets, it states: a marked increase in public sector borrowing, which is obvious from the Budget deficit, and continued pressure on interest rates. The Prime Minister will eat his words. He said that interest rates were on the way down and he will learn from history that he should not have made that statement. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. I have taken the opportunity of looking at the two papers the honourable member for Braddon sought to have incorporated in Hansard. They have been tabled. I rule that they do not comply with the guidelines and will not be incorporated. Mr Groom —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As to your ruling, could you specify why those documents do not comply with the guidelines? Is it the length of the documents? Mr Hodgman —That is the fault of the Government. Mr Groom —That is the point I am making. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —In the current session Mr Speaker has spelt out the guidelines. The honourable member can refer to Hansard and obtain his guidance from that reference. Mr Groom —I seek a ruling on it, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I simply want to say that the general provision is that a member can incorporate in Hansard only documents which cannot be read into Hansard. These documents are readily available to every member of parliament and, indeed, to every member in the community. There is no merit in having them incorporated in Hansard. I so rule. Mr Groom —I accept your ruling but I regret it. Ms MAYER(Chisholm)(5.10) —It is disappointing that the Opposition response to the Budget, unlike that of the business community, major industries and the large number of individual organisations and people which will benefit from it, has been carping criticism instead of what I had hoped would be a constructive debate. I think the contribution of the previous speaker, the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom), is fairly typical of that kind of carping criticism and distortion of the reality. If we are going to talk about integrity let us talk about the integrity of the previous Government, which led the nation to believe that it was able to fund its propositions. We discovered when we came to office that far from doing that, it had lumbered us with a deficit of $9.5 billion. One provision about which there has been a good deal of discussion, not to mention some fairly heavy emoting from the Opposition benches, is the assets test for pension recipients. The decision to inquire into the assets of pensioners, those who receive social security pensions, the supporting parents' benefit and the repatriation service benefits corrects an anomaly which was brought into being when the assets test was abolished by a previous government, but the income test was not. The provision of pensions and benefits to those who need them, on the basis of that need, is not an innovation in the social security policy of this country. Invalid pensions, widows' pensions, unemployment benefit and age pensions are payable depending on the income of the people concerned. The principle of need is an established one for the payment of benefits from the public purse. In fact, the provision for those in need of a basic level of income support below which no one can involuntarily fall is a prime principle of income maintenance programs provided by the Department of Social Security. In practice, the application of this principle means that programs inaugurated at some time will be continued until a contrary set of circumstances becomes too strong to be ignored. That contrary set of circumstances has arisen. The loss of income and increase in expenditure resulting from the high level of unemployment, the need to provide a basic level of income for those who have nothing and the need to make provision for those parents and children who were not previously provided for has necessitated a return to the principle applying before November 1976. The abolition of the assets test for a range of pensioners and beneficiaries has not proven to be a sustainable policy. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) in a statement to the Parliament on 23 August said: The existing arrangements are intended to concentrate assistance on those more in need, but this has not been achieved. A particular problem is the prevalence of contrived arrangements designed to exploit the pension income test by people who in fact are well able to support themselves. There has been increasing circumvention of the test by such mechanisms as converting income to capital gains. The growth in these income test avoidance schemes in recent years has been such that they now jeopardise the Government's ability to direct scarce funds to the pressing welfare needs of the disadvantaged in our society. If those people's incomes are threatened, the Government certainly has to act. The Minister went on to state: In designing the new assets test, particular attention will be given to protecting the position of the great majority of pensioners who have only small assets, and those who are not attempting to circumvent existing rules. Since 23 August the Minister and members of the Government have been consulting with pensioner groups and individuals about the assets test and all its implications. Few government budgetary proposals have been involved in such an extensive, detailed, and lengthy consultation process before the legislation is drawn up. The concerns of pensioners have been thoroughly canvassed and such things as the ownership of modest holiday houses, the position of people in nursing homes and the millionaire pensioner have been considered. It is fairly clear that the mansion owner with two Rolls-Royces needs a sufficient income to pay rates, maintenance and petrol bills and, therefore, would already be income tested out of the pension, but those other areas are a matter for concern and consideration. The lengthy consultation process has achieved a level of understanding and acceptance, at least in those electorates and areas where the members have taken the time and trouble to listen to and explain to their constituents rather than score cheap political points at the cost of their aged constituents' peace of mind. For example, my predecessor in this seat, although no longer a member, rushed into print saying that 19,000 pensioners in Chisholm would be adversely affected by the assets test. In fact, there are less than 15,000 pensioners of all types in my electorate and of those who have assets over and above the exempt levels, about 1,000 may possibly have some part of their pension reduced. However, 19, 000 people got a nasty shock. In contrast to that, several thousand older people whose income is derived from modest superannuation payments-the forgotten people of the previous Government-will benefit greatly from the introduction of Medicare. Those people will find their health insurance bills halved, even if they choose to take out private fund insurance for private hospital treatment. If they accept the cover provided by Medicare a net saving of between $10 and $ 15 a week will be possible for a great many of them. Medicare was the single most important policy to the people in my electorate and the implementation of provision for that policy makes this Budget a landmark budget, defining in one Act, the difference between the past and the present. No Australian, from 1 February 1984 will have to fear the financial burden of ill health. I would like to mention, briefly other examples from the Budget which illustrate the Government's genuine understanding of the principle of need. The indexation of the single unemployed benefit recognises that single people need to eat and pay bills. Those single unemployed people with dependent children will receive the mother's guardians allowance of $8 a week from which they were previously, most unfairly, excluded. The spouse carer's pension removes a discrimination against men caring for their invalid wives and will enable several thousand men to cope better with a difficult situation. These changes demonstrate quite clearly the move towards equity and fairness which is a mark of this Government. The Budget provisions which have special importance for women in the Australian community include improved resources for the Office of the Status of Women, now in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, increased allocation of funds for women's organisations and an allocation of funds that is a 64 per cent increase on last year for a program of consultation, research and information on the status of women. It is not only through the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Sex Discrimination Bill that this Government has demonstrated its commitment to the improvement of the status of women. Assistance to families with children has been increased in 1983-84 by $77m. As it is women who still bear the major burden of family care, that assistance will ease that burden for women. The 90 per cent of sole parents who are women will benefit from the extension of entitlement to the mothers' guardians allowance. Migrant women will benefit from the $500,000 provision for child care in association with the migrant education program. That is a recognition that it is not easy to learn a new language and look after your children at the same time. A national women's emergency services program has been allocated $4m, a recognition of the appalling position in which women find themselves when they experience brutality, both physical and mental, from their partners. These are the women and children who are conveniently forgotten by people who extol family life and worry about its possible destruction by the elimination of discrimination against women. It is the codification in our society of discrimination against women which makes women's refuges necessary. This demands government action not only to provide refuges but also to show Australian society that the very elements in our society which make them necessary are no longer acceptable. A further example of our commitment to the improvement of the situation of women is the provision that women must have equal access to jobs provided under the community employment program. It is very easy for the Opposition to categorise this program as a mickey mouse program, but the 85 per cent of discouraged workers who are women will not agree. They have simply wanted a chance and this Government is making that available. The $958m available in this Budget for employment and training is a solid demonstration of concern about unemployment and that concern is equally shared between men and women as will be the jobs and the training opportunities. I think it should put to rest some of the nonsense that has been talked recently about the Opposition worrying more about unemployment than the Government. This Budget underpins and furthers the work of this Government arising from its clearly enunciated principles. It addresses the principle of need, it adjusts expenditure in social security to those who are in need, it redresses inequities and it has shaken out some severe anomalies in that area. It recognises the absolute necessity of health care delivered on a fair basis which will help our threatened public health service to re-establish itself on a secure, predictable basis. It provides for job creation to give our long term unemployed a chance to feel human again. The housing initiatives will provide thousands of long term permanent jobs as housing commencements improve. The evidence of that in Victoria is plain where increased funding for public housing has had an impact on the unemployment figures in that State. This Budget allocates $4,210.5m to education; equivalent to 7.4 per cent of the 1983-84 Budget outlays. The principles upon which this expenditure, the third largest in total, is made are of enormous importance, especially in terms of public accountability. Those principles are clearly enunciated in the document entitled 'Participation and Equity-Funding Guidelines to the Commonwealth Education Commissions for 1984'. They are that the allocation of resources is to be determined by, firstly, giving greater weight to the principle of need. I do not need to point out the consistency of that principle with the same overriding principle in social security. The second principle involves directing a greater proportion of Commonwealth funding to considered policies aimed at demonstrable outcomes. If one suggests what the outcome will be one can certainly test the policy by seeing whether that outcome ensues. The third principle is to provide a firm basis for proper educational planning through triennial funding in some areas, forward commitment in others and the re-introduction of retrospective cost supplementation. These are the three basic principles upon which an education system can operate. This, too, is a forward looking policy which clearly shows the understanding that this Government has of the necessity to place education on a sound footing which recognises the lifetime importance of education. The allocation of resources based on principles has ensured that both government and non- government schools continue to be supported. Forty-one of the 2,200 non- government schools which can well manage it have lost some 25 per cent of their per capita grants in order to provide an upgrading of resources in more needy schools. That is equity and that is sharing. All the heat and light which has attended that re-allocation of funds within the non-government schools has obscured the Government's commitment of funds to the education whole. That commitment has seen funding for the immediate priority programs of participation and equity, computer education, and education for girls to overcome built-in discrimination. The fact that this exists is highlighted in an article in the Canberra Times this morning. It states that the Australian scholastic aptitude test will be looked at again because its scoring suggests that it is biased against girls. If that is a value free test then we do not have a very sound notion of what is value free and it needs to be considered. This Government's allocation of quantities of money to education, the production of the document ' Participation and Equity' which shows what the principles of the allocation of resources are, what the objectives of the Government are and how those objectives will be implemented-the first time for several years we have had a document about education which says why we are doing something and where we expect to be going-indicate how responsible this Government is about its allocation of the enormous resources which go to education. As the weeks have passed since the Budget was brought down and its impact has been more clearly realised, one thing has become abundantly clear. This is a Budget with a long view. It is not a Budget whose chief purpose is immediate political gain but a Budget which carries through from the National Economic Summit Conference, which implements major election commitments and which lays the foundation for recovery and contains a cautiously optimistic view of the future. The Budget recognises the difficulties ahead and the enormous problem of unemployment which is such a threat to the social order and health of our nation . While understanding those difficulties, the Budget initiatives in education, social security and health and its support of initiatives for women are forward looking and socially responsible. It gives me considerable pleasure to support this Bill. Mr BURR(Wilmot)(5.26) —The crucial test of any government's Budget or program must be the contribution that it makes to economic and social improvements in this country. If we take that as a benchmark to test how a Budget performs to improve the economic and social conditions in this country we would have to agree that the present Government's Budget is a miserable failure. It improves neither the economic conditions nor the social conditions of Australia. Furthermore, it does not give any hope that those factors will improve in the future. On that test I think we would all have to agree that the Budget presented by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is a miserable failure. In my contribution to this debate I will look at some of the factors that have been included in the Budget, the effect it is likely to have on the economy and some of the ideology that has led to its formation. We have just heard from the honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer) and from other speakers on the Government side what they consider to be the advantages of this Budget. It seems to me in listening to speakers from the other side of the chamber that the Australian Labor Party is very intent on how it should distribute wealth in this country. It comes up with a great many formulas to show how wealth should be distributed but we have to remember that before wealth can be distributed it must be produced. The Government and members on the other side of the chamber are trying to distribute an ever decreasing piece of cake. What we need in this country is programs that will increase the size of the cake so that more wealth is available for distribution. I urge the Treasurer, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and my friends on the other side of the chamber to apply their minds to how the Commonwealth and the economy of this country can be expanded so that everybody can benefit from the greater wealth. There are a number of things on which I believe the Government has been quite deceptive in the way it has presented its Budget both to the Parliament and to the people of Australia. I will spend some time looking at some of those things. Firstly, we have been told repeatedly by the Treasurer and by the Prime Minister that this Budget will help to improve general economic conditions in Australia. I for one and others on this side of the chamber would certainly contest that statement. Let us look at some of the major factors that affect the economy. Firstly, I refer to interest rates. Mr Gear —They have come down. Mr BURR —My friend the honourable member for Tangney says that interest rates have come down. We need to look at why they have come down. The Government has made the spurious claim that because banks have reduced interest rates on housing loans and other loans it is an indication that the economy is improving and, therefore, it is something to crow about. How deceptive that is. The banks and the financial institutions at the moment are being forced to reduce their interest rates because they are so flush with funds that people have no confidence to borrow money. Business does not have the confidence to expand. The banks have so much money in their vaults that they are forced by the sheer rate of demand to reduce their lending rates. It is not something of which to be proud. It is a matter of grave concern for all of us in this chamber. If there is such a vacuum of demand both in the business community and amongst private citizens in this country that they have simply no confidence to borrow money for future expansion, we should be gravely concerned and not crow about that as though it were some form of achievement. I suggest to my friend on the other side of the House that he look far more closely at the effects of the reduction in lending interest rates. I consider it to be one of the major matters that should concern the Government. I hope that the Government is privately paying far more attention to and is far more concerned about that reduction in interest rates than it has shown in the House. We all know that the banks are very flush with funds at the moment but we also have evidence that business is devoid of the confidence to expand and to borrow money for future expansions and job development. That point was indicated quite clearly by the survey jointly conducted by the Westpac Banking Corporation and the Confederation of Australian Industry. That survey was published earlier this week. It showed quite clearly that business has no confidence about future developments and about the prospect of industrial development in this country. That is a matter of very grave concern and it is one of the factors causing this buildup of funds in the banking and financial institutions. Another matter of grave concern is the blow-out of the Budget deficit. We were told by the Treasurer that again this is some form of achievement. He seemed to indicate in his Budget Speech that, had things remained equal and had the Government been able to do what it perhaps wanted to do, the Budget deficit would have been close to the order of $10.5 billion. He seems to think that it is some sort of achievement that the Government has been able to reduce that figure to $8.63 billion. I remind the House that we are talking about a debt of $8,361m that the people of Australia will have to repay through their taxes in the future. That must have the obvious impact of forcing up interest rates because it puts pressure on private financial institutions, again limiting the capacity of business to be able to borrow from those institutions, limiting the capacity of businesses to expand and, therefore, limiting the opportunity to create new jobs in the future. The Government, quite fallaciously, seems to think that this is some sort of achievement. I quite honestly cannot work out that mentality. It is something that all of us here should be gravely concerned about. We should not put it forward to the people of Australia as some sort of achievement. We all know that Budget deficits are the scourge on this or any other developed country. Yet it is put forward that this Budget deficit, which is far greater than anything this country has ever known, is some form of achievement. That theory is quite wrong and quite misleading. I shall press on with other factors. We all know that inflation will limit the capacity of this country to compete in export markets. We all know that high inflation will limit the capacity of the economy to grow. Other economies with which we trade, particularly America, Japan and some of the European countries, have been able drastically to reduce their rate of inflation. Full credit should go to them for being able to do that. Mr Gear —Why couldn't you? Mr BURR —Why can the present Government not do that? We are not the Government; we are the Opposition. Why do government members try to pass the responsibility on to us? Opposition members would love to be able to put forward a program that would reduce inflation. Government members are putting forward a program that will force inflation even higher. I fail to understand why they think that that is some form of achievement. The Government is locking this country into high inflation-inflation at least in the order of 10 per cent-at a time when the Americans, the English and the Japanese are able to contain their inflation rates at around 4 per cent. That must have the effect of making all Australian industries, whether they be primary industries or manufacturing industries, less competitive on world markets, and it must also have the effect of putting more people out of jobs. Why Government members think this is some sort of achievement, I cannot understand. Mr Goodluck —They do not understand themselves. Mr BURR —I quite agree with my honourable friend from Franklin; they do not understand. As I said earlier, the Australian Labor Party spends a great deal of time determining how to distribute wealth, but it spends very little time determining how to create wealth. This Budget breaks totally new ground. I warn my honourable friends on the other side that it is a very dangerous precedent. The Government has indexed certain benefits in the Budget. That is new ground; it has never been done before. The Government has indexed certain social welfare benefits-unemployment benefits and certain pension benefits. That has never been done before. The Government is locking this country into high inflation. We cannot avoid high inflation by doing that. We on this side of the House hope that Australia's inflation rate can be reduced to the level of that of our trading partners and, hopefully, that it will go lower. But this precedent that the Government has introduced can only have the effect of locking us into continually high inflation. It seems that the Government is content with an inflation rate of around 10 per cent. On the social and economic front, I am sure that all of us in this chamber share a common concern about unemployment. I agree with my honourable friend from Burke (Dr Theophanous) that all of us share a common concern about the scourge of unemployment. I hope that the Budget and other programs that the Government is putting forward will have the effect of reducing unemployment. I for one commended the Prime Minister during the election campaign when he said: 'We will create 500,000 new jobs'. I am sure that all Australians looked to that promise with great hope. We all commended him and look forward to his being able to achieve the ambition of being able to create 500,000 new jobs. Mr Goodluck —He did not con you, did he? Mr BURR —No, he did not con me. I wished him the best of luck in his ambition. The Labor Party very obviously realises that on its present program it will not be able to produce those jobs so it is introducing a scheme to try artificially to create jobs, to give the impression that jobs will be created. The Government introduced the community employment program on the basis that this is job creation. It is not; it is total deception. The Government is increasing the rate of taxation to provide make-believe jobs for up to 12 weeks. Those will not be productive jobs that will expand the economy. That scheme will deceive people for 12 weeks; then they will be back on the dole queues and we will be left with higher rates of taxation and higher inflation. The Government is forcing more people out of existing jobs just to create temporary, illusory jobs. That is the effect of what the Government is doing. Again the Government seems to think that that is some form of achievement. Clearly, it is not. I am glad my friend from Denison agrees with me. If we look further at employment what statements do we find coming from some of the leaders of our industries? I remind honourable members of a statement by Mr Graham Spurling of Mitsubishi Motors Australia Ltd. He predicted only a few weeks ago that from 5,000 to 10,000 jobs will be lost in the motor vehicle industry. Mr Hodgman —Shame. Mr BURR —It is shameful. But this is what is happening. I think Mr Spurling could well be right. Nothing is being done in this Budget or any other government program which tries to stabilise that company or any other existing manufacturing industry. What this Government and the unions are doing is ensuring that these companies will become less and less profitable and, therefore, less and less stable. I think this was a matter of extreme concern at the Australian Council of Trade Unions congress last week and it has now been endorsed by the Government. As a result of the combined forces of the Government and the ACTU we can look forward to a program of unrestrained wage rises in this country which, as the former Treasurer in the Whitlam Government, Mr Crean, said , will have the effect of one man's pay rise costing another man's job. To look behind why this is happening I think we need to go back to the Australian Labor Party conference in Adelaide in July 1979. One of the resolutions that was passed at that conference was: The new Platform commits an ALP Government to supporting 'the automatic quarterly indexation of wages and salaries in accordance with movements in the Consumer Price Index'. That is what an ALP organisation commits-not recommends-an ALP government to. If that happens this country will be locked into not existing rates of inflation but higher and higher rates of inflation which, I believe, will force unemployment in this country up over the one million mark. That must be of grave concern. The wage round that we see presently occurring ensures that wages are increasing by around $20 a week. That is happening with the active acquiescence of the Government. We have heard a lot of rhetoric from the Prime Minister and other Ministers that they are seeking to have wage restraint. Yet they are actively supporting the ACTU in a $20 a week wage round that is now flowing through all awards. Mr Hodgman —That is scandalous. Mr BURR —I agree that it is scandalous. It will be disastrous for this country. What we see now is not the fear that was expressed earlier this year by the Prime Minister that wage rounds may be pursued by a few maverick unions, but the total ACTU actively pursuing excessive wage increases. This was summed up at the ACTU congress by Mr Bill Kelty who said that the ACTU, in concert, would be pursuing a 4.3 per cent wage rise. As we were reminded by that well-known left wing union leader, Mr Laurie Carmichael, if employers did not pay up then the unions would wring it out of them. Mr Goodluck —Is he left wing? Mr BURR —He most certainly is left wing; he is one of the leaders in the left wing. There are other matters to which I would like quickly to refer, particularly the effect of this Budget and what has not been done for Tasmania. During the election campaign we heard a whole diatribe of commitments from the Prime Minister. He made all sorts of unrealistic promises about what he would do for Tasmania if he were in government. What we are seeing now is a total back- off from what he said. People in Tasmania now know that they simply cannot trust him. For instance, he came to my electorate spouting from the rooftops that he would build the Warners Creek dam. We commended him for that. But, rather than build any dam in Tasmania, he stopped all dam construction. We know that there are dams in Tasmania that we do want built. The Prime Minister committed himself to building these dams. Mr Hodgman —The Craigbourne dam. Mr BURR —As my colleague from Denison has said, he committed himself to building the Craigbourne dam. We were looking forward to these dams along with other dams in Tasmania. But we know now that we simply cannot trust what the Prime Minister says. Mr Hodgman —Sewerage works. Mr BURR —He promised sewerage works. He also said that he would commit money towards the development of fishing ports in Tasmania. What has he done? He has left it to the State Government. He has left it to Robin Gray and the State Government to pick up these projects. These were the promises made by the Prime Minister during and even after the election campaign. Now he has totally backed off. We know that we cannot trust him. I can assure honourable members that we will be reminding all the people in Tasmania in the future that they cannot trust this particular Prime Minister. Mr BEDDALL(Fadden)(5.45) —I thank the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr) for giving me an introduction to my speech. I feel that this Budget, introduced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating), is historic in that it points to a new direction for Australian industry. It is a basic plan for Australian industry that can be termed the Budget of the three Rs-reconciliation, reconstruction and recovery. This Government has done more than any previous Government to bring about the reconciliation of the major sectors of Australian society. It has brought about, for the first time in Australia's history, a meeting of the key sectors of Australian society. This meeting took place in this very chamber-the National Economic Summit Conference. For the first time industry and unions came together , not in the spirit of confrontation but in the spirit of reconciliation. The Summit has had tremendous potential which is now beginning to bear fruit. The prices and incomes accord is another key factor in this Government's Budget strategy. The accord will enable Australian industry to perform for the future under a centralised wage fixing system by which industry will be able to anticipate wage increases. Wage increases will come at regular intervals not on an ad hoc basis and will be able to be anticipated by industry. Probably one of the lasting benefits of the Economic Summit will be the Economic Planning Advisory Council. For the first time this will provide the Government with long term economic advice for the framing of future Budgets. The greatest challenge the Government faced in the Budget was the reconstruction of Australian industry. The outlook that the Government faced in framing this Budget was the worst for many decades. Faced with very real difficulties many urged the Government to reduce areas of assistance to industry. The Government, to its credit, rejected this advice. The Government recognised the importance of improving the economy's productive potential if the problems of unemployment and growth were to be overcome. The Government enacted new depreciation provisions for industry, plant and buildings in June this year. These provisions, together with the investment allowance, constitute a highly supportive fiscal system on which firms can profitably engage in productive investment. We believe these incentives to be the equal to those available in other Western countries, at least as far as investment in plant and equipment is concerned. The same philosophy provides a supportive environment for the development and reconstruction of the productive sectors of the economy and is reflected in a number of other areas in the Budget. In this respect industrial research and technological development has been accorded a very high priority in this year's Budget. Such a priority reflects the Government's strongly held view that the upgrading of our technological base is essential if the competitiveness of Australian industry is to be improved. The Budget allocated $71.6m to the Australian industrial research and development incentive scheme, representing a 36 per cent increase on last year's funding. It is designed to encourage a basis for increasing overall research and development. Programs to facilitate innovation and encourage the adoption of technology in existing industries has also been given a high priority in this Budget. An amount of $2.86m has been allocated to multiplier agencies such as the Technology Transfer Council, the Productivity Promotion Council of Australia and the Industrial Design Council of Australia. An amount of $1.825m has also been allocated to research associations and for assistance to Australian inventors. A further $1.96m was allocated for programs to promote and develop high technology and growth industries, including an analysis of new market opportunities and support for existing and new innovation centres. In addition, approximately $23m was made available for CSIRO research programs relevant to the development of new technologies such as biotechnology, genetic technology and the information technologies. Furthermore, the Government made available $1.2m for a new company -Sirotech. The primary purpose of Sirotech is to encourage a higher degree of private sector involvement in promising new technologies developed by CSIRO. Probably the most important element in the Budget is one that has not been given great prominence. That was the allocation of extra resources to the Australian Industry Development Corporation. The AIDC has the potential not only to create jobs in our society but also to assist Australia's present companies to restructure and to become competitive in a world environment. Unfortunately, for the past decade Australian technology has been exported at very little benefit to our community. If Australia is to survive and its industrial base is to prosper, it must take part in the revitalisation of its industries. There are many ways in which a government can assist, and the AIDC is one of the important areas. The Government not only allocated an additional $12.5m in the Budget to the AIDC; it also increased its gearing ratios from eight times its present capital and reserves to 15 times its present capital and reserves, which gives it a much greater opportunity to assist Australian industry in reconstruction and redevelopment. If Australian industries are to survive in our competitive world they must learn that they cannot continually hide behind unnecessary tariff barriers. I am not a person who believes that we should have a free trade society, but I believe that this Government has laid the ground work for our society to come to terms with the reality of its neighbourhood. Many countries in our area are now developing to such an extent that their technologies rival those of Australian industry. We must therefore be very vigilant to make sure that Australian industries do not suffer from dumping. This is probably one of the most important areas for the Government to take into account. This has been done by the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) in reviewing procedures in Australian anti-dumping legislation. The Minister has advised that he will be introducing legislation once the current review of the Customs Tariff (Anti- Dumping) Act 1975 has been completed. Many industries in this country over past years unfortunately have come to rely on tariff barriers to protect them and have not reinvested. In the short time that this Government has been in power we have seen that a government can assist Australian industry to reinvest and to expand. The steel plan announced by the Minister for Industry and Commerce is a prime example of how Australian industry can be restructured and therefore become competitive in a world environment. There are many areas in which this Budget has assisted Australian industry. Perhaps the most significant of all is the tourist industry. Unfortunately, many of our colleagues in this chamber do not recognise that the Australian tourist industry has the potential to create an enormous number of jobs. As I have said before, Australia is one of the great tourist destinations in the world. Unfortunately we do not promote it. Perhaps the largest increase in any expenditure item in the Budget was the 75 per cent increase for the Australian Tourist Commission from $10m to $17.5m. This is a recognition by the Government that tourism is one answer to job creation. Currently 1.3 million Australians depart this country each year for either business or holiday trips. If 300,000 of those people could be encouraged to stay at home we would create immediately 25,000 jobs, for the industry has acknowledged that for every 12 tourists who visit Australia or participate in holidays in Australia one new job is created. This has tremendous potential for the revitalisation of our economy. The Budget has given a clear indication that the Government is aware of the need to develop tourist programs. I am sure that in the near future the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) will be announcing new programs of great benefit to the Australian tourist industry. One item in the Budget of significance to me as a Queenslander is the $1m which the Government has made available to subsidise the cost of fuel oil for the Great Barrier Reef island tourist resorts. This is a very important measure in this Budget as the tourist resorts of the Great Barrier Reef are of great significance to the Australian tourist industry and obviously can develop further. Furthermore, there has been a reinstatement of the exemption from sales tax of certain types of tourist boats to encourage people to invest in the tourist industry and to provide services of a high standard and of a world class nature for visitors to our shores. Other basic industry measures have assisted the Australian tourist industry. The Minister for Industry and Commerce announced last Friday that the AIDC would be able for the first time to give financial assistance to both the Australian tourist industry and service industries in Australia. As Australia progresses towards the twenty-first century it is important that we develop the new industries and that we look to the high technology industries and the areas of expansion that this Government is sure will come. In the past we have considered only the traditional industries. As the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr) mentioned, the Australian car industry could shed further jobs. This is one of the great tragedies, because Australia currently has enormous problems with its manufacturing industry. That is not a legacy of this Government; it is a legacy of seven years of mismanagement by the previous Government, when no firm plan was set in place for Australian industries. Had the previous Government taken the example that is now being set it would not now perhaps be in opposition. In the short time that this Government has been in power it has made enormous strides in assisting Australian industry. Once again I cite the steel industry. As the Government now reviews the motor vehicle industry, it may be able in future Budgets to make further assistance available to that industry and to assist all those other industries in great need. It is my firm belief that Australia has a great potential to develop quickly high technology industries. This Government has recognised strongly in this Budget the need for that development and has made allocations of appropriate amounts of money. I commend the Budget to the House. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(5.57) —I remind members of the Government that this is their Budget, as was the mini-Budget in May. It is not good enough for them not to defend the Budget but to attack the manner in which government changed hands on 5 March. I think that in 12 months time honourable members opposite will realise better than they do now that they are the ones who will be called to account to the Australian people for the success or otherwise of this Budget, to which they are giving limited support because their time is taken up by attacks on the Opposition. There is criticism of the reaction of back bench Government members to this Budget as they follow blindly the attitude of their Ministers, who have as much economic ability as they have. I warn them that in 12 months time they will be called to account for everything that is said in this Budget debate. I must comment particularly on the manner in which the Budget was approached. I have heard it said on many platforms and in many forums that the Australian people were subject to massive preconditioning with respect to the amount of the deficit and increases in taxes. For some strange reason, through that preconditioning, the Government was able to demonstrate incorrectly to the Australian people that a big Budget is not necessarily wrong, and in actual fact the increases in tax have basically gone unnoticed. I suppose that the Government has done remarkably well in promoting the Budget and its effect. But I return to the reality of the situation. This deficit of 4.7 per cent of the gross national product is the second largest deficit in Australia's parliamentary history. One might ask what was the largest deficit on record. That occurred during the era of the previous Labour Government in 1974-75. That Budget deficit gained the reputation of being the largest recorded in Australia' s history. We were preconditioned to believe that taxes would rise in a horror budget and there has since been an assumption that this did not occur. If this Budget is taken in conjunction with the mini-Budget, we find that direct taxation did increase because there was no indexation on the ceiling given to a normal wage earner, there has been a tax on superannuation and also the elimination of tax rebates. All of those measures, in their own way, mean that a single or married pay-as-you-earn taxpayer in Australia does pay now a higher percentage of his total income in tax than he did under the previous Government. Yet basically those facts are not mentioned and certainly are not given the publicity that they deserve. That is the preconditioning that occurred in the matter of direct taxation. The other aspect was the massive increase in indirect taxation-which the Government, when in opposition, said that it would not increase. In fact, we have had displayed in this House letters from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), then a back bencher, saying the he would not agree to increases in excise on tobacco, fuel, or cigarettes because that would affect the lower and middle income earners. Mr Cowan —This is another promise going down the drain. Mr BRAITHWAITE —This is just another promise which has gone down the drain. I will now deal with another aspect of the Budget. The discredited claims by the Labor Party that they were left with a record deficit have been noted, particularly in the Press. Prior to the election, as early as December of last year, in preparation for I believe the Premiers Conference, the then Treasurer, Mr Howard, indicated that the deficit had blown out to about $4 billion. There was no secret in that regard. That was not a bad prediction at the time when we consider the actual result, the $4.5 billion deficit blowout as at the end of June-four months of the period involved being while Labor was in Government. So there could be no suggestion that the Treasurer of the day was hiding the facts. The $9.6 billion figure was a Treasury estimate. In due course-the Labor Party could not avoid rubbing a little extra salt in the wound-the Budget Papers showed that this figure had risen to $10.4 billion for some unrecognised reason. This shows the transparency of the economic policy of the Government. The whole thing was a cosmetic application to try to avoid facing the public with what has turned out to be, as I said, the second largest deficit on record. I suggest that the Prime Minister, when he was in opposition, would have known what the effects would be; I am sure he would not have been so ignorant of the facts. I am pretty sure that the Labor Party, in making those massive promises in order to win government, knew exactly what was the situation with regard to estimates. I repeat that they were only estimates. I am sure that the Treasurer (Mr Keating ), in applying himself to the 1983-84 Budget, could have made sure that such a deficit would not have been forthcoming. What are the alternative programs of the Government? I sat on the Government benches for seven years. I have been disgusted to hear policies and programs espoused by the Government when it was in opposition, knowing that those policies and programs would never come to fruition if it gained office. I am not here to suggest what were the alternative programs, except to say that, on our record, I am sure that the figure of $9.6 billion, which was later blown out to $10.4 billion, would not have occurred; that it would have been some billions of dollars less. It is important to look at the effects of the deficit not only in terms of the present but also of the future. I referred to the fact that the record deficit occurred in 1974-75. This Budget and the actual expenditure last year indicate the effects of deficit budgeting on the economy of Australia. In 1982-83, $3, 378m, or 6.9 per cent of expenditure was expended on servicing the interest on the national debt. In 1983-84 that amount has increased to $4,133m, 7.3 per cent . Those figures are significant because such expenditures from Commonwealth revenue have no direct bearing on placing people in jobs and implementing capital works. It is money that actually goes down the drain. Worse that that, next year's figures will be greater because they will service the debt that has been created this year. The public debt-the value of securities on issue-as at 30 June 1983 was on my understanding, $22,859m for the Commonwealth and $16,269m for the States, giving a total public debt at that stage of $39,128m. That figure does not include the debt of local government or semi-governmental bodies . If we were to look at the total amount involved, in actual fact I am fairly sure we would find that the national debt of this country would equal the amount expended in one Budget. That is a horrifying situation for the future generations who will be called to account for the excesses of this Government. All of those matters are relevant. The Budget stands on some fairly doubtful estimates. For instance, I refer to the containment of increases in wages to seven per cent, already a higher figure than was promised at the National Economic Summit Conference-three per cent to four per cent in the next financial year. But the Economic Summit was a closed book except for the open cheque that was given with regard to wage increases. Everybody was required to pull down prices and services without taking into account the wages factor. So this Budget relies on increases in wages being restrained to seven per cent. We will see on Friday how successful that restraint has been in the current round of negotiations. If the figure does not remain at seven per cent, this will result in a blowout in expenditure, a blowout in the deficit and also an increase in the consumer price index. I mention in particular the inflation figure of 7.5 per cent. I do not know how the Labor Party will explain this to the workers of Australia. They may have been paying $8 per week out of their wages through a health insurance plan but I do not know how that is any different from a levy of $8 which will be taken by way of taxation. The CPI is to be artificially decreased because of the influence of the Medicare levy. The Medicare levy, as I understand it, will account for about a three per cent reduction in the CPI figure. That is important. Keeping that figure down to 7.5 per cent would be a massive task. In actual fact we are looking at an increased cost of living for the person in the street-the wage earner, the businessperson, the housewife-of 10.5 per cent. How will the Government obtain a recovery through this Budget? Mr Fisher —They are losing both ways. Mr BRAITHWAITE —They are losing both ways, as my friend the honourable member for Mallee says. The Government has a very slender hold on this Budget with regard to the CPI figure and the wages figure. In addition, a blowout in expenditure might result as the level of unemployment has not decreased, as has been suggested. I believe that the Budget can be taken as a tribute to the broken promises of the Labor Party. I wish to place on the record of this House some of the promises that were made prior to the election and what the reality has been. While the Budget deficit is to be the second highest on record, it stands as a record of broken promises by the Hawke Government. Mr Wells —Give us another $4m and we will fulfil them all. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Somebody suggested that I should give the figures to the House. Honourable members can have them. The promise was that there would be income tax cuts for six million workers. Reality: No tax cuts but progressive increases as wages rise and also as the block concessional rebate level moved from $1,590 to $2,000. Another promise: To increase the tax threshold to $5,000. Reality: There is no change; the threshold is still at $4,462. Promise: To increase the pensioner tax threshold to $5,893. Reality: There has been no change. Promise: To increase the spouse rebate and the sole parent rebate to help the family. Reality: There has been no change. Promise: No new capital gains tax. Reality: There has been a tax on lump sum superannuation payments and that could be interpreted as a capital gains tax. Promise: Cheaper petrol, a reduction of 3c a litre. Reality: There has been dearer petrol. As a result of this Budget the price of petrol will increase by 2c a litre and, worse still, that figure will be indexed every six months. Mr Cowan —And Mr Wran put it up last night. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Mr Wran aggravated that situation last night by increasing it in the New South Wales Budget. Another promise: There will be no devaluation. Within a week of the election there was a devaluation of 10 per cent. I understand that has stablised at about 6 or 7 per cent at the moment. There was a definite promise, even after the election, that there would be no change to superannuation. Reality: There has been an increase in the taxation on lump sum superannuation payments. We will bear the brunt of that with air flights within a week or so. Mr Cowan —Labor always knocks the working man. Mr BRAITHWAITE —As my friend said, they are always knocking the working man. There was a promise to raise the pension to 25 per cent of the average wage over a three-year period. The reality is that it is still at 22.9 per cent and also it will be affected by the artificial reduction in the consumer price index by the Medicare levy, as I mentioned before. Also, there was a promise that fringe benefit income levels would be indexed. The reality is that fringe benefits are to be indexed but means tested on an assets basis. I have a lot more instances here and I intend to put them into the Hansard record. Promise: Double the current expenditure on tourism. Reality: The prices of Avgas and Avtur have increased by 6c a litre since the Labor Party has been in government. Promise: To extend the tender for five additional patrol boats to north Queensland engeering agents. Reality: No such order has been given. Promise: Five hundred thousand people will be put back to work. Reality: In the first six months, to August, I believe there were 1,000 extra; there are 499,000 to come. Promise: The north Queensland Australian Broadcasting Commission was to be given $250,000 to upgrade services. Reality: The Labor Party has put a Government Press agent in Townsville to promote government policies. I wish it would promote the Government's broken promises. A promise was given to underwrite the 1982 sugar crop for the Queensland farmers. Reality: There has been no underwriting but a cost increase to the farmers has been imposed by the additional fuel costs I mentioned earlier. Promise: To maintain the real value of local government general purpose grants. Reality: In 1983-84 local government has been underpaid by $15m on these general purpose grants. There was a promise by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) to restore the previous taxation position on retreaded tyres. Reality: The retreads are still sales taxed. Promise: To increase growth through undertaking desperately needed public capital works. Reality: The Labor Party has scrapped the Alice Springs-Darwin railway, it has reduced expenditure on the Brisbane Airport and it has cancelled the bicentennial water resources program. They are not all the promises that have been broken. I am sure my colleagues will be able to mention more of them. As I said, this Budget stands as a testimony to the greatest number of broken promises ever. The promises were made by a party that was determined to win government one way or another. Under this Budget and the earlier mini-Budget some sectors of the community are being called upon to make a greater sacrifice than others. The country, rural and northern Australians have been taken to the cleaners by this Budget. The honourable member for Fadden (Mr Beddall) mentioned something about the three Rs . He was meaning that the three Rs stood for 'rip-off', 'ruin' and probably ' recovery' from the rural sector. I shall mention some of the decisions that will affect the rural sector. I have already mentioned the Alice Springs-Darwin railway project that effectively has been scrapped, in spite of the very definite undertaking to continue it. Taxation alterations have been made which affect the rural area. The accelerated depreciation write-offs introduced in the previous Budget are not extended and there is great confusion in the taxation area. There has been a neutralisation of the income equalisation deposits. The land clearing and drainage concessions have been taken away so there is no encouragement for development. Taxation has been imposed on fortified wines, in spite of very definite undertakings that that would not happen. The deductibility for on-farm fuel and hay storage costs has been removed. The bicentennial water resources program that would have assisted the rural people more than anyone else has been cancelled. The accelerated tuberculosis and brucellosis campaign has been restricted, in spite of an undertaking to the contrary and the fact that many people throughout northern Australia have destocked in preparation for this accelerated program. The sugar underwriting has been taken off. The rural people will be asked to pay for the protection of the steel industry that has been afforded the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, but no such underwriting or assistance is contemplated for rural industries. As I have mentioned, the cost of fuel has increased, not only because of the price increase but also because of the fact that excise is no longer rebatable and there has been a widening of the gap as far as fuel freight is concerned. Oils and lubricants probably get one of the smallest mentions in the Budget. Nobody is expected to notice them. Sales tax on these commodities will be increased by 20 per cent. Who does that affect? It affects the rural people, the country people, the people who are out there determined to try to make a living in spite of the intervention of this Federal Government in Canberra. Of course, we had the wonderful election promise that the Labor Party would look at and fix up the anomaly of sales tax being imposed on the freight component of costs for goods. What has happened? Absolutely nothing has happened; it still obtains. Northern Australia has been given one Minister from Queensland but none actually from northern Australia itself, above the twenty-sixth parallel. That area provides the major coal resources. It provides about 50 per cent of coal exports. About 90 per cent of the sugar grown in Australia is grown in that region. We have the mighty mines of Mt Isa in that region. We have tourist potential. All of these are producing income for the Commonwealth, yet so little is given back. Mr Cowan —And there is a vacancy in the Ministry and they will not give it to a Queenslander. Mr BRAITHWAITE —There is a vacancy in the Ministry, but worse than that of course is the fact that the Government has a Minister for Primary Industry, a Minister for the country, who is not even party to the inner decisions of the Cabinet. That is the contempt with which this Labor Government and this Budget is treating rural Australia. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GEAR(Tangney)(6.17) —This Budget represents a major step out of the dark years of Mr Fraser, away from the needless suffering to which that man and his Treasurer condemned millions of Australians. It embodies a major reversal of direction away from the contractionary monetary policies which for seven years have choked the life out of our businesses towards a stimulatory expansionism that will give Australia a real chance to achieve economic recovery. So well received has this Budget been by all sectors of the community that the Opposition has refrained from what would have been the hypocrisy of a censure motion. A scan of the headlines the day after the Budget was delivered tells the story: 'Help for the jobless, poor', said the Canberra Times; 'Welfare Budget', said the West Australian; 'Mild Mannered Budget' said the Melbourne Age; ' Disadvantaged get help' said the Tasmanian Mercury; and 'Budget for recovery' said the Australian Financial Review. Perhaps the most eloquent testimony was that expressed in the actions of sharemarket traders. As the Australian of 25 August headlined it: 'Investors give Budget $69 million vote of approval'. I invite honourable members to contrast these independent statements with that of the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), who called the Budget a disaster in his reply to it. He also predicted higher interest rates arising from the Budget. Events have proven him wrong on both assertions. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), who will always be remembered as the man who withheld the fact of a $9.6 billion deficit from the people of Australia at election time, was also wrong on the question of interest rates, as he was wrong over the last seven years when he hopefully predicted a fall in interest rates. The credibility of these two is a total zero. It has become a regular feature of their ramblings that they do not tell us what they would have done if they were in power. They do not offer any alternative. The reason is simple: They do not have a clue. I would say that there are still some speakers from the Opposition to come in this debate and it might be a good idea if at least one of them were to tell us how they would get us out of this mess if they were in government. But I doubt they will do that. I would like to compare the media comments on the first Hawke Labor Budget with those which followed the last Budget by the former Treasurer, Mr Howard. The Melbourne Age, an eminently conservative newspaper, was moved to declare in a now famous editorial: 'As for the poor, the jobless and the homeless, most of them can expect to remain poor, jobless and homeless.' Honourable members should compare that damning indictment with the facts of this Government's first Budget . Benefits for a wide range of people dependent on social security-I see in today 's Sydney Morning Herald that they number about four million people now-have been increased, new payments introduced and additional earnings restrictions relaxed. The introduction of Medicare will further help the poor of our community. Some $958m is to be spent on employment and training schemes which will involve some 300,000 people in a year, while civil works expenditure has been increased by 16 per cent and direct capital expenditure boosted 22 per cent to $3.7 billion. The first Budget of this Government is expected to create 130, 000 new jobs. The community employment program, a major element in the thrust to reduce unemployment, will ensure that those who have suffered most during the Fraser years will be given special attention. This is the kind of news that the jobless have been wanting to hear. First home buyers will be eligible for assistance of up to $7,000 over five years and investment in public housing will increase by 50 per cent, with additional funding for Aboriginal housing. These initiatives will themselves create 30,000 jobs, while giving the first worthwhile assistance for the last seven years to low income earners who want to own their own homes. In other words, this Budget does precisely what the last Budget of those who should now remain for a long time opposite failed to do-it helps the poor, the jobless and the homeless. They may tell what lies they will in circumstances where they are able to suppress the truth, but they cannot deny this. Our Budget is aimed primarily at helping the poor, the jobless and the homeless . Their Budget did nothing for these people while it supported those who were already privileged-a fact which was recognised at the time their Budget was presented, before it fell apart. Their is no way the conservatives of this place can claim they would have delivered such a caring Budget as this, and their failure seriously to criticise it underlines their recognition of that fact. The deep differences in philosophy and in responsiveness to the problems facing the people of Australia which underly this Budget can be clearly seen in a comparison with the spending trends established under the former Treasurer who misled the people. Eight years ago, under a Labor Government, health, education, housing, welfare and urban and regional development and the environment were clearly established as spending priorities, and funds in real terms were substantially increased. What happened during the seven dark years of Mr Fraser? Health expenditure, which had increased by an average 38.4 per cent a year in real terms through three Labor budgets, was reduced by 22.5 per cent in real terms during those unhealthy years. Education expenditure increased by an average 42.6 per cent a year in real terms under three Labor budgets, but increased only 3.7 per cent in total during Mr Fraser's seven years, despite substantial increases in the numbers of people in education. Surely they were our darkest years for education , and we are paying the price now as we find our labour force lacks the skills needed for international competition. Housing expenditure increased in real terms by an average 108.8 per cent a year through three Labor budgets, but fell 31.9 per cent during the dark years. The victims of that neglect are suffering today. Social security and welfare spending rose by an average 14.3 per cent a year under Labor, while the Fraser Government screwed this down to only 5.6 per cent a year during its seven budgets, despite doubling the ranks of the unemployed, leaving an additional 437,000 without jobs. As the numbers of needy increased, the amount allotted to them stayed much the same, and in real terms each got less. Finally, I come to expenditure on urban and regional development and the environment. Here there is some confusion over terminology, for the dark years of Fraserism were not concerned with development in the true sense of the word, as is evidenced by their restrictive economic policies. They did however use the word development, by which they meant ripping our resources out of the ground to sell them basically unprocessed at knockdown prices to overseas interests. Generally they even gave the job of ripping these resources out to overseas companies. With that background there is little surprise in the observation that no concern was shown for the environment during the Fraser years. The last Labor government increased spending on urban and regional development and the environment by an annual 88.5 per cent in real terms, those on the Opposition side reduced this spending by 84.0 per cent during their term. We are in danger of slipping back to the status of an underdeveloped economy, largely because of the economic culpability of the former Treasurer. An 84 per cent cut in spending on development and the environment! No wonder those opposite have had little to say in criticism of our Budget. While it is apparent that the conservatives care little for health, education, housing, welfare, urban and regional development and the environment, and that they rejected these as priorities during the Fraser years, it is interesting to look at what priorities they did adopt. Expenditure on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation rose more than 100 per cent under the last government, not one cent of which is accountable to the tax paying public. One wonders if this was payment for services rendered. Certainly the extra money has not produced any apparent increase in competence. There was also an increase of 54.6 per cent in expenditure on law, order and public safety during the dark years, a traditional enough response from those with vested interests to protect when the population is getting restless with its lot. Fortunately for Australia the priorities which the previous government dismantled are now being re-asserted. Under this Budget there are to be increases in real terms of 16.1 per cent in health expenditure, 2.5 per cent in education, 10.5 per cent in housing, 10.5 per cent in social security and welfare and 9 per cent in urban and regional development and the environment. The needs of people and the needs of a growing economy are to be recognised instead of the misdirected policies of indifference and neglect practiced over the last seven years. The soul of a budget, if a budget may be regarded as having a unifying spirit, is probably best reflected not in the words of those who criticise it, or praise it, but in who launches the criticisms. The budgets of the previous government were condemned by the groans of over two million Australians condemned to poverty, while successive budgets directed resources to those who were already well off, cushioning them against the impacts of world wide recession while leaving the poor, the aged, the unemployed and many minority groups to carry the burden. The economic policies of this Government have not been without their critics, most of whom have been very vocal and adept at using the media to amplify their cries. They are the airline pilots, an immensely privileged group, who enjoy greater superannuation benefits even than Prime Ministers with a similar length of service; they are the operators of companies sent to the bottom of the harbour, who fear for their tax free millions; they are the wealthy retirees who have benefited throughout their lives by superannuation concessions given so they would provide for themselves, but who then use contrived and shady investment schemes so they can hit the taxpayer for more benefits; they are the contractors who have avoided tax so they can live in luxury, paying nothing for the Government services they share in and giving nothing to help those in need. The soul of this Budget is apparent in those who have criticised it: Those who have the most and are not willing to share, those who are already very privileged, and those who have made a way of life out of tax bludging. This Budget is one step towards our commitment to redistribute wealth in Australia, and for that alone is the most significant Budget in seven years. It is only the first step, but it shows that we have changed direction and that we are on our way out of the dark ages. Under the previous government we arrived at a situation where the top 10 per cent of income earners earned more than the bottom 60 per cent, according to Australian Bureau of Statistics figures released last week. Equally important, these figures reveal the situation has worsened since the last Labor Government. The policies of Fraserism have ensured that the rich have got richer, while the poor have got poorer. In 1978-79 the top 10 per cent earned 27.8 per cent of the total income while the bottom 60 per cent earned 27.9 per cent. This has now changed so that the proportion of total income going to the richest 10 per cent has risen to 29 per cent and the proportion going to the poorest 60 per cent has declined to only 25 per cent of the total. That is the philosophy which the previous government implemented-that in times when low and middle income earners are facing increasing hardship, income share should be taken away from them and given to high income earners who are already enjoying an increased income share. No doubt the Treasurer who misled the people would continue that deliberate and oppressive income shift if he could, but thankfully he will never again get the opportunity. Myths about wage rises and profit squeezes aside, the facts are that from 1975-76 to 1980-81 profits rose some 26.7 per cent faster than wages. The minimum income of the top 20 per cent of income earners rose faster than the maximum income of the bottom 20 per cent of income earners. The figures here probably seriously underestimate the extent to which the rich got richer, for they exclude lurks and perks increasingly a part of upper income remuneration packages, and variously estimated at up to $14 billion in 1980-81. Nor do these figures allow for the popular upper income activities of tax avoidance and evasion, recently estimated as worth around $7 billion a year. The previous Government's tinkering with the tax scales left higher income earners paying less tax, but as wages struggled to keep pace with inflation lower income earners found themselves paying increasingly higher proportions of their income in tax. As Professor Mathews, who headed the Government inquiry into inflation and taxation, put it: 'The taxation system has become a major instrument for redistributing income and wealth in favour of the rich'. In short , under the previous Government the proportion of tax receipts which came from pay-as-you-earn taxpayers increased while the proportion which came from profits , dividends, the self employed, professionals and wealth declined. While the previous Government took more from low and middle income earners, it gave less back. The social wage of benefits and services provided by the Government, as I have already shown, took a big dive during the dark years with cuts to health, housing, education, and welfare. The commitment of this Government is to reverse the trend of the last seven years, to redirect wealth from those who have the most to those who are in greatest need. As part of that commitment I believe that we need to relook at payment of unemployment benefits. They are inappropriate in the longer term. The intended function of such benefits is income security during short periods spent between jobs during a period of full employment. The problems of long term unemployment are not answered, so we will have to investigate a more equitable distribution of national income that takes account of the influence of modern technology and the evolution of capitalist society. In short, unemployment benefits were more appropriate to the 1950s than they are to the 1980s. I strongly support this Budget as a step in the process of redressing the great imbalances in the distribution of wealth in Australia, as a step towards rebuilding the social wage, and as another step towards a comprehensive welfare system. Of course, those opposite care little for the welfare of the mass of Australians who did not vote for them. They would prefer to talk about economic management and what good economic performers they would like to think they are, which generally means how well they have served the interests of big companies and how well they are thought of in boardrooms in New York and Tokyo. Perhaps that is why they have so little to say now, for these businesses have deserted them now that the consequences of their fiscal vandalism are apparent. There are many people in Australia who once held the view that members of the Liberal Party were good economic managers. Perhaps this illusion was because of the Menzies days when post-war reconstruction produced growth during the 1950s and 1960s. However, when the going gets tough, as it is now, their lack of competence is exposed. No -one will forget the Fraser years, because the Liberal and National Country parties during that time were shown up for the incompetents that they are. They did not start with a clean slate on 6 March, and members on this side of the House will not let them forget it. At the start of the last decade Australia experienced a bout of inflation which was basically in keeping with trends in the economies of our major trading partners. The conservatives came to power promising to end that level of inflation. What have they achieved in the seven years they were given to live up to that promise? Our inflation level is now almost unique among our major trading partners. Unlike our neighbours, we have failed to make any progress in reducing inflation, despite rapidly rising unemployment. The British inflation rate is now 3.7 per cent, the lowest for many years, while the United States rate has fallen to 2.4 per cent, the lowest in 17 years. Compare these figures with the consumer price index rise of 11.4 per cent we recorded for the 12 months to March this year-almost five times the United States rate. The conservatives had seven years to achieve the one single objective they set themselves, to reduce inflation. In pursuit of that goal they allowed post- depression record unemployment, increasingly widespread poverty, declining social security benefits, a diminishing social wage, falling living standards, rising interest rates, and then declining real wages through their wage freeze. What did they achieve as a result of wreaking such devastation? Only that Australia can now truly claim its relentless inflation rate is entirely home grown. The only foreign import the conservatives stopped was inflation. The foreign version just could not compete with the super version the conservatives bred right here in Australia. There is little wonder those opposite do not have the gall to mount a serious criticism of our Budget-they have too much to be ashamed of. The 7.5 per cent CPI rise predicted in the Budget will be a substantial improvement and catch up with our major trading partners, and in the context of the Budget initiatives is very achievable. A rate of inflation of 7.5 per cent after one year in office, a year of help for the needy and bold stimulus to the economy, will be an achievement the previous Government did not come anywhere near in seven years. It will be a clear demonstration to the Australian people that the Labor Party is the party of economic competence, the Government with the economic management skills. I hope the Australian people will long remember how the conservatives left millions to suffer as they screwed down the deficit in the false hope that that would reduce inflation, while major economies that have run much higher proportionate deficits have recovered ahead of ours. I do not believe that if the previous Government had spared a little more money for the relief of urgent need over the last seven years our economy would now be any worse off, and I am sure that if they had spent more on expansionary measures we would now be a lot better off. Those opposite have to forever shoulder the guilt of the suffering they caused and ignored and the extent to which they set our economy back. I commend this Budget to the House. Australia has waited long enough for it. Mr ALDRED(Bruce)(6.35) —This Government that so often claims to support consensus and openness is now perpetrating the biggest confidence trick this nation has witnessed. It involves the complicity of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke ) and his Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes). It is a complicity that has been doubly condemned by at least one advisory committee to the Government. I refer to this Government's shameful actions against the Australian reserve defence forces. I also refer to this Government's ineptness and incompetence in the whole area of defence. The importance that this Government places on defence is well illustrated by the 59 words devoted to defence by the Treasurer (Mr Keating ) in his Budget Speech. The importance of defence to this Government is shown by its sleight of hand use of statistics in a vain attempt to gain respectability for its defence spending. This Government says that defence spending is up by 4 per cent, but it fails to tell us that that calculation is based on the absurd base that inflation would be around 6 per cent. Yet, on the very night of the Budget, the Treasurer said on the Channel 9 television network that he expected inflation to be 'in double digits'. If the Treasurer believes that inflation will be over 10 per cent, why does he base defence calculations on a fairy floss dreamland figure of 6 per cent? But if that sleight of hand, that pea-and-thimble trick, is puzzling, the prize for the biggest confidence trick must go to the Prime Minister and his Minister for Defence. While these two men were putting the final touches to the defence budget in early August-in between attending to the Ivanov-Combe affair-the Prime Minister sent a telegram to the President of the Citizen Military Forces Association, Major-General Maitland. Let me quote the telegram, dated 4 August: Dear Major-General Maitland, On the occasion of your Association's Annual General Meeting and National Conference I would like to reaffirm the Government's support for the Australian Army Reserve as a most important element in the country's defence effort. No defence effort can be truly successful without the broad support of the citizenry. Your Association renders a vital contribution as a source of experience and knowledge in matters pertaining to the defence force reserves and as a contribution to the broader national discussion of defence issues. What a classic piece of Hawkespeak that is. While the Prime Minister is reaffirming the Government's support for the Army Reserve, he is plotting to undermine and emasculate the reserves. Just two weeks later in the Budget it was announced that the tax exemption of reserve forces allowances and pay would be phased out. But again we have a pea-and-thimble trick. 'Phased out', says the Government; but since non-continuous pay is made up quarterly the effect is to catch all earnings after 1 October 1983. At this stage no doubt the minions from the National Media Liaison Service-the multi-million dollar propaganda division established by the Government-advised the Government to legitimise the decision. So a Committee of Reference for Defence Force Pay was established to review pay and allowances to Reserve Forces by 30 June 1984. But in a sleight of hand once more, the Government allows the taxing proposal to become operative before the report is made, or considered by the Government, or before any remedial action can be taken or implemented. The Treasurer tells this House that this action is estimated to recover $5m for 1983-84 and $20m in a full year. He gives no details to support this. He fails to tell that the $20m will go into Consolidated Revenue and not the defence allocation. In fact, the Treasurer is again playing with fairy floss dreamland figures. If the newly established review committee adjusts pay and allowances, there will be a higher gross payout. The costs of administration and recovery of tax will be higher. In fact, the computer programs now handling Reserve pay will need to be totally rewritten rather than just amended. At what cost? Also, if reserve forces are to be maintained at current levels further funds will be needed for recruitment to replace members leaving and, as I will outline later, the numbers leaving can be expected to be much greater than normal wastage and turnover. In giving the dreamland figures the Treasurer has given no consideration to the increased costs which may result in having to beef up the regular component should the Army Reserve component disintegrate under financial pressure. In reality the $20m tax saving is as illusory as his expectations of 6 per cent inflation. If the consequences of the Government's acting against the reservists ' pay was limited only to a miscalculation of government revenue the matter would be serious enough. But the consequences are much more grave than that. The decision to tax reservists' pay and allowances will remove what little incentive there is for a member to continue to serve by giving the time of himself and family over his normal employment for little reward. The whole issue of incentive and tax exemption has been closely studied by a previous Committee of Reference for Defence Force Pay. In a report from that Committee presented to the Minister for Defence on 21 March 1975 the Committee's attitude to tax is clearly spelled out. In chapter 1, which is headed ' Effectiveness of Taxation Exemption as an Incentive', the report states: Talking to reservists the removal of tax exemption would remove incentive and therefore Reserve pay should remain tax exempt. In that same report in chapter 8 headed 'Tax Rates for Members of ARES' it is stated: Appropriate rates of remuneration having been agreed appropriate to work performed a problem could occur if tax exemption is withdrawn. In such a case a retention and attraction allowance is recommended but this too would in all probability be taxable. If the tax exemption is retained the proposed rates will therefore contain an intrinsic retention and attraction incentive. It is only in the event that the exemption is withdrawn that the question arises as to the nature of the incentive which should be recommended as a substitute. No alteration to tax exemption is the better course. I repeat that recommendation: No alteration to tax exemption is the better course. That is borne out by two simple examples. A Reserve member with civilian earnings in excess of $19,500, earning $6,000 Reserve pay, will keep only $3,240 . A Reserve member with civilian earnings in excess of $35,788, earning $6,000 Reserve pay, will keep only $2,400. How mean can this Government get? This Government is prepared to penalise those young men and women who are self- employed but are concerned about Australia's defence. This mean Government-I repeat-this mean Government-will compel the self-employed who are paying provisional tax to pay initially double tax. If the Reserve pay pushes them into the top tax rate a member of the reserve forces would pay $1.20 for each dollar earned, a net loss of 20c for each $1. This mean Government, led by a mean Prime Minister who irresponsibly promised tax cuts and twice broke that promise, is taking out its meanness on recipients of the tertiary education assistance scheme and the unemployed. Students currently serving in the reserves and who are dependent on TEAS will no longer be able to remain in the reserves. If they do they will lose their TEAS allowance. This mean Government, in its ineptness, now plans to destroy the university regiments, to snatch a few dollars from the pockets of students. If this Government has any self-respect the appropriate Minister should immediately inform this House and the country that he has ordered the Department of Education and Youth Affairs to review the regulations relating to TEAS. The Minister should make that statement immediately to minimise the damage already done to the university regiments. In fact I would have expected the Minister for Defence to play his legitimate role as the honourable member for Corio by defending the university regiments. As in my electorate of Bruce, the honourable member for Corio has a university regiment in his electorate. What has he done? He has done nothing. In fact, I would expect the Minister also to be supporting the case for the Reserve Army members who are unemployed. Perhaps the Minister for Defence is not aware that in his electorate of Corio he also has a second Army Reserve unit known as the 10th Medium Regiment. Perhaps the Minister for Defence is not aware that about one-sixth of the reserve forces in the electorate of Corio are unemployed. The Army Reserve helps these young persons to recover their self-respect, helps them to learn new skills and allows them to contribute in a worthwhile way to the community. Now, because of the inept and ill thought out Budget action, the unemployed will not be able to afford to continue to be members of the Reserve, as the Reserve pay will disqualify them and their families from social security benefits. I have described this Government as a mean government. How else can anyone describe it when a government thwarts every effort by young people to ease their dependence on social assistance by enlisting for Reserve service while out of work? What will happen to the serving reservist who loses his job, even temporarily? He will have to apply for a discharge. What has the Minister for Defence done? Has he taken up the battle for his men? The Minister has passed the buck. Visiting reservists at a unit in Western Australia soon after the Budget, the Minister stated that he could do nothing and that it was 'Treasury's fault'. I would recommend that the Minister for Defence ask his Government's propaganda division, the National Media Liaison Service, to provide him with a transcript of what the Treasurer said on 30 August on radio station 3LO. In that interview the Treasurer told the interviewer, Mr Terry Lane, that the Labor Government has regarded the non-taxing of reservists pay and allowances as 'a glaring anomaly for some time'. Mr Howard —He thinks it is a rort. Mr ALDRED —He does, but it is not the true picture. The current Minister for Defence was the previous Opposition's spokesman in the defence area, yet he now pleads ignorance about the Government's attitude and blames Treasury. The same Minister for Defence, when in Opposition, made much of being well informed on defence matters. Now this Minister supports the creation of a distinction within the Services between members, something which is inherently contrary to the spirit of military service. Because of this Budget decision members of the Reserve now doing exactly the same job will receive different remuneration depending on their civilian employment and due to differing individual tax scales. It was the now Prime Minister who supported and participated in the Liberal Government's recruiting campaign for the reserve forces. This Prime Minister, who is now responsible for undermining the reserve forces, was the man who made a television commercial and urged employers to support the reserve forces. Mr Howard —That is right. Mr ALDRED —That is correct. This is the Prime Minister who sends a telegram reaffirming the Government's support for the reserve forces while he plots those forces' destruction. What is he going to tell those employers now? I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, what the employers think of this Prime Minister's Government. On Tuesday, 6 September, the Victorian State Committee for Employer Support of Reserve Forces passed the following motion: In view of the Federal Government's considerable efforts and expenditure incurred in encouraging employers to support the Reserve Forces this Committee views with growing concern the expressed intention to tax Reserve pay and adopting of other negative measures outlined in the Budget which will seriously weaken the Reserve Forces and cause loss of credibility with employers. Accordingly this Committee calls upon the Federal Government to immediately reverse its decisions. That is what the employers think of this Government's actions. In the time remaining to me let me turn to the hypocrisy of the Treasurer. As I have already mentioned, the Treasurer was interviewed on Melbourne radio on 30 August when he told all that the Labor Government considered the non-taxing of reservists' pay as a glaring anomaly. He told the radio audience that his actions and those of the Government were well thought out. Again we have fairy floss, dreamland thinking. Will the tax be on a pay as you earn basis or by voluntary disclosure? Problems arise in both alternatives. If PAYE deductions are made now will the defence pay authorities know at what rate the deduction is to be made unless the member makes a disclosure of his civilian income and financial situation? This Government, which wants to establish a record of personal freedoms-I will not refer to Mr Combe-now intends to compel reserve force personnel to disclose to Army clerks personal and confidential information not connected to the member 's service. This is not only an intrusion on privacy not previously encountered but is completely unwarranted. If the tax deductions are not to be made under the PAYE system members will face a lump sum assessment at the end of the financial year. This will cause recovery problems and undoubted hardships, particularly to members who have otherwise operated on a PAYE system. Again in its meanness, this Government now wants to force the ordinary individual to pay provisional tax. In many instances this will result in a negative cash flow. Apart from financial considerations, a major factor is the overall effect on morale and the future of the reserve forces. The Government says currently that there are 30,000 plus reservists. I am sure the Minister will explain that figure when the computer shows that only some 23,000 to 24,000 persons are being paid. The Government's policy will result in the number being depleted. With the Regular Army's numbers now falling below division strength it is irresponsible to reduce further the reserves. The reduction of the reserves will not only see this country's strength fall well below divisional numbers but will also see important reserve units disintegrate. For example, the 10th Medium Regiment, which is in the electorate of Corio, is the only reservists' medium regiment of artillery in Australia outside the one Regular Army unit. This reserve unit is endangered for reasons I have already outlined. The Government also plans to reduce training days for the reserve. The current 38.25 days per man per year are to be reduced to 36 days per man and in Victoria the reduction is expected to fall further, to around 32 to 33 days per man. These reductions will have grave consequences and the money saved is nominal. It is plain meanness. The Government is also restricting training locations and units have been told they must train near their home bases. Interstate training is to be prohibited, as is remote area training. While the Prime Minister reaffirms the Government's support for reserve forces by telegram, the Government plans to reduce the regular cadre staff. What this Prime Minister and his Government are doing is to pretend not to freeze recruiting but through its policies it is ensuring that Service numbers will run down through attrition and will not be replaced through recruiting. In essence, this Government is out to emasculate our defence forces. It seeks respectability by saying that defence spending is up in the Budget, but the funds are really going on manpower, wages, and some equipment, and there is not an overall increase. This Government has no systematic approach to defence but concentrates on patchwork defence refurbishing. To quote former diplomat and journalist Bruce Grant: The first challenge is not whether the public purse can meet the burden at a time of economic stringency, but whether the Government can summon the courage to present to the people the unpalatable facts about the present limitations. The people of Australia want a proper Defence Force. The latest Morgan gallup poll clearly showed that 74 per cent of Australians favour increased defence spending. It is time the Government took up this challenge-the challenge that was accepted by the previous Liberal Government-and formulated a national defence strategy. This Government must stop its meanness, overcome its ineptness and control its anti-defence socialist left wing. Unless that is done Australia' s Regular Army forces will follow the demise of our reserve forces. Mr KEOGH(Bowman)(6.53) —Having listened to the previous speaker, the honourable member for Bruce (Mr Aldred), one could be excused for believing that the only reason people enter our reserve forces is for what they get out of it. My impression of the people I know in the reserve forces is that they are in there because of their love for their country and their wish to serve it. They clearly understand the reasons behind the decisions of the Government. I am sure that all those in the reserve forces will have it well and adequately proved to them at the completion of the inquiry the Government has under way at the moment that they have lost nothing at all by the decision of the Government announced in the Budget, a decision that was subjected this evening to the long winded criticism of the previous speaker. I want to devote much of my time this evening to the social welfare aspects of the Budget and in this way show the people of Australia that what has been set about by this Government is part of our long range plan to overhaul the social welfare system in this country. That will be of lasting benefit to all those people who are totally dependent on social welfare payments in their years of retirement and at times when, for various other reasons, they are not able to care or provide for themselves. This Budget clearly outlines in a responsible way, recognised as necessary and accepted, if not welcomed, by all sections of the community and certainly by the overwhelming proportion of Australians, that this Government's plans for the stability and economic growth of the nation for the next 12 months have been set on a very firm foundation. Once again, of course, in a predictable manner the Queensland Premier stood out as almost the lone dissenting voice on Budget night and on the next day. It is interesting to note that he was so devoid of genuine grounds for criticism of the Budget that he was able to voice his opposition only on the spurious grounds of misinterpreting the Government's new assets test for social security beneficiaries and service pensioners. It was misinterpretation because he either could not or would not understand the correct basis of the Government's proposals. Since the Queensland Premier's initial failure to find anything in the Budget on which to mount a strong protest he has been strangely silent. Without a doubt his silence is due, I am sure, to his realisation that this Budget, on which he was planning to be totally reliant for the basis of his anti-Labor Canberra bashing election campaign, has turned out to be a responsible Budget, well received and accepted as appropriate for the present economic conditions and soundly directed to supporting economic recovery. The Queensland Premier now knows that the people of Queensland support this Budget. He now knows that having destroyed the coalition Government there and, at the same time, whatever remaining credibility he had, and having now been exposed to the Queensland people as no longer capable of providing strong leadership and stable Government , his last hope-an unpopular Federal Budget which may have helped him struggle back into office-has failed to materialise. I have no doubt that the strength and stability of the Labor Government, typified by this Budget, will be an important factor in the minds of Queenslanders and will lead to the election of a strong, stable Labor Government in Queensland next month. I have found in the weeks since the Budget in my electorate office, in conversations with people in the electorate and in the telephone calls and letters that I have received from pensioners that, with few exceptions, the questions they raised or their objections to the assets test announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) were based mainly on a misunderstanding of the proposals. Unfortunately, this misunderstanding was initially largely due to the media failing to present the full facts from the explanatory Press releases of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) or the Budget Papers accompanying the Treasurer's speech to which many journalists had access well in advance of writing their articles next day in the daily newspapers. This is not the first time that an assets test has been a condition of eligibility for social security benefits. In 1976 the previous Government stopped counting large asset holdings in assessing pensions. This resulted in an explosion of shady investment schemes which often contrived ways of converting income to capital gains. It is unacceptable that retired people with large estates and hundreds of thousands of dollars should be able to arrange their assets so that they can receive the full pension and fringe benefits. The Minister has undertaken to consult pensioner and veterans' organisations before introducing the new test, which will commence 12 months after legislation is passed. I must say in all honesty that certain possible anomalies and some likely unfair provisions of the test have been brought to my attention. I do not believe that in any instance these are serious. I believe that in all cases the problems can be resolved satisfactorily before the final test is introduced in legislative form. It is important to note that the Government has made a definite commitment to consult with the various organisations representing those who will be subject to the assets test before it is implemented. These consultations are already under way. I have raised a number of matters of concern with the Ministers. When more matters are brought forward by honourable members, as I am sure they will be, they likewise will be raised with the Ministers. As I have said, I have every confidence that the assets test will prove to be, as so many other decisions of the Government, something which, if not welcomed by people, will be accepted as a necessary step towards the economic reovery that this Government sees as its major task. The pension increases announced in the Budget which will be effective from 1 November represent a positive move by the Government to implement our policy to raise pensions to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. I appreciate that it is the aim of the Australian Pensioners League to have pensions lifted to 30 per cent of average weekly earnings. I am very sympathetic-and I am sure the Government is also-to this policy, but it must be realised that it cannot be achieved in the near future. It should be noted and understood that increasing social welfare payments to provide a reasonably satisfactory living standard for those totally dependent upon social security payments for their day to day living-those with only limited savings and no other income-is the aim of this Government. But that aim cannot be achieved unless the Government is able to continue its commitment to tidy up the social welfare system and eliminate from it those who, for a variety of reasons, do not need and should not recieve pensions or benefits due to their ability to maintain themselves very well from their own financial resources. Despite recent public claims to the contrary, it is important for this Government to pursue its aims in regard to its commitment to the implementation of a national system of superannuation. It should do this in the shortest possible time. But again to accomplish this aim the Government must first continue its commitment to tidy up the present social welfare system. In retrospect, I readily admit that even though I, together with my Caucus colleagues, supported the decision by the Whitlam Government to abolish the means test progressively-it seemed like a very good idea at the time-it was the wrong priority for us to have acted upon. I was interested to read recently an article in the Bulletin which realistically noted our decisions in regard to the implementation of an assets test and the earlier decision in respect of the means test free pension for those over 70 years of age. The article was headlined 'Labor bites the bullet on welfare'. It showed clearly that unless the Government is prepared to act decisively to control unwarranted growth in the social welfare budget, savage increases in personal taxation will be necessary. The article illustrated that the proportion of people working and accordingly paying tax and on whom falls the burden of providing social welfare benefits for those who have retired, is steadily decreasing. Recent figures show that in 1981 there were some 17 people over 65 for every 83 people of working age. It is projected that in 50 years time those of pensionable age will number 32 for every 68 workers. It is patently obvious that the social welfare system inherited by this Government had reached the stage at which positive action was urgently necessary to stop the threatened intolerable burden on taxpayers and to allow the limited resources to be directed adequately to those in most need. Unfortunately, the all too common but false belief in the community generally is that because taxes are paid during one's working life, a pension on retirement is an automatic right. If that belief were correct and if an age pension equal to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings were a type of national superannuation scheme to which every Australian woman upon reaching the age of 60 and every Australian man upon reaching the age of 65 were entitled as of right, at least 12.3c in the dollar of every employed person's earnings would be required to pay for it. At present around 5.5c in the dollar is taken for that purpose. From these figures honourable members will see that taxation would have to be increased by more than 30 per cent to cover that situation. Unfortunately, that cannot be so. Fortunately, under the present system not every person of pensionable age receives a pension, but the example clearly illustrates the potential burden on taxpayers if our present pension system were allowed, as it was allowed under the previous Government, to continue uncontrolled. I refer particularly to the payment of pensions to those who did not need a pension to sustain them and to provide for their needs. I believe that the Government has taken a well overdue and economically responsible action in this decision to reimpose an assets test and, equally so, in the earlier decision to reimpose a means test on pensioners over 70 years of age. Mr Deputy Speaker, I now turn to one other matter that is in a way not totally unrelated to the matter I referred to in my earlier remarks. I have pleasure in knowing that this Government has decided to move for major expansion and redevelopment work to be carried out at the Greenslopes Repatriation Hospital in my electorate. This matter is not totally unrelated because again as far as this matter is concerned we see another area of the previous Government's abject failure and total neglect to face up to the responsibilities of maintaining this hospital and of improving its facilities. The major expansion and redevelopment program planned in the 1983-84 Budget is most welcome. The Budget allocation this year will enable work to commence on redevelopment of the pharmacy at Greenslopes Hospital at an estimated cost of $250,000. Other projects included in the works program include stage one of the upgrading of the rehabilitation unit at a cost of $120,000. Furthermore, there are additional new angiographic facilities which are estimated to cost $150,000. Last, but certainly not least, was the announcement by the Minister at the time of the Budget that Cabinet had approved the commencement of an $11.5m multi- storeyed building complex which would include six operating theatres, intensive therapy units, patient admission centres, a central sterile supply department and a clinical sciences unit for under-graduate and post-graduate teaching programs. Work on this project is expected to commence towards the end of 1984. This proposed construction will overcome deficiencies in work overflow and provide a more convenient location for specialised units which have a close relationship with the operating theatres. I am pleased that the Government's decision to proceed with this work was announced in the Budget. It is a recognition that ongoing replacement of specialised equipment is vital to ensuring a better standard of diagnosis and treatment for both veterans and members of the general public using the facilities at Greenslopes Hospital. Unfortunately it was a fact that under the previous Government there was a serious deterioration in the program to replace obsolete, inefficient and, in some cases, potentially dangerous equipment. Funding for this year, as I have said, will be $505,000 in addition to the $520, 000 for capital works that I have already mentioned. This figure is 18 per cent higher than the average expenditure over the previous three years. The Government has taken an enlightened approach in its decision to move forward with these very essential works at Greenslopes Repatriation Hospital. The provision of better facilities and equipment indicates that this Government is seriously committed to implementing its policy to provide the best possible treatment in its repatriation hospitals. As a result, morale and standards of service at these hospitals, which is already very high, will be greatly improved . It is already very high despite the neglect of the previous Government and despite the actions of the previous Government to curtail seriously the efficiency and effectiveness of the medical and surgical services in these hospitals. Despite that, Greenslopes Hospital has managed to secure accreditation, which is something to which very few hospitals in Queensland can lay claim. That is an indication of the high standard of service available at that hospital. Before finalising my remarks this evening I want to put on record that that is only part of the answer to the problems of the Greenslopes Hospital and the problems, I am sure, that exists in other repatriation hospitals. Other action that needs to be taken by the Government-I understand it is being considered at the moment-includes getting away from the rigid enforcement of the 20 per cent ratio of civilian to veteran patients in the hospital. This ratio controlling the admission of patients to the hospital is seriously affecting its efficiency. It is necessary for the Government to move away from the rigidity of this ratio towards something more in keeping with the standards required in the various communities where the hospitals are established. The Government is moving towards that end. I hope that, at the same time, it is moving towards recognising the fact that the staff ceilings that have been forced on the Greenslopes Hospital have seriously affected the morale of the people working there and, to a great extent, have made it much more difficult for them to provide the high standard of treatment that they fortunately have been able to provide. The range of things that I have mentioned in respect of the Greenslopes Hospital will make that a much better and more efficient hospital-a hospital that will fit more readily into the total hospital services situation in Queensland. With the advent of Medicare early next year, Greenslopes Repatriation Hospital will be well placed to fill a vital role in providing hospital care for the people of Brisbane and the surrounding areas. I congratulate the Government on the Budget and I endorse it wholeheartedly. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(7.13) —The honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh) has vigorously defended some aspects of his Government's Budget. I suspect that his constituents will make a very harsh judgment of him and his colleagues who have acquiesed so willingly in the imposition of an assets test that people, particularly the elderly, fail to understand and appreciate is required. The honourable member may be able to describe it glibly, as he has in terms of overhauling the social welfare system. He may be able to skate over some situations by suggesting that the objections that he has received were based upon a misunderstanding of the proposal and by suggesting also that the media might be blamed for this problem that some people have of misunderstanding this proposal. I must say that people in my electorate who have seen me-numbers of them have seen me-have a pretty clear idea of what is involved in this proposal. Let us take, for instance, the old man who comes in and says: 'I will have to go into a nursing home. I am in need of medical care. My home will have to be sold and, of course, perhaps that will yield some assets'. Who will take that into account when looking at the question of his eligibility for a pension? I have had other people in similar situations, elderly people who want to move in with a young family. They have asked: 'What will happen if I use some of my funds that come from the sale of the home in which I live to add to my daughter's or my son's home and to provide a residence for me with some money left over? Does that mean that money that was previously not earning anything but which may come to me in this way will now be the subject of a very arduous test to ensure that it was invested in a particular way? Will my pension be worth less to me?' One might be able to blame the media or one might be able to say that it is all based upon a misunderstanding but it seems to me that people really do have a clear understanding of this proposal. They know that an assets test will make it very much more difficult for them in terms of their personal ability to organise their own affairs. Yet I have had others come to me, whom I could only describe as sharp, who are already starting to work out the ways and means of getting around any assets test that the Government might impose. I do not particularly endorse such proposals but what will happen is that a limited group of people will lose their pensions as a result of this requirement while others, whom one might describe as being sharp, will not. There is certainly no misunderstanding of the proposal . It might well be argued that it is necessary to have some form of assets test. It might well be argued on economic grounds that that is appropriate. But honourable members should not get it into their minds that such a test can be imposed without hardship, without difficulty and without people being worried about their personal affairs and the way in which they will organise them. The honourable member also made some comments about the Army Reserve. I too have had a number of complaints made to me about the taxation of Army Reserve pay. I am aware, of course, that, after that announcement had been made, the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) initiated an inquiry into Reserve pay. But the fact of the matter is that the question of Reserve pay and whether it is to be taxed is important. It is important in the minds of those who are serving. They are not unwilling to serve the nation but they believe they are entitled to be recompensed on the same basis as before. I think the recompense is grossly inadequate for the amount of time that people give up. I do not see the people involved as being selfish and as trying to earn significant additional moneys for themselves. I think it was most ungracious of the honourable member for Bowman to attack those who are prepared to complain that the Government has now decided to tax the Reserve pay that was previously untaxed. It is most ungracious of him to suggest that those people had some improper motives. But those are not the really important questions involved in this Budget. This Budget has taken enormous risks with the Australian economy. The very foundation of the Budget, the prices and incomes accord, is already falling apart. It is obvious to all those who have read Statement No. 2 in Budget Paper No. 1 that the Department of the Treasury is gravely concerned about the strategy that the Government has announced. The prices and incomes accord, put in place in May and which was designed to avoid excessive wage demands, is already beyond repair. Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not need to remind you of union double dipping in wage settlements, such as the Heinz deal, in which a settlement of up to $15 to $20 a week was awarded. Mr Dolan, a constituent of mine and President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, now says that that award will flow on. In the case before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission the Government has conceded a 4 per cent wage increase for all. All the speculation seems to suggest that that will amount to 4.3 per cent when the decision is brought down on Friday. All of that sits very uncomfortably with the wage growth on which this Budget is predicated-namely, 7 per cent. The failure of the Budget strategy will have enormous consequences for unemployment, inflation and interest rates. Where is the human face of those who knowingly will permit this to happen? I do not ask honourable members to believe me but I quote from Statement No. 2 in Budget Paper No. 1-the document that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) vouched for-because it says exactly the same thing: As the forecasting horizon is extended the uncertainties and risks attaching to the durability of the upturn greatly increase. Stripped down to its essentials, the task of maintaining the momentum of the pick-up in activity beyond 1983-84 hinges on the creation of an economic environment conducive to sustained growth in the private sector. Of those factors not directly subject to policy control, wage settlements in the year ahead have the greatest potential for influencing the outcomes for inflation, interest rates and corporate profitability-and hence private sector activity in the period beyond that. A wages outcome higher than currently assumed would have an especially damaging impact on business confidence and private sector spending propensities. The renewal of pressures on corporate profitability, together with a consequent slackening in private demand, would be likely to manifest itself in a further round of labour shedding and another sharp ratcheting up in the rate of unemployment. I could not have dreamed up words like that, but the meaning is clear. If that wage outcome on which this Budget has been predicated fails, there will be a significant increase in unemployment in Australia, and that ought to be of concern to every honourable member. The Budget has been presented as a strategy for recovery; yet we know now that at best unemployment could be higher by 90, 000 people this time next year. Where is the human face of those who would allow that to happen? While we know that the Budget is stated to help home buyers without a general income tax rebate on interest, the Government now expects interest rates to rise , notwithstanding the recent and, I submit, temporary falls we have seen in the last few weeks. I do not ask honourable members to believe me on that. The Australian Chamber of Commerce commented in its bulletin on the Budget to very much the same effect. It said: The enormous size of the proposed deficit, at $8.4 billion, is of a mammoth proportions and must create long term funding problems for the Government. Its effect on interest rates will be significant . . . The facts are, however, that an $8.4 billion deficit is not acceptable and will prove to be very difficult to manage . . . There are four major-and closely inter-related-risks to achievement of sustained recovery in the domestic economy in the period ahead. These relate to interest rates, inflation, the balance of payments and high uncertainty linked with low private sector confidence . . . The fundamental issue is not, however, whether interest rates will rise or fall in 1983-84; rather it is whether, given the configuration of other economic variables, they will be at a level which is conducive to or inhibits a durable revival in private sector spending. Net borrowing by the public as a proportion of GDP more than doubled in 1982-83 and a further sharp increase is in prospect for 1983-84. Even with a further fall in corporate net borrowing in 1983-84, the combined borrowing of the public and corporate sectors is projected to rise to the highest level relative to GDP for at least the past twenty-five years. In 1983-84 the financing of the very large Commonwealth budget deficit in a way consistent with the overall thrust of policy will require very large volumes of Government securities to be placed with the non-bank sector. I think all honourable members understand the message in that. If they do not, I think they are indeed ignorant. While the taxes which could have imposed by the Budget, had speculation generated beforehand been correct, have not been put in place, the Budget, with indirect hikes now indexed together with new charges, will add almost $14 a week to the expenses of average Australians. On top of all the tax changes in May and August, we have seen new and drastic charges in areas previously sacrosanct. No Liberal government ever proposed an increased tax on lump sum superannuation payments. Yet with this new legislation imminent the Government proposes its own double dipping into the pockets of Australians-more so for those in Canberra for whom I have a responsibility as shadow Minister- with a new and undefined assets test to exclude Australians from an entitlement to a pension in their twilight years. Because of my special responsiblities I want to talk about the Budget effects on Canberra in particular. On Budget night I described the Budget as it effects Canberrans as a disaster. Shortly stated, expenditure on Australian Capital Territory municipal services and activities is down in real terms, while rates and charges have been raised significantly. I have said to Canberrans: 'You do not need to tell me that rates, even after the reduction because of the revaluation of property values, are up significantly, as are water rates and sewerage rates. You do not need to tell me that your car registration fees are up and that driver's licence fees rose by 200 per cent'. By now I had said to them: 'You should all appreciate the good news for Canberrans!' The Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) claimed that expenditure through his portfolio would increase this year by 19 per cent. What he did not tell you, Mr Speaker, or me was that the breakdown of expenditure within his responsibilities was as follows: First, expenditure through the Department of Territories and Local Government is $137.7m, up $8.6m or 6.2 per cent. This is less than the rate of inflation and, as a result, specific areas of expenditure in the Territory have been reduced directly and in real terms. Secondly, expenditure through the National Capital Development Commission is $ 123.1m, up $13.5m or 10.96 per cent. This is nominally less than the rate of inflation in the year past and, while expenditure on land servicing is up, as is expenditure on housing, there have been corresponding reductions in other areas of expenditure, particularly in the provision of new and renovated office accommodation in Canberra. Thirdly, expenditure through the Parliament House Construction Authority-I know that this is a matter dear to your heart, Mr Speaker-is up by $34.7m to $90.1m. That is an increase of 58 per cent. The real increase, therefore, in expenditure this year in the Australian Capital Territory is not as a result of expenditure through the Department or as a result of expenditure through the National Capital Development Commission but as a result of expenditure on the new Parliament House building which is on a timetable for completion in 1988. Any government would have been obliged to find these moneys for these works this year. It is not for one Party or the other to claim credit for this project. The new Parliament House building and the Defence Force Academy, however, both major development projects, were commenced and committed for the national capital by the previous Government. The real reductions in the Australian Capital Territory are in town services, lighting, maintenance for parks, recreation reserves, cleaning public places, the Canberra Tourist Bureau and the National Exhibition Centre. I think these points need to be understood by honourable members when they are given figures which suggest that there has been a 19 per cent increase in real terms in expenditure on the Australian Capital Territory. I was asked what different emphasis I would put on the framing of a budget for Canberra and, while not rewriting Labor's Australian Capital Territory budget, I answer in this way: My emphasis would be on the creation of an environment for and encouraging private sector development in the Territory. Increased funds would have been better placed on providing additional facilities and for attracting new industries to Canberra. My colleagues remind me that real levels of expenditure in the areas of health and education in the Australian Capital Territory have also suffered. I would like to make some comments at length about the future of Canberra, but I suspect that time will intervene and that I might not be able to make those comments at the length I would like. But I think it important to recognise that the new Government ought to be following its rhetoric which is along the lines of 'We regard the private sector and private sector investment as important for the provision of opportunities for Canberra's young people'. But the Government has taken a number of decisions which are likely to mitigate against private sector investment in Canberra. Those are matters about which I would like to talk at length. I suspect I will have to put them aside for another occasion. Debate interrupted. Australian Flag-Lebanon-Small Investors-Tobacco-Transfer of Motor Vessel 'Krait' -Japan-Hawke Government-Report 'Creating Tomorrow Today' Mr SPEAKER —It being almost 7.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(7.30) —Some months ago the Attorney-General of this country, Senator Gareth Evans, in talking about the Australian flag described it as 'an undistinguished bit of cloth inherited from our colonial past'. Mr Speaker, as you know, your Party, the Australian Labor Party, believes that the Senate should be abolished and that the position of Governor-General should be abolished. It is therefore appropiate today, particularly when in that bastion of democracy, the State of Queensland, a meeting is being held tonight to ensure that we retain the Australian flag, to indicate to all that recently I presented a petition in this Parliament signed by 2,835 people and indicating that the Australian flag must not be changed. That petition was presented to me on Friday night at the annual dinner of the Toowoomba sub-branch of the Returned Services League. At that meeting 15 Light Horsemen were present. Of course, they established in Australia a wonderful reputation during the First World War for their ability to survive in even the most difficult circumstances. There were also present some other veterans from the First World War. To hear them described with great feeling and an immense amount of personal admiration by the younger soldiers present as the 'bow and arrow boys', would I am sure convince even the members of the Australian Labor Party that the Australian flag should not be changed. I am reminded too of a poll conducted by the Sydney Morning Herald last year in which 69 per cent of the people interviewed believed with very strong and firm conviction that the flag should stay as it is. Mr Speaker, I indicate that 69 per cent is a very high percentage of the vote. It is almost as high a percentage of the vote as you get in the electorate of Scullin and it is slightly more than I get in the electorate of Darling Downs. I know that by my bringing that to your notice you will realise that a significant number of Australian people do not want the flag to change. As we approach the bicentennial year it seems to me to be appropriate that the ALP should forget about changing the Australian flag. They should indicate to one of their front benchers, the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford), that he should regret his action in being a member of a committee which is trying to change the flag and become united with the significant number of Australians who do not want to change the flag. One of the great things about civilisation, whether we like it or not, is that people pay great significance to tradition. I understand that some people do not believe in democracy, but we have absorbed from the mother of parliaments an adherence to the Westminster system and an adherence to the common law of England. It is important that people are entitled to a speedy trial. We also pay due recognition to Captain James Cook and Captain Arthur Phillip, who played a great part in the development of this country. It is absolutely essential in this era that we express gratitude. That is why we have the Union Jack. Of course, the Southern Cross on the flag indicates that our future lies in this part of the world. People, no matter where they come from, can feel at home here, free men and free women in a free society, secure in the knowledge that the Australian flag means that people are one family, that there is no place for divisiveness. We talk about the Commonwealth Star, which unites States and Territories. Again , I can understand the Labor Party not realising the significance of the Commonwealth Star. We know that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) wants to have a centralist system of government in this country. The framers of the Constitution , by inserting that Star on the flag, indicated that we were all to work together. The Commonwealth has certain responsibilities and the States have certain other responsibilities. We do not want the power of international conventions to deliberately distort that convention. So it is absolutely essential that we retain the present Australian flag as a symbol of our national unity. In trying to change the flag the ALP is again seeking to divide the nation. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KENT(Hotham)(7.35) —We witnessed yesterday a large demonstration in front of Parliament House by the Lebanese community, protesting against foreign involvement in the war in Lebanon. The fighting involves United States naval forces, Syrian forces, the fascist Phalangist supporters of Gemayel, and the Druze community. However, one must not forget that it was the Israeli invasion that plunged Lebanon into the current war. It was Israeli aggression that caused the death of many thousands of civilians and brought devastation to that unfortunate country. It is over a year since the Begin forces invaded Lebanon. Last Thursday was the first anniversary of the massacre of 2,000 Palestinian men, women and children in the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps in Beirut. On 15 September 1982 Israeli forces moved into West Beirut, and on that day the massacres at the Palestinian refugee camps began and continued into the morning of Saturday, 18 September. According to the Israeli Defence Minister's admission, on 15 September the Israeli forces allowed two armed battalions of Christian fascist militia forces, accompanied by tanks, through its lines into Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps. News reports at the time confirmed that the militia of Saad Haddad was flown in by the Israelis to commit the atrocities. As a result, under the oversight of Israeli forces which were only 400 yards away, over 2,000 unarmed Palestinian men, women and children were massacred in the most brutal face to face killings of innocent civilians. In its news release the Zionist Federation of Australia, when commenting on a judicial inquiry that Begin was forced to institute, stated: No Israeli soldier could ever support or acquiesce in such hideous crimes against those tragic Palestinian families. The Zionist Federation of Australia was proven wrong, not only by the massive evidence of eye witness reports from Beirut, but even by Begin's own inquiry which was set up to do a whitewash. There is no doubt today that Israel, led by Prime Minister Begin, stood condemned by the world for the massacres of Palestinians in Sabra and Shatilla camps in West Beirut. Even the Reagan Administration, which is usually uncritical of Israel, admitted that Israel was in full control of West Beirut when the killings occurred. Begin and Sharon stood condemned by the whole world as well as by many Israeli Jews. There were widespread demonstrations in Israel following the massacres. Demonstrators outside Begin's house, where an emergency Cabinet meeting was taking place at the time, called for the resignation of Begin and Sharon. Tear gas was used by the riot police to disperse the demonstrators and a number of them were arrested . Another 48 demonstrators were arrested in Tel Aviv. On the weekend of 25 and 26 September between 300,000 and 400,000 people, one-seventh of Israel's population, demonstrated, requesting an inquiry. It is especially saddening to me that a nation which suffered so much from racism during its history organised the genocidal massacre of unarmed Palestinians. Forty-three years ago, in 1945, I saw the survivors of the holocaust returning to their destroyed homes, looking in vain for members of their families who were murdered in Hitler's concentration camps. It is incomprehensible to me that the same people who suffered so much would condone the racial killings in Sabra and Shatilla. I hope that sanity will soon prevail in the Middle East and that the pressure of world opinion will force Zionists to abandon their expansionist policies. There cannot be, and there will not be, peace in the Middle East until the right of Palestinians to their homeland and their right to self-determination is acknowledged. Mr DRUMMOND(Forrest)(7.40) —I wish to say something tonight about conservation- conservation of an important but threatened part of the Australian community, namely, the small investor. It is a disturbing fact that in recent years the number of individual Australians holding shares in public companies has declined and the extent of their holdings has declined relative to those of the large investor, insurance companies and the like. Small investors are important for two major reasons. Firstly, it is fundamentally healthy for as many as possible ordinary, middle to lower income Australians to have a direct stake in national wealth creating enterprise. If we are to create jobs capital has to be mobilised , and not merely corporate capital. The more Australians who have a direct holding in major companies the more people will realise at first hand that profits are not there just for the asking and that higher returns depend entirely upon productivity and efficiency. On both sides of the House we should have a concern to encourage Australians to own Australian companies. Secondly, we should all be anxious to encourage more and more Australians to provide for their own futures and to avoid total dependence upon the community in their retirement. People who channel their savings into share investment will enjoy a substantial income supplement during their working lives and on retirement will have less need of the age pension. Investment in shares provides income with a degree of flexibility that can ensure that modest capital savings are not subject to attrition through inflation. Yet governments have a sorry record in fostering the small investor. Dividends are taxed twice, first through company tax and then as income in the hands of the investor. The Fraser Government, to its credit, last year introduced a rebate for the first $1,000 of dividend income. That meant little to the large, wealthy investor but it was a major first step in assisting the small investor. It says a lot about the priorities of this Government that it axed that rebate last May. We can speculate as to whether that decision was mere short-sighted bookkeeping or resulted from some kind of outdated ideological malice, a lingering misconception that owning shares is a prerogative of the rich. Certainly, small investors are an easy mark for predatory governments. They lack the political clout of unions and other organised interest groups. The operation of the new assets test for the age pension deals another blow to the small investor as he reaches retirement. If the income from shares is to be disregarded in place of an estimated 10 per cent of their value, many pensioner investors will be placed at a disadvantage. Even the most gilt edged of industrial or banking shares usually return less than 10 per cent of their market value. The pensioner investor will effectively be forced into disposing of shares and placing his or her capital in high yielding bonds. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) has made it clear that those people with bond issues returning more than 10 per cent will benefit from the operation of the assets test. This disincentive for retired people to invest in non-speculative shares has a twofold effect. If the capital of these people is transferred into fixed term interest bearing deposits it will lose its value through inflation over the longer term. Falls in interest rates in the future will put these people at a serious disadvantage, as income reduces and the purchasing power of the original capital diminishes. The second effect is the withdrawal of capital resources from the most productive forms of investment. As a former member for Wakefield, the 'Modest Farmer', might have said, we are a weird mob. We encourage retiring citizens to buy boats and caravans and to continue living in homes that may have become too large for them. Should they sell their home and move into a townhouse and invest the surplus in public companies that might create jobs and national wealth, we penalise them. If a salary earner puts his spare cash into buying real estate we give him tax incentives. If he puts his money into national enterprise and is prepared to share its risks and benefits he or she gets slugged with provisional tax. The small investor who sees his return disappearing at the rate of 46 cents in the dollar begins to wonder whether it is all worth it. Let us have some justice for the small investors. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(7.45) — The Western Australian Government, to its great credit, has introduced legislation which will enforce its stance on limiting consumption of tobacco products. These products are unquestionably the greatest preventable cause of mortality, and morbidity in this country. It is estimated that tobacco is implicated in 16,000 premature deaths per year in Australia. The consequences of tobacco consumption are measured not only in terms of human tragedy to family and loved ones but also in economic terms. More than a billion dollars is the annual debt due to tobacco consumption. That includes loss of productivity, absenteeism, medical costs and fire damage. The Western Australian Government has taken a three-pronged approach to this problem. Firstly, it has increased substantially the cost of tobacco products by acting on tobacco licensing. Overseas experience has shown that this is a very effective way of bringing down tobacco consumption. Its second initiative has been in the area of education. Statistics show that adult smokers are literally a dying breed. However, what is most disturbing is the increase in popularity of smoking amongst young people, many of who are addicted before they leave school. Therefore, the Western Australian Government's program is particularly aimed at the education of school children in regard to this addiction. The third prong of the Government's attack is that on the advertising of tobacco products. It may be that that legislation is defeated in the upper House , this of course being due to the preposterous gerrymander that exists in Western Australia. However, the tobacco companies' assertions that their advertising is aimed only at changing brand preferences is absurd in the extreme . It cuts across the whole ethos of advertising. Of course, the irony of the present situation is the role of a number of sporting bodies which have become the salesmen and protaganists of the tobacco lobby. One only has to open newspapers in Western Australia to see pictures of sportsmen actively pushing the weed. Vested interests involved in the industry have thereby endeavoured to subvert the argument and to move it away from the health issue. Perhaps the stance of the Western Australian Government will encourage other States to move in this area because there is no doubt that knowing what we know now about the consequences of toabacco consumption, modern day Sir Walter Raleigh would have the same difficulty pushing his product as have the poppy growers of the Golden Triangle. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(7.47) —Tonight I wish to draw the attention of the House to a proposal to transfer the motor vessel Krait from the day to day control of the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol in Pittwater in Sydney to a shed in Canberra. This proposal is an attempt to convert a living war memorial of live interest to the public and virtually self-supporting financially into a dead museum piece representing a considerable cost to the taxpayer. Let me outline briefly the history of the Krait. It began its life as the Kofuku Maru, probably built by Chinese shipbuilders before 1920 for a Singapore based fishing company. About 70 feet long and with an 11 foot beam, to use the imperial measurements of the time, the Krait was built of Burmese teak and fitted with a 75 horse power Deutz engine providing a speed of seven knots. The Krait was taken by the Japanese when they invaded Singapore in 1942. Five days out of Singapore on a voyage to Japan the Krait was captured by a Royal Australian Navy unit, HMAS Goulburn, and became the first enemy ship captured by the Royal Australian Navy in the Pacific war zone of World War II. The Krait was sailed to Ceylon and later Bombay, where Captain Ivan Lyon of the Gordon Highlanders, who had escaped from Singapore, conceived the idea of using the Krait to carry out a raid on Japanese shipping in its home waters of Singapore. The Singapore raid, to be carried out by the Special Operations Section, or Z Force, and code named 'Jaywick', required the Krait to be brought to Australia for repairs. It was at this stage that the vessel was given the name Krait, after a particularly venomous Ceylonese snake of the cobra family. Volunteers were trained secretly at Refuge Bay, near the mouth of the Hawkesbury River, about 40 kilometres north of Sydney. The vessel then sailed to Singapore, although it was necessary to install in Cairns a Gardner 6L3 engine which the Army had been using for sawmilling in the Huon Valley in Tasmania. That engine is still in the Krait today. The volunteer crew and Z Force commanders sailed under the Japanese flag, and dyed their skins in an effort to resemble Malayans. On the night of 26 September 1943 commandos from the Krait placed limpet mines on Japanese ships in Singapore harbour. Early the following morning the mines exploded, sinking two of the fully laden cargo ships in the harbour and severely damaging the other five. The Krait escaped to Australia, despite being observed en route by a Japanese destroyer, which allowed it to pass unmolested. After the war the Krait was sold in North Borneo and spent time smuggling in the South China Sea. However the vessel was discovered in 1962 under the name Penang and bought with funds from a public appeal in Australia for return to Australia as a floating war memorial. She returned in 1964 and was given over to the safekeeping of the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol in Pittwater. Since then the Krait has been meeting community requests of countless kinds from its berth at Church Point on Pittwater not far from the original Z Force training area at Refuge Bay and has been operated and maintained by volunteers of the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol. Now we get to the current problem. Through a series of decisions made in all good faith by trustees of the Krait it is proposed that the vessel be taken out of the salt water at Pittwater and placed in unnatural surroundings in Canberra. My understanding is that the Australian War Memorial is not keen on having to house the Krait at enormous expense. At least $700,000 is needed for the airconditioned premises to keep the old wooden hull in good condition. It would be far better for the vessel to remain based at Pittwater under the dedicated supervision of the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol. Between 3,000 and 4,000 concerned citizens have signed petitions to keep the Krait in Pittwater. Honourable members will be presenting these to the Parliament. I have also asked to see the Minister for Home Affairs and environment (Mr Cohen), whose electorate of Robertson is just across the water from the Krait's berth, to seek his assistance in keeping the Krait as a living war memorial, and not as a decaying fossil in an inland city. The Krait deserves better than this. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory)(7.52) — Last week I was fortunate enough to be the guest of the Osaka Junior Chamber of Japan as part of the Ten Outstanding Young Persons Conference. I have grave doubts about the 'outstanding' label being applied to me, but I have no doubt that our host, the Osaka Junior Chamber , is an outstanding group of young people in the international community. This program was initiated by the Osaka Junior Chamber in 1980. These conferences will be held for 10 years. Each year 10 young people from various countries will be invited to have a look at Japan. The Osaka Junior Chamber describes this process as a way of private diplomacy carried out by young people. I hope I can live up to that ideal. I cannot think of one service club or similar organisation in Australian that takes its international relations so seriously. I might add that this program was just one of four international programs being conducted by this organisation at the same time. It will come as no surprise to anyone who has been to Japan to learn that we were met with overwhelming hospitality and kindness from our Japan hosts. This year the Conference included representatives from the United States of America, Belgium, Sweden, Singapore and Indonesia. Our backgrounds ranged from politics to business. As a result we each had a unique opportunity to learn not only about Japan but also many other countries. Our hosts organised a full and varied program. We had the opportunity to see and discuss Japanese industry, its economy, its culture and its lifestyle. Many of us were intrigued by Japan's low unemployment levels and comparatively high sustained growth rates. It is apparent that Japan is moving quite quickly from its industrial base to an information base. This has serious implications for Australia's trade with Japan , particularly in coal and iron ore. Despite this shift from one base to another Japan still has low levels of unemployment. It seems to me that this is related to at least three factors: The lifelong employment policy, the comparatively low level of women participating in the work force and the lower retiring ages of Japanese workers. This lifelong employment policy means that once a person is employed by a company that person is effectively assured of continuing employment with that company. We were told that employers kept their employees employed through a recession or technological displacement. This attitude and commitment to employees contrasts strongly with the attitude of Australian employers whose lay-off rates in recent years have been phenomenal. It is difficult to point to a single reason for the substantial difference in attitude between Japanese and Australian employers but it may be related to the fact that very many Japanese businesses, both big and small, are family businesses. Maybe if Australian employers injected some basic human care and concern into their employer-employee relations we too might have low unemployment and sustained growth rates. Time permits me to mention only these few small parts of my impressions of Japan. I hope that more Japanese and Australians have the chance to see each other's countries. If they do not, I fear that our relationship with Japan may not grow stronger as it should. However there is no doubt that the Osaka Junior Chamber is doing its bit. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(7.56) —I wish tonight to remind the people of Australia of the old adage: 'He who pays the piper calls the tune'. The wise adage is particularly appropriate to bear in mind tonight because in the matter of which I speak the piper is the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). The payers are two in number and their names are notorious throughout this nation. Mr Griffiths —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. Acting on the precedent created by the honourable member for Denison during the adjournment debate-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will either come to his point of order or resume his seat. Mr HODGMAN —I am used to the honourable member and his tactics, Mr Speaker. As I said, the payers are two in number and their names are notorious throughout the nation. They represent a continuing threat to the sort of Australia I want to see for my children and my children's children and into the twenty-first century . I really wish we were on television tonight so that the people of Australia could see with their own eyes the members of the Hawke socialist Government in this Parliament-the members whom the people of Australia elected to power on 5 March this year. I wish the people of Australia could also see on their television sets a Sydney Morning Herald photograph in my possession published on 11 February 1983 over the following caption: The encounter with two prominent members of the left that at least one party worker said shouldn't take place: The Opposition Leader, Mr Hawke, shakes hands yesterday with Mr Laurie Carmichael and exchanges asides with Mr John Halfpenny. Mr Hawke came away with $50,000 in campaign funds. This is a photograph of the people who are really running Australia today. Their names are Laurie Carmichael and John Halfpenny. The $50,000 bribe given to the Australian Labor Party by Carmichael and Halfpenny for the socialist election campaign earlier this year is the best $50,000 these comrades have ever spent. That it was received personally by the Prime Minister, into his own hands, gives Messrs Carmichael and Halfpenny the unique opportunity to ensure at the very top that they will get everything they want, in consideration of this shabby, grubby and disreputable $50,000 bribe. It is the people of Australia who will suffer as a result of this disgraceful transaction. By the time of the next Federal election the ordinary men and women of Australia will be called upon to foot the massive bill now being run up in their names by the Hawke socialist Government to its eternal discredit. Only Carmichael, Halfpenny and their cronies will smile for they will know that they have done their job and done it well. Australia will be the loser. Mr STAPLES(Diamond Valley)(7.58) —Very few members of this House would be so unaware as to suggest that Australia's youth do not have a difficult future in front of them. So many young people today feel powerless in this society-the capitalistic, materialistic system that encourages unrealistic expectations of career and success in today's economy, status derived from material wealth, position and power and rigid adherence to the paid employment ethic as a criterion of social worthiness. Any person who has had any involvement with young people will know that young people will respond enthusiastically to the opportunity to speak out about their lives, to be involved in the community, and to participate in decision making. 'Participation' is a very important word and a very important process. It comes before consensus. One cannot have consensus unless people have been allowed to participate in the discussions, allowed to participate in the ordering of their lives and allowed to feel part of the decision making process itself. The Youth Affairs Council of Australia has just produced a report entitled ' Creating Tomorrow Today'. Five thousand young people throughout Australia have expressed their views-young people in cities, in rural areas and in disadvantaged communities. It has not been a simple questionnaire analysis. It has been a consultative process with discussion of issues and with the real involvement of young people. 'Creating Tomorrow Today' is an expose of the attitudes and aspirations of Australia's youth. The report proposes directions to us in the key areas of concern to young people. The report is in four main parts. Part I gives us an overview of the situation-an overview of action by and action for young people. Part II details the activities within each State and Territory of the consultations process. This is a very important area of the report. It details for us the attitudes of our youth. It details for us in their language their feelings about what they believe is happening in their society- our society. It lays out for us what young people really feel about us and the society we have produced and which we manage. It covers a diverse range of subjects- Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 8 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 8 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Duffy to present a Bill for an Act relating to radiocommunications, interference to radiocommunications, and other matters. Mr Duffy to present a Bill for an Act to enact transitional provisions, to repeal certain Acts, and to make amendments of certain Acts, consequent upon the enactment of the Radiocommunications Act 1983. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 399 Mr Wells asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 25 August 1983: (1) Were Queensland pharmacists able to receive National Health Scheme and repatriation prescription cheques in approximately 15 days in the past, compared within excess of 30 days in some instances at present; if so, why. (2) Is it a fact that many pharmacists are unable to run their businesses when there is such a considerable delay in receipt of their payment. (3) Did the Departments of Veterans' Affairs and Social Security run out of funds during the 1982-83 financial year and thus were unable to make payments to the pharmacists. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Under normal circumstances claims made under the National Health Scheme ( NHS) and the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (RPBS) should be processed for payment within thirty calendar days of receipt, as is normal commercial practice. In fact, my Department makes every effort to pass claims for payment in the shortest possible time within the thirty day period. At times the average processing period has been 15 calendar days or less. As an indication of the present situation, the majority of claims passed for payment by my Department in Queensland on 25 August 1983 were received on 8 August, an elapsed period of seventeen calendar days. (2) With the present processing situation Queensland pharmacists should not be experiencing liquidity problems as a result of delays in pharmaceutical benefits reimbursements. (3) Late in June 1983 the Department of Veterans' Affairs was required to seek additional funds to meet payment obligations in respect of Repatriation pharmaceutical benefit claims for the remainder of the 1982-83 financial year. The resultant delays of 4 to 5 calendar days affected payments to about 200 Queensland pharmacists. The Department of Social Security is not involved in the payment of pharmacists' claims for the supply of pharmaceutical benefits. Question No. 456 Mr Sinclair asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 6 September 1983: (1) What is the latest estimated project cost of the new tactical fighter program. (2) What proportion of this cost is to be spent on spares for the FA-18 aircraft. (3) Has his attention been drawn to a draft report prepared by the US Defence Department Inspector-General's Office, which recommended that US Air Force Systems Command (AFSC) approval of Pratt and Whitney (East Hartford) purchasing system be withdrawn because of overpricing of spares for the FA-18; if not, will he take urgent steps to obtain the report. (4) Has his attention also been drawn to allegations made by the Chairman of the US House of Representatives Armed Services Committee's Investigations Sub- committee (Representative Bill Nicholls) concerning overpricing of parts by both the Sperry Corporation and McDonnell Douglas; if so, do these allegations include (a) Sperry selling semiconductors to the US Navy for $US111, when the US Federal Supply System (FSS) price is 4 cents, (b) Sperry selling resistors for $ US100, when the FSS price is 4 cents and (c) McDonnell Douglas selling parts for an FA-18 radar at prices far in excess of those in the FSS. (5) Can he give an assurance that Australia will pay only the fair price for FA -18 parts whether for assembly or for spares stocks, and not the inflated prices allegedly charged by some US companies; if not, will he give an undertaking (a) to immediately investigate what prices Australia is paying, (b) to advise the House of any excessive prices charged and (c) to seek recompense from the United States for any overcharging which may have taken place. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The latest estimate of the total project cost for our FA-18 acquisition is $3,396m in December 1982 prices and at post devaluation exchange rate. This represents a net increase of $969m, on the original approval of $2,427m in August 1981 prices and is due entirely to the effects of inflation and exchange rate variations, offset by some real reductions in some items of the project. (2) Initial spares procurement including spare engine modules, account for approximately 12 percent of the total project cost estimate. (3) My attention has been drawn to US press reports on the withdrawal of US Air Force Systems Command approval of Pratt and Whitney (East Hartford) purchasing system due to overpricing of spare parts. This overpricing, however, does not relate to the FA-18 spares as that company does not produce parts for the FA-18 aircraft. (4) My attention has been drawn to these allegations which are substantially as suggested by the honourable member. (5) Yes. I can affirm that all reasonable precautions are being taken to ensure that Australia pays only a fair price for its FA-18 parts, that no instances of overcharging for FA-18 parts for Australia have been discovered yet, and if any such instances were discovered I would take whatever steps may prove necessary to redress the situation. In providing this assurance, I should point out that there is probably no such thing as a perfect procurement system in which errors are never made. The issues which have been raised in the US Department of Defense and in the US Congress relating to the Sperry Corporation and McDonnell Douglas reveal that errors of judgment and/or procedure have been made in some US procurement activities. The US Government Agencies have reacted swiftly and positively to rectify deficiencies in their system and in doing so not only are they protecting US Government interests, they are incidently protecting our interests. Pursuit of improvement is a constant objective, and there are procedures designed to enable us to get the best price for what we buy.