Thursday, 22 September 1983 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: Chiropractic Services To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows : That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the high cost of health care in Australia. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite,Mr Dobie,Mr Hicks,Mr Peter Morris,Mr O'Neil,Mr Porter,Mr Reeves,Mr Ian Robinson and Mr Wells. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: (a) that the Australian Government signed the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women in Copenhagen in 1980; (b) that the Convention came into force on 3 September, 1981; (c) that Australian women suffer serious disadvantage in employment, education, accommodation, membership of licensed clubs, provision of goods and services including services relating to banking, insurance and the provision of grants, loans, credit or finance; (d) that this disadvantage could be overcome by (i) making unlawful certain discrimination on the grounds of sex and marital status, (ii) eliminating discrimination on the ground of sex and marital status and (iii) promoting affirmative action for women in employment. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Parliament pass the Sex and Marital Status Discrimination Bill 1981. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Maher. To the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: Women continue to suffer discrimination in many areas of employment. In traditional 'male' industries such as steel, the denial of equal rights and opportunities has resulted in disproportionate numbers of women being hired and fired. We therefore humbly request that the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia: Introduce, extend and implement anti-discrimination legislation which includes affirmative action policies to effectively remedy this injustice. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Steedman. 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 electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That 26 January 1788 is the date of first white settlement in Australia, and therefore marks the beginning of modern Australia, And this event marks the most appropriate date on which to celebrate our national day. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will determine that Australia Day is to be celebrated on the twenty-sixth day of January each year, and that a public holiday will be declared on that day, regardless of which day of the week is the 26th. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That an airport in the north-western region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. An airport would destroy 2,000 households and impose upheaval, noise and pollution on one million people presently unaffected. 3. The cost of an airport in the north-western region is greater than the alternatives, whilst fog and close proximity to RAAF 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: Holders of the health care card and pensioner health benefits card cannot receive any level of free dental care from private dentists, as they can medical care from private doctors. The existing network of private dental practices will need to be the principal mode of dental care delivery. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: Holders of the health care card and pensioner health benefits card should be provided with free dental care through private dentists, immediately. Dental care be included in the formulation of medicare. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. Omega by sending low frequency signals, penetrating sea water enables hunter -killer submarines to establish their position and to launch a 'first strike' attack. Omega is also used by AWACs, the flying radar stations, and for other military purposes. 2. Omega is an important U.S. military base and a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Omega would have a disastrous effect on Victoria and Melbourne . 3. Omega and other U.S. bases in Australia endanger, rather than protect us. They add a new unnecessary menace to a nuclear arms race that must be stopped, if we are to survive. Your petitioners pray that members and the House assembled will close Omega. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: (1) That the Macedonian language be used by Government Departments in multi- lingual publications. (2) That the petitioners urge the introduction of the Macedonian language as a Higher School Certificate (H.S.C.) subject in Secondary schools. (3) That the petitioners urge the introduction of the Macedonian language in tertiary institutions and that a course be introduced at Monash University in the Department of Slavic Languages. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly request that Parliament take immediate action to implement the above measures. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia ( electors of the Division of Grey) respectfully showeth: That controls preventing Adelaide commercial television stations from extending full-strength coverage to the Iron Triangle cities of Whyalla, Port Augusta and Port Pirie are contrary to the concept of free competition which is the basis of our economic system. That such controls prevent citizens of this important and populous group of decentralised industrial cities from enjoying a freedom of choice in television programs which is in any way comparable to that applying in the metropolitan area. That television is the only form of audio-visual entertainment within the financial scope of a large proportion of the population of this area. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that- 1. Any restrictions limiting television coverage of this area should be removed and market forces be permitted to stimulate a broader program choice and better quality. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the citizens of Western Australia respectfully show: last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; alcohol is a factor in 50% of road deaths; alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ban the advertising of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the citizens of New South Wales respectfully show: last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; alcohol is a factor in 50% of road deaths; alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ban the advertising of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Gorman. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the citizens of Queensland respectfully show: last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; alcohol is a factor in 50% of road deaths; alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; alcohol advertisements are glamourous 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 Keogh. 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 states: 'The overall objectives of our South Australian rationalisation plan has been to eliminate all productive activities on the Woodville site'. This statement has not been refuted. 3. That the elimination of the Woodville plant will cause enormous social dislocation, hardship and misery to the citizens of Woodville and South Australia. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Parliament of Australia will condemn this callous disregard for the citizens of Woodville and South Australia, and do all in its power to force General Motors-Holdens to retain its operations at the Woodville plant. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Scott. Petitions received. Mr NEWMAN(Bass) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) deplores the fact that, despite great public interest and demand, there is no fm public broadcasting station in northern Tasmania; (2) notes that proposals to establish fm public broadcasting stations in northern Tasmania have been lodged with the Department of Communications for approximately 5 years; (3) notes that the previous Government announced that it would call for applications for 2 public broadcasting licences in northern Tasmania in early 1983; (4) condemns the present Minister for Communications for his tardiness in failing to act on this matter, and (5) calls on the Government to recognise the long held desire of the community of northern Tasmania to have fm public broadcasting and to immediately call for applications for licences. Mrs DARLING(Lilley) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) welcomes the enthusiasm and co-operation with which most State governments are working to implement the Community Employment Program; (2) notes the Queensland Government's late arrival on the scene in accepting this program, and (3) congratulates the Commonwealth Government for initiating and providing the funding for this program. Mr HICKS(Riverina) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) will second: That this House- (1) condemns the Government for its token gesture of reducing the iniquitous $2 .50 a litre indexed excise on grape spirit to $1.50 a litre, and (2) calls on the Government to re-think its callous attitude to the wine grapegrowers of Australia and stand by its pre-election pledge that no tax or excise would be placed on wine. Mr MAHER(Lowe) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House is of the opinion that the Government should be- (1) congratulated upon its recognition of the need for a second airport for Sydney which will stop aircraft flying over the densely populated suburbs surrounding the existing airport; and (2) encouraged to pursue the task of identifying the site for the second airport with vigour and expedition. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) applauds the statements of Canon Peter Hollingworth, Executive Director of the Brotherhood of St Laurence, describing the Government's proposed asset means test on pensioners as attacking those least able to bear the burden, representing the imposition of a wealth tax on the elderly and causing serious anxiety to the elderly; and (2) calls upon the Government to forthwith abandon this proposal. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with interest the statement of the Deputy Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Miss Wendy McCarthy, concerning the television docudrama Scales of Justice, that she is not a bit worried that the program could damage police public relations; and (2) calls on the Minister for Communications to explain the ABC's new policy to the House, to the Special Minister of State and to the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House applauds the- (1) worthy and responsible Budget brought down by the Victorian Government; and (2) expansionary measures in that Budget designed to create jobs. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 7, I shall move: That this House condemns the Trade Practices Commission for its discriminatory handling of its responsibilities in the administration of its Act. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses its apprehension with Government decisions relating to the Builders Labourers Federation; and (2) draws the Government's attention to- (a) the dropping of deregistration proceedings by the Government's own specific direction; (b) the turning of a blind eye to wage claims outside the prices-incomes accord ; and (c) the acquiesence to endless stoppages in the building industry, that have all acted to encourage other union leaders in their claims, and demonstrates the apparent hypocrisy of the Government in claiming union compliance with the accord. Dr EVERINGHAM(Capricornia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that the previous Government repeatedly promised to reconsider an admitted anomaly in applying increasing sales tax to non-grape wines produced by Tropical Wines of North Bundaberg while allowing increased grape wine consumption without tax for the whole of its period in office; and (2) calls upon the present Government to reduce that tax to a level not greater than those on fortified grape wine and remove this unfair discrimination against a pioneering industry. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with concern, along with the dam decision, another election promise by the Prime Minister to set up a network of communes; and (2) notes with alarm the allocation of $5,000 by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs to fund a seminar in Nimbin on alternative lifestyles. Mr FISHER(Mallee) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House notes that- (1) the Government has belatedly recognised the damaging effect of its fortified wine excise and has modified the tax; (2) the harmful collection method of the tax has not been altered, and (3) the tax adds $150 per tonne to the price of grapes and therefore will seriously reduce grape receivals. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House notes with shame that- (1) notwithstanding the notices of motion of the honourable member for Denison given on 8, 14, 20 and 21 September 1983, the Government has still failed to provide one single job for any of the 377 workers displaced from their employment as a result of its action in halting the Gordon-below-Franklin power development scheme, and (2) the Government at the date hereof has still not paid one cent in compensation to the State of Tasmania. Mr Lionel Bowen-Mr Speaker, I seek your guidance on a matter of procedure. I think this is the fifth or sixth notice of motion that the honourable member has moved in the same terms. The Notice Paper certainly has to bear the notices of motion that have been given with some intelligence and some authority, but on this occasion I draw your attention to the fact that the Premier of Tasmania said in a radio broadcast on 20 September that he had no intention of signing the agreement at this stage. Mr Hodgman —This is not true. Mr Lionel Bowen-It is true. I am quoting. The Premier said: There is no immediate urgency about signing the agreement. We have catered for all the employment of Tasmania and when we are good and ready we will sign it. Mr Speaker, I would like you to have a look at-- Mr SPEAKER —The Leader of the House has departed- Mr Lionel Bowen-Mr Speaker, I would like you to rule on the fact that we have been given five or six- Mr SPEAKER —Yes, I am just about to do that. Mr Lionel Bowen-notices of motion about a matter that the Premier of Tasmania does not want raised in this House. Mr Sinclair-Mr Speaker, may I speak on a point of order? Mr SPEAKER —There is no need. I am ready to rule on the point of order. The notices of motion presented by the honourable member for Denison are quite within the Standing Orders of the House. Mr Newman-I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With all due respect, although you allowed the Leader of the House to make that point of order and make it seriously, I think it should not have happened and- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Bass will resume his seat. If he disagrees with the ruling of the Chair he knows what action he must take. Dr EVERINGHAM(Capricornia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House deplores the daily allegations by the honourable member for Denison that the Government is tardy in providing funds and jobs for Tasmania, while the Tasmanian Government at the beginning of this month had spent only 53. 6 per cent-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. I ask the honourable member for Denison and the Leader of the House to allow the honourable member for Capricornia the courtesy that they have been allowed. Mr McVeigh-I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. During your term you have endeavoured to bring decorum to this chamber and I congratulate you on that. I thought it was bad for the Leader of the House to come around and threaten my colleague-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I might say that that sort of comment does not assist my efforts to maintain decorum and dignity. I call the honourable member for Capricornia. Dr EVERINGHAM(Capricornia) —Mr Speaker, I shall re-state the substance of my motion: That this House deplores the daily allegations by the honourable member for Denison that the Government is tardy in providing funds and jobs for Tasmania, while the Tasmanian Government at the beginning of this month had spent only 53. 6 per cent of the wage pause money of which they had general notice about a year earlier. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses its discontent with the Government's handling of tax on superannuation lump-sum payments; (2) notes the backtracking and contrivances being used to recover the deplorable decision made to tax the lump-sum retirement payments of Service personnel; (3) deplores the long delay to Service Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits and fears the prospect of DFRDB being cut to pieces by the Government; and (4) calls on the Government to act with the utmost urgency to allay fears, boost morale and stop early retirements of all Defence servicemen. Assent to the following Bills reported: Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Amendment Bill 1983 Grain (Export Inspection Charge) Amendment Bill 1983 Eggs (Export Inspection Charge) Amendment Bill 1983 Edible Oils (Export Inspection Charge) Amendment Bill 1983 First Home Owners Bill 1983 Home Deposit Assistance Amendment Bill 1983 Housing Loans Insurance Amendment Bill 1983 Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1983 Bill presented by Mr Duffy, and read a first time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(10.16) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I am pleased to be able to introduce this Bill into Parliament. The primary purpose of the Bill is to provide an up to date legal framework for management of the radio frequency spectrum, so that the development of radiocommunication services can proceed in an orderly fashion. I believe that this legislation will facilitate significant improvements in the range and quality of radiocommunication services provided to the community. In the course of developing this Bill, the views of the community, including those of industry, professional engineering institutions and user groups, have been sought and taken into account. A draft radiocommunications Bill was published in February for public comment, although it had not yet been introduced into Parliament by the previous Government. The present Bill is based on the published draft and takes into account comments received in recent months. The radio frequency spectrum, for the purposes of this Bill, is the range of wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation on which effective communications over significant distances are possible. It is a finite natural resource of vital importance to all radiocommunication and radionavigation services. Without it modern transport, business, entertainment and social activities would be impossible. For example, there would be no television, the operation of jet aircraft would be impracticable, and people in the outback would have no immediate contact with the outside world. The existing legislation governing the use of the spectrum is the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905. The extraordinary growth of communications technology over the last decade has highlighted the shortcomings of that Act, which has now become outdated and inadequate. A central deficiency of the Act is that it does not adequately provide for the prevention of interference to radiocommunication services. While under the Act the Minister is given certain powers to control the transmission and reception of messages by means of radio, the Act does not deal at all with radio emissions which are not messages. This has been a major weakness because such emissions can cause considerable radio interference to the detriment of legitimate users of the spectrum. Interference occurs both between radiocommunication services and between radio and non-radio devices such as industrial machinery and home entertainment equipment. Although the Wireless Telegraphy Act prohibits the unlicensed establishment, erection, maintenance and use of radio equipment for the purpose of transmitting or receiving messages, it contains no power to restrict the supply or possession of unlicensable equipment. This not only makes it difficult to protect legitimate uses of the spectrum but it also places an unfair burden on persons purchasing unlicensable equipment in good faith. Currently the only means of limiting the availability of unlicensable equipment is to prevent its import under the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations. There are other deficencies in the Wireless Telegraphy Act, including the lack of adequate provisions relating to spectrum planning, the review of decisions, and conciliation between parties to interference disputes. The enforcement provisions are out-dated. In addition, the Act does not bind the Crown, despite the fact that Commonwealth organisations are major spectrum users. Its extraterritorial operation is very limited, even though Australian aircraft and ships are important users of the spectrum. In the future Australian satellites and space vehicles will also use large amounts of spectrum. The proposed radiocommunications legislation is designed to overcome these deficiencies. Before describing the features of the Bill, I emphasise that it in no way deals with the licensing of normal domestic radio receivers or television sets or of broadcasting and television transmitting stations. In fact, the proposed legislation specifically excludes these domestic receivers from any licensing requirement. Turning now to the content of the Bill, clause 3, the definitions clause, contains a number of defintions of principal importance. I refer to the definitions of 'radiocommunication', 'radiocommunications transmitter', 'radio transmission' and 'transmitter'. Taken together, the combined impact of these definitions allows subsequent provisions of the Bill to control radio emissions from all devices impacting on the spectrum up to three terahertz, the generally acknowledged upper limit for radiocommunications, and to control the emissions of laser type devices from above three terahertz, in the infra red part of the spectrum, to 1,000 terahertz, the end of the visible light portion of the spectrum. The difference in the control over devices impacting on two different parts of the spectrum is to ensure that non-laser type devices operating in the infra red and visible light portions of the spectrum, such as all conventional light sources and infra heat lamps, are excluded from the purview of this Bill. Laser type emitters are covered by this Bill since communications over significant distances are already being accomplished with these devices. Under clause 9 of the Bill, the Minister for Communications is empowered to make standards for transmitters, receivers and radiosensitive equipment. The standards may cover the design or performance of equipment, and the wording of statements to be impressed on or annexed to it. As the standards will have considerable impact on the design of transmitters, receivers, and other equipment that is capable of being affected by radio transmissions, the clause provides that a proposed standard is to be published with an invitation to interested persons to comment on it. The Minister, by clause 9 (3), is required to give due consideration to representations received before proceeding to make the standard. Clause 9 (9) of the Bill allows for this procedure to by bypassed where the Minister is satisfied that the making of the standard is a matter of urgency. This provision would, of course, be used rarely, if at all. However, the Government considers it necessary to deal with situations where a quick reaction is essential to control the rapid proliferation of equipment that would severely affect radiocommunications services. Clause 9 contains some of the most significant powers granted under the Bill. It is the Government's intention to develop standards not only for radiocommunications transmitters and receivers but also for things as diverse as radio frequency heaters and certain classes of audio equipment. In the former case, operation of radio frequency heaters can severely disrupt communications. Indeed, these devices have at times significantly disrupted communications with aircraft. In regard to audio equipment, much time and expense is incurred by officers of my Department in trying to solve interference to hi-fi sets and the like by transmitters which are usually properly licensed. The transmitters are not defective in most cases of this nature. Rather the fault lies with the hi-fi equipment that, generally, for the want of a few cents worth of components is adversely affected by strong signals emitted from nearby radiocommunications transmitters. As more and more equipment is produced that conforms to sensible standards, more services will be able to co-exist successfully in an increasingly crowded spectrum. It is necessary to provide for some circumstances where the use of sub -standard equipment may be necessary, for example in the development stages of new equipment. Clause 11 provides for this by the issue of test permits. The same provision could be used to provide for individuals and organisations such as museums, who have a legitimate requirement for sub-standard equipment. Clause 11 of the Bill provides for a maximum fine of $10,000 or five years imprisonment for persons who, without reasonable excuse, cause sub-standard transmitters to transmit, who supply sub-standard transmitters or receivers, or who have in their possession a sub-standard transmitter. The maximum fine that can be imposed on corporations can be up to $50,000 because of the operation of clause 83 of the Bill. Maximum penalties of this severity are justified, considering that sub-standard radio equipment can interfere with vital safety of life services, such as aircraft navigation and landing aids, ambulance services and the like. I would emphasise that transmitter standards may be made for any device emitting radiation covered by the definition of radio transmission. At present, significant amounts of interference are caused by non-communication devices such as industrial heaters, faulty powerlines, electric motors and other electrical devices. The Wireless Telegraphy Act does not provide for control of emissions from these devices, and my Department has therefore had to rely on the goodwill of their owners in investigating and attempting to deal with interference caused by them. The desired co-operation has not always been provided. Concern has been expressed that this clause could affect persons such as radio amateurs, electronics enthusiasts and the like who may have sub-standard equipment in their possession for use as spare parts or for conversion to other uses. I would point out that paragraph 11 (2) (c) makes it a reasonable excuse for the person to have a sub-standard transmitter in his possession for purposes that do not include the purpose of supply or the purpose of causing the transmitter to make a radio transmission. Consequently I think this paragraph will give sufficient protection to persons who retain sub-standard equipment for legitimate purposes. This Bill will for the first time provide the power to deal with the technical causes of interference. To identify equipment that meets a particular standard, clause 12 of the Bill provides for the Minister to issue compliance statement certificates to persons authorising them to affix to equipment a statement verifying that the equipment complies with a specified standard. A significant feature of the Bill is the provision for radio frequency planning in Part IV. The purpose of this Part is to facilitate future planning of the radio frequency spectrum and to guide the development of services using it. Indeed, when issuing a licence the Minister is required to have regard to whether the operation of a transmitter is in accordance with the appropriate frequency plan. The overall spectrum plan is to be built up from a number of specialised frequency band plans that indicate in some detail the purpose or purposes for which various portions of each band may be used. In general, the plan will follow the outline of the present published planning document, the Australian Table of Frequency Allocations. Clause 20 allows for public comment on spectrum and frequency band plans while clause 20 (5) provides for parliamentary disallowance of any plan. These provisions, the Government believes, will enable the public to have a significant influence on the development of spectrum plans. In formulating any plan, the Government has to take its international commitments, particularly those under the International Telecommunication Convention, into account. Naturally, the Government will ensure that all our international commitments in this regard are upheld. I should also state that it is the Government's intention that spectrum and appropriate frequency band plans be made as expeditiously as possible once the Bill becomes law. Provision is made in the Bill in Part V for the issue of frequency reservation certificates. The purpose of these certificates is to enable persons to be able to reserve a frequency or frequencies for future use. Typically, the certificates would be issued to allow the developer of a communications system to be assured that spectrum space will be available to cater for future expansion. In the administration of the use of these certificates, my Department will take precautions to ensure that claims for reserved spectrum are legitimate so that spectrum is not being reserved unnecessarily. Clauses 22, 23 and 24 are the specific licensing provisions for radiocommunications transmitters. A person who operates an unauthorised transmitter, or possesses such a transmitter for the purpose of operating it without reasonable excuse, will be liable to a maximum fine of $2,000. The Government considers it necessary to include in sub-clause 23 (1) an offence of possession of an unlicensed radiocommunications transmitter for the purpose of operation. Concern has been expressed to the Government that this provision is unnecessarily restrictive. The Government considers that the provision should remain because without such a provision my Department would be next to powerless in prosecuting persons establishing and using inlicensed stations where those persons have taken precautions to avoid being caught in the act of transmitting. Clause 24 provides the Minister with the power to grant a transmitter licence, and the conditions to which such a licence is subject are outlined in clause 25. Contravention of specified conditions is subject to a maximum fine of $1,000. I would like to direct honourable members' attention to paragraph 25 (1) (g). The purpose of this provision is to permit the listed persons to direct the licensee of a radiocommunications transmitter to assist in an emergency situation. This assistance could take the form of either passing messages or possibly ceasing operation if interference is caused to emergency services. Provision is made for guidelines to be made to guide listed persons in exercising their powers under 25 (1) (g). The Government intends to produce those guidelines after consultation with appropriate organisations and to distribute them to the classes of persons listed as well as to the larger organisations operating radiocommunications equipment such as Telecom Australia, television stations and the like. This will enable both the listed persons and organisations likely to be affected by any directions made, to be aware in advance of the conditions under which valid directions can be given. Similarly, it is the Government's intention to make guidelines under the provisions of sub- clause 25 (4) in relation to the exercise of its powers regarding interference to and between radiocommunications services. All guidelines made under these provisions are subject to disallowance by Parliament. The licensing provisions are in line with the existing provisions of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905 but also clarify and allow for streamlining of licensing procedures. I shall deal with the question of fees for licences and permits in my speech on the associated Bills. A knowledge of radiocommunications theory is in some cases necessary before a person can reasonably be allowed to operate transmitters either because the equipment is capable of causing interference if used improperly, or because a high standard of proficiency is required for safety reasons. An example is the specialised radio operator on board large ships. In order to maintain high standards of operation and effective use of these bands, it is necessary for these operators to have technical qualifications. To this end, clause 31 of the Bill provides for an examination process to determine eligibility for the specified categories of licence and for the issue of certificates of proficiency to those who qualify. Clause 34 establishes a procedure for deeming persons to have the requisite proficiency, thus enabling the Minister to declare persons with acceptable overseas or other qualifications to be qualified operators for the purposes of clause 31. Clause 34 will also be used to deem as qualified persons, licensees of citizen band stations, taxiphones and like services where no special qualifications are required in order to operate their transceivers. This procedure is necessary because of the requirements of paragraph 24 (1) (e) of the Bill which makes it a condition of a licence that the licensee be a qualified operator in relation to the licence. Part VII of the Bill addresses the question of licensing for certain classes of receivers. I would again like to make it quite clear that licences will not be required for receivers for radio or television programs intended for reception by the general public. It should be pointed out, however, that radio receivers that incorporate broadcast band reception with reception of non-broadcast frequencies could be subject to licensing if appropriate regulations were made. Technically, it is necessary to provide for the licensing of receivers that can tune broadcast bands as well as other bands for the simple reason that the requirement for licensing some classes of radiocommunication receivers could be circumvented by the inclusion of a broadcast reception facility in equipment designed primarily for other purposes. However, the Government has no intention of requiring the licensing of the typical multiband portable receivers, continuous tuning television receivers, shortwave receivers, scanning receivers or similar consumer devices commonly available to the public. The Government's policy on the licensing of receivers is that regulations requiring the licensing of particular classes of receivers will be made only where there is a clear need to protect them from interference, where there is significant radio frequency co-ordination effort required to be expended by my Department, or where special circumstances exist that require the licensing of certain classes of receivers to prevent the development of undesirable practices . Major receive-only earth stations, for example, would require licences. The overall effect of this Part, however, is deregulatory. Under sub-section 6 (1) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act it was necessary to licence both radiocommunications receivers and transmitters, while under the provisions of this Bill only a small proportion of radiocommunications receivers in specific classes will be prescribed for licensing purposes. The Government's policy will be to prescribe as few classes of receivers as possible consistent with our objective of efficient spectrum management. Part VIII of the Bill provides that the Governor-General may proclaim a 'period of emergency' in specified circumstances which could involve threats to the security or defence of Australia, serious threats to the environment or risk of injury to persons or property. The 'period of emergency' may be specified up to a maximum of three months and during this time controls over transmitters likely to interfere with radiocommunications are provided by orders under clause 41. In this way, vital communications can be protected from possible interference during a state of emergency. Contravention of an order, without reasonable excuse, bears a maximum penalty of $5,000 to take account of the serious nature of such an offence. Clause 42 provides for the Minister to make guidelines to be applied by him with respect to his powers under Clause 41. The Government intends to make these guidelines as promptly as possible and will consult interested bodies before making these guidelines. The guidelines made will not unnecessarily impede the operation of stations during an emergency. A feature of the Bill which will be of particular interest to the community at large is the provision in Part IX for the settlement of interference disputes. Disputes concerning interference occur between individual members of the public and between the large organisations, often with sizable investments in electrical or communications equipment. Some of these disputes can be unreasonably protracted to the detriment of both parties. Major disputes have occurred, for example, between electricity commissions and organisations relying on telecommunications over the placement of power lines in relation to radio receiving sites involved in safety of life communications. Numerous disputes have also arisen as a result of interference to home entertainment equipment from a nearby radiocommunications service. At present the settlement of such disputes can be a vexatious and acrimonious procedure. Often one of the parties refuses to take simple, low cost measures that would resolve the situation. Resolving such an impasse is a difficult task for my Department. Even simple disputes can involve the expenditure of thousands of dollars on administrative effort. To ameliorate the effect of intractable disputes the Bill proposes a conciliation process. Clause 46 of the Bill empowers the Minister to refer interference disputes to a conciliator, if necessary. The conciliator, appointed by the Minister, may hold an inquiry and report on the matter. In order to effect a settlement of the dispute, the conciliation may direct a compulsory conference between the parties concerned and recommend a solution to them. If the dispute is still unsettled, the likely cause for this is to be outlined in the report from the conciliator to the Minister. It is anticipated that this process will achieve practical results without the delay or expense of formal legal procedures. The existence of such a system may also relieve channels presently used for grievances, such as complaints to the Ombudsman. Noting the growing complexity and social impact of radiocommunications activity on the everyday life of the community, the Government has decided that provision should be made for inquiries to consider major radiocommunications issues that may be expected to arise in the future. Part X of the Bill deals with this matter. For instance, it is possible that due to the shortage of spectrum space all persons who wish to engage in providing major new radiocommunications services may not be able to do so. Consequently, licences to provide these new services may need to be rationed and a public inquiry system would be one means of determining which applicants would be recommended to the Minister for the award of a licence. Inquiries could also be held into many other issues involving radiocommunications such as the structure of frequency band plans, the best means of utilising new radiocommunications technology and the like. I should like to emphasise that the inquiry system will not in its self produce policy decisions. The power of the Commissioner heading the inquiry is simply to make recommendations to the Minister. It will then be for the Minister of the day to decide whether or not to implement these recommendations. Moving to part XI of the Bill, honourable members will note the severe penalty provisions in clauses 65 (2) and 65 (10). These penalties are to deal with threats to the safety of marine and aeronautical services, to provide protection to Australian radio and television broadcasting services from the transmission of pirate broadcast programs from outside the territorial sea, and to provide protection against substantial interference to internal and external Australian radiocommunications caused by sources outside the territorial sea. It is possible to use radiocommunications transmitters to cause an explosion. In some instances a transmitter operated near a quarry can emit sufficient electromagnetic energy to instigate a detonation. I am sure I do not need to outline the type of disaster that could ensue. The maximum penalty in such instances is a fine of $10,000 and imprisonment for up to five years. Delegation of the powers of the Minister under this Bill is authorised in clause 66 (1). However, the making of standards for radiocommunication equipment and the making of orders during a period of emergency are powers that can only be performed by the Minister and may not be delegated to an authorised person acting on his behalf. The Bill provides for the appointment and powers of inspectors. Given the immediate and substantial impact that powers of this nature can have on the civil liberties of citizens this Government sought the views of the Council of Civil Liberties of New South Wales and these were taken into account in the public consultation process-- Mr McVeigh —What about Queensland? You did not go to Queensland. Mr DUFFY —I thought it had been abolished in Queensland by the Government. Mr McVeigh —You should see the polls today. They are winning by 52 per cent. Mr DUFFY —I hope that is something you take consolation from, because it will not last for long. The Council has made a number of suggestions for improvement of the Bill and these have all been incorporated in this Bill. Under clause 3 (5 ), officers of the Australian Federal Police and Territory police are deemed to be inspectors for the purposes of this Bill. Clause 69 outlines an inspector's power of arrest where any person is believed to be committing, or has committed, an offence against the Act. Although normally a search warrant would be issued by a magistrate under clause 70 to authorise an inspector to enter, search and seize property, a provision is made at clause 72 authorising inspectors to search a person without warrant or enter property when a emergency necessitates this course of action. An order of a court or warrant will not be required in an emergency search, provided the circumstances are sufficiently serious or urgent to justify immediate action. In certain circumstances it may prove necessary to obtain a search warrant as a matter of urgency but where an emergency search made under the provisions of clause 72 is not appropriate. Such situations could arise where suspect equipment is installed in a vehicle or aircraft and quick action is required to ascertain whether an offence has been committed. Clause 81 provides a mechanism for search warrants to be granted over the telephone by a magistrate where such urgent circumstances exist. The validity of a warrant granted under the provision is subject to conformity with strict conditions laid down in this clause. In particular I would point out that the magistrate must be satisfied that reasonable grounds exist for issuing the warrant. Where a court finds that charges are found proven in relation to an offence against this Act, the court may order forfeiture to the Commonwealth of any equipment used in the commission of that offence. (Extension of time granted) One most important feature of the Bill is that it will enable the licensing of domestic satellites. Obviously the licensing of satellites under this Bill will cover matters dealing with the radio frequency management characteristics of satellites and the services accessing them. It will not control the broadcasting aspects of Australian satellites, which will be handled under other legislation. The Wireless Telegraphy Act has only limited extra-territorial effect, so that under that legislation licensing of satellites is not possible. I should point out one feature of the Bill that will impact directly on domestic television and broadcast receivers. Clause 9 provides that standards may be made for specified receivers or for receivers included in a specified class of receivers. This will enable the development of standards for domestic receivers. At present large numbers of low standard receivers are widely available and marketed. The low engineering standards to which these receivers are built inhibits the efficient use of the spectrum. For example, certain combinations of television channels cannot be used at any one location because of the inability of many current receivers to distinguish between transmissions on these channels. The net result of this is that fewer television channels are available for use in any one area. A similar situation also prevails where FM broadcast receivers are incapable of distinguishing between two stations on adjacent frequencies. Much domestic equipment is also overly susceptible to transmissions made by nearby radiocommunications transmitters. In the majority of cases the transmitters are being legally operated, and the problem could be remedied by employing better circuitry in the domestic equipment. Consequently, when standards are made for domestic equipment the Government will give due consideration to incorporation of appropriate provisions in the standards to minimise this problem. It will be a matter of judgment as to what receivers need to be subject to standards. For instance, the Government would be unlikely to make standards for $3.99 pocket radios but could contemplate standards being made for more substantial and sophisticated sets where purchasers could expect that reception would not be compromised by the sets' inability to cope with the operation of nearby transmitters. Clause 5 of the Bill provides that it will apply to certain non-communications transmitters and receivers as well as to radiocommunications equipment. Basically these transmitters and receivers are used for purposes covered by paragraphs 51 (vii), (viii) and (xv) of the Constitution which deal respectively with navigational aids, astronomy and meteorology, and weights and measures. Given the proper concern of the Parliament with civil liberties, I am sure the following features of the Bill will be of interest. Under Clause 88 of the Bill, all decisions of the Minister which could, given the constraints of practicality , be made the subject of administrative review, have been placed within the jurisdiction of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Delegated decision-making will first be subject to an internal review. However, the decision taken on that review will be subject to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Government considers this to be an essential safeguard to the rights of individuals affected by the operation of what must be, to some extent, discretionary powers. Given the vast range of communications equipment and the needs of individual users and communities, it is considered that a certain amount of discretion is essential. Every effort has been made, however, to limit and define discretionary powers. The Bill differs markedly in this regard from the Wireless Telegraphy Act in which powers of unfettered discretion were much greater. Some discretions should, however, be highlighted. Paragraph 11 (2) (b) allows the Minister to permit the supply of substandard transmitters. This power is intended to allow the transfer of collectors items. It will not be used to allow a de facto trade in substandard equipment for use. A decision made under paragraph 11 (2) (b) is reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The administrative instruments associated with standards, advisory guidelines and spectrum planning are subject to the discipline of public comment and parliamentary review. Those instruments directly affecting individual rights will be subject to parliamentary disallowance and even those which have a purely advisory or planning character must be tabled. The powers of suspension of compliance statement certificates and licences-clauses 13 and 28-are not subject to Adminsitrative Appeals Tribunal review because suspension would lapse before such a review was possible. In the more serious cases, where a prosecution is commenced, review by the Tribunal would conflict with consideration of the issues by a court. It has also been considered unnecessary in these clauses to specify the matters that are to be considered in reaching a decision. According to legal advice, a power of this nature can be utilised only in terms of the provisions empowering the grant of the instrument, and the relevant considerations are therefore implied. Clauses 68 to 77 specify the powers of inspectors. Clause 72, in particular, allows searches without warrant in emergency situations. This power is necessary for the effective enforcement of this legislation, particularly in cases of deliberate interference to safety services or other cases of deliberate interference. The Government will not allow this power to be abused. It is purely and simply an emergency power and is subject to certain requirements which will be enforced by the courts. It is intended that this legislation will apply to the Australian Antarctic Territory and to all external territories. However, given the special legal status of Antarctica as defined in Article 4 of the Antarctic Treaty, and given our responsibility to facilitate radiocommunications for safety reasons in such inhospitable regions, I have determined that radio transmitters operated by foreign nationals in the Australian Antarctic Territory should be classed as ' prescribed transmitters'. This means that they would not require transmitter licences or temporary permits. However, the Governor-General is empowered under the Australian Antarctic Territory Act 1954 to make ordinances which could include, if circumstances warranted, ordinances relating to radio transmitters operated by foreign nationals in the Australian Antarctic Territory. I have explained previously that the Government expects that the provisions of the Bill in relation to standards, spectrum planning and other measures will facilitate a reduction in the levels of interference to and between radiocommunications services. However, these measures will not be fully effective for some time as the existing stock of licensed transmitters will not be subject to the standards provisions of this Bill. Accordingly, other methods are necessary to control interference. This control will be achieved by regulations made under clause 93 of the Bill, where provision is made for ' Prohibiting or regulating any act or thing likely to cause interference, or risk of interference to radiocommunications'. Regulations made under this power will enable both specific and general interference problems to be dealt with. For example, regulations could be made specifying the acceptable level of interference that could be tolerated by vital safety services such as air-to- ground communications and action that could be taken to eliminate any higher level of interference from offending devices. These regulations would also be capable of controlling interference to broadcasting and television transmissions . The financial impact of this Bill is difficult to quantify. In some areas substantial deregulation is proposed. For instance, the Bill facilitates a substantial reduction in the licensing of receivers and low power transmitters. There will be consequent savings for the Government in the costs of administration, and users will no longer need to pay licence fees. Substantial savings can be expected both for the Government and the community as a whole as the Bill's provisions relating to standards and control over interference gradually result in the lessening of interference to and between radiocommunications services. The Government will need to spend proportionally less time on interference investigations and the private operator will be assured of a more efficient communications system. On the other hand increased administrative costs can be expected because of the Government's commitment to public consultation and appeal rights against administrative decisions. Increased costs may be experienced by industry in some areas due to the introduction of standards for devices impacting on the spectrum. New equipment may need to be of a higher standard than that currently employed. In the medium to long term the Government expects that this Bill will result in substantially improved efficiency in the use of the radio frequency spectrum. This will confer appreciable economic advantages on the community as a whole as business, government and individuals are able to achieve increased efficiency in their operations resulting from the use of radiocommunications. I should touch on the subject of import controls over substandard equipment. While no mention is made in this Bill of prohibiting the import of substandard equipment, it is the Government's intention that substandard equipment would be barred from entering Australia through the mechanism of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations. In conclusion the Government extends its thanks to all those in the community who gave freely of their time and expertise in the public consultation process leading up to the finalisation of this Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Duffy, and read a first time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(10.58) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is a companion measure to the Radiocommunications Bill 1983. It provides for certain transitional arrangements and for consequential amendments to a number of other Acts, to bring the general scheme of the Radiocommunications Bill 1983 into operation. In particular, clause 5 of the Bill provides that any licences issued under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905 continue in force after the commencement of the Bill. Such licences cannot be renewed and new licences will have to be taken out under the provisions of the Radiocommunications Bill. The clause also provides that certificates issued under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905 can be deemed to be certificates of proficiency under the Radiocommunications Bill. Consequential amendments to other legislation are set out in the Schedule to this Bill. The most significant of these consequential amendments is the creation of a new section 6 in the Broadcasting and Television Act. This is an offence provision prohibiting unauthorised operation of a broadcasting or television station. Under the existing regime, unlicensed operation of a broadcasting or television station is an offence under the Wireless Telegraphy Act. The new offence provision is closely modelled on the equivalent offence of operating an unauthorised radiocommunications transmitter under clause 23 of the Radiocommunications Bill. The effect, therefore, is simply to create two parallel and specific offences where only one very wide offence exists at present. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Duffy, and read a first time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(11.01) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill and the associated Bills which I will introduce shortly will replace the Radiocommunications Licence Fees Act 1982. That Act will be repealed under the provisions of the Radiocommunications (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1982. Fees for radiocommunications services are presently levied under the Radiocommunications Licence Fees Act. It was necessary for these fees to be levied as taxes under that Act in order to place the fees beyond possible legal challenge. This principle also enables the Government to apply a royalty concept to radiocommunication licence fees. Consequently the financial impact of this Bill and the related tax measures will in themselves be no different from the current situation. A royalty is appropriate because the radio frequency spectrum is a scarce natural resource which is in steadily increasing demand. The cost of using this resource in some cases bears little relation to the value of it to the licencee. Application of the royalty concept can be used as a pricing mechanism to spread the demand for valuable portions of the spectrum and thus increase the overall efficiency of use of the spectrum. In replacing the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905, the Radiocommunications Bill will provide for the grant of frequency reservation certificates, receiver licences, temporary permits, test permits and transmitter licences. The Constitution requires that laws imposing taxation deal solely with the imposition of taxation and only with one subject of taxation. It is therefore necessary that separate Bills authorise the various charges for services provided for by the Radiocommunications Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to provide for the collection of those charges. The Bill establishes clearly that all users of the spectrum, including statutory corporations of the Commonwealth or Territories, will be liable for those charges. Regulations may be made under this Bill to specify the manner of payment as well as the remission or refund of tax in certain circumstances. The Government has given consideration to incorporating radiocommunications licence fees in schedules to the minor Acts rather than as regulations as is the current situation. However the Government considers that it is appropriate for fees to continue to be imposed by regulation because new radiocommunications services are appearing constantly and provision has to be made promptly to authorise the issue of licences and the charging of licence fees for them. To amend the relevant act to cater for this situation would result in needless impositions on the time of the Parliament. Should Parliament have reservations about taxes set by regulation, I remind the House that those regulations would be subject to disallowance in the usual manner. Debate (on motion by Mr Shipton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Duffy, and read a first time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(11.06) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The issue of frequency reservation certificates to facilitate forward planning in the use of the radio frequency spectrum is authorised by clause 21 of the Radiocommunications Bill. This Bill imposes a tax on the grant of a frequency reservation certificate. Details of the amount of tax for such certificates are to be prescribed by regulation. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Shipton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Duffy, and read a first time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(11.07) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill imposes a tax on the grant of a radiocommunications receiver licence issued under clause 38 of the Radiocommunications Bill. Details of the amount of tax for specified types of receiver licences are to be prescribed by regulation. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Shipton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Duffy, and read a first time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(11.08) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill imposes a tax on the grant of a temporary permit issued under clause 35 of the Radiocommunications Bill. Details of the amount of tax for temporary permits are to be prescribed by regulation. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Shipton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Duffy, and read a first time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(11.09) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The issue of test permits for sub-standard transmitters is authorised by clause 10 of the Radiocommunications Bill. This Bill imposes a tax on the grant of a test permit. Details of the amount of tax for test permits are to be prescribed by regulation. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Shipton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Duffy, and read a first time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(11.10) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill imposes a tax on the grant of a transmitter licence issued under clause 24 of the Radiocommunications Bill. Details of the amount of tax for the many classes of transmitter licences are to be prescribed by regulation. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Shipton) adjourned. (Budget Debate) Debate resumed from 21 September, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr BILNEY(Kingston)(11.11) —It is with very great pleasure that I rise to support the Government in this debate on the first Hawke Budget. I confidently expect that there will be another 20 Hawke Budgets while I am a member of parliament. It is a very easy Budget to support. I note from a recent public opinion poll that support for this Budget was greater than that for any other Budget in the past six years, and for all the right reasons. I think we know who brought down those last six Budgets and why they commanded so little support or respect from the ordinary people of Australia. This Budget builds on the consensus that was established during the National Economic Summit Conference which was held earlier this year. I do not need to remind the House that that Economic Summit was an historic event. Not only did it bring together perhaps the 100 busiest women and men in Australia for a period when they actually sat down and listened to one another as distinct from talking at one another through the media, but it also ratified the prices and incomes accord which had been arrived at between the Government and the trade unions. I think most people agreed at that time that it was a first step in bringing Australia together as we promised during the election campaign. The Budget also builds on the economic statement brought down on 19 May. There are certain aspects of that statement that I will return to, especially the housing package that was announced at that time. It also builds on the Premiers Conference which in its own way was historic since it was the first time in living memory that all the Premiers endorsed a communique which addressed the problems of the country in a positive way and displayed genuine sensitivity to the needs and the problems which the States face. This is the first Budget for a long time that is a forward looking, compassionate and realistic document. It is honest compared with the rubbery Budgets we had in the past. In 1977 Mr Lynch, as he then was, described the figures in the Budget of the day as rubbery, and that statement certainly proved to be correct. If that Budget was rubbery what would one say about the Budget of 1982? It not only stretched figures but also credibility. There was a projected deficit of $1.7 billion but in the result it blew out to nearly $4.5 billion. Just before the last election we learnt to our horror that a projected $9.6 billion deficit was in prospect for 1983-84. Dealing with that situation has imposed its own strains and I think the Government's Budget has measured up in that regard. I said it was a realistic Budget. That means that along with our May economic statement we are making a real start on tackling the economic problems which we inherited. It addresses the need to get back to a growth path. The only way to create real and lasting jobs is to create them in the private sector and in a way that will have a snowball effect-increased investment and more jobs in the future. The Budget particularly looks to the need to avoid undue pressure on interest rates. There can be no variable of more importance in the Budget than that. Whilst it may be argued that we have gone to the limit, that theory has certainly been proved by what has happened to interest rates since then. It is a forward looking Budget, as I mentioned, because it looks to the need to tackle inflation along with unemployment. It is a Budget that delivers. It looks to the future and to laying the groundwork for a genuine and sustainable recovery. For all those reasons it is an easy Budget to support. By 'forward looking' I mean that by the end of the financial year we will see a growth rate of the order of five per cent, an inflation rate down around the seven per cent mark, which is much more in line with those of our trading partners, stable and, let us hope, declining interest rates, and the unemployment level tending downwards as the economy picks up. We should compare that prospect with what happened last year when, for the first time in over 20 years, the gross national product in this country declined. We went backwards by a factor of something like two per cent. I believe that our predecessors' dreadful economic performance last year will be remembered for a very long time. People will remember that record whenever those opposite put it to the electorate that they can run the economy effectively and efficiently instead of getting it into the hopeless mess that they did. I do not propose to dwell for too long on the macro-economic effects of the Budget but I shall say one or two things more about interest rates, which I described earlier as the key variable for recovery. I had better make it clear that I am not one of those who believe that the size of the deficit does not matter and that we can infinitely expand it. I believe that large deficits put upward pressure on interest rates-they have to be financed-and rising interest rates are something that the Government should avoid at all costs. I have two very simple reasons for saying that. One is a general reason; I do not believe that one can get sustained recovery until business is able to show sufficient profits to led to a rise in private investment and hence to the creation of jobs -real jobs that will last. That promise to create jobs was Labor's main promise. For people on this side of the House it was a non-negotiable promise to those who elected us. The second reason is that I represent the electorate with the highest proportion of people buying their first homes. These are people with two mortgages-young people on middle incomes with young families-and for them the key matter is the level of home loan interest rates. It is difficult, if not impossible, to isolate home mortgage interest rates from the interest rate structure generally. Given any sort of a choice, the people in my electorate of Kingston would prefer lower housing interest rates to any other blessing that the Government could bestow on them. They are absolutely right. I think the best news for a long time in this country-it is a key measure of how this Government' s Budget and its economic policies have been received-was the drop in home loan interest rates which we saw recently. That drop is now spreading from the banks to the building societies. That has to be the best news in a long time. Before I turn to some specific features of the Budget of particular relevance to my electorate there is one other more general matter on which I wish to comment; that is, the allocation in the Budget for overseas development assistance-aid by Australia to developing countries. Let us never forget that however badly off we are in Australia, in comparison with two-thirds of the population of the world we are in an incomparably more fortunate position. A real measure of the degree of civilisation of a society is the extent to which it will assist others in vastly greater need. I commend the Government on the real increase of around four per cent in development assistance-about 12 1/2 per cent in money terms-for developing countries. In particular, I commend the Government for increasing the proportion of aid which will go to the very poorest in the poorest countries. In that regard as well the Budget has delivered on the promise we made to increase the ratio of development assistance to our gross national product, and that has happened. We have moved towards the generally accepted target of 0.7 per cent of GNP by a slight margin. There is a real increase from 0.47 per cent to 0.48 per cent. In commenting on this matter I should commend the Government on increasing the aid to be channelled through non-governmental organisations. Nobody is suggesting that these bodies alone should run our aid program, but they do perform a valuable function in making sure that aid gets down to the grass roots level. People say that charity should begin at home, and I am not one to disagree with that. However, we need to realise, first of all, that aid is not necessarily charity. Through many of our programs it provides jobs in Australia, particularly as a result of the increases in the development import finance facility program, which is used to purchase goods and services from Australia and thus keep people in jobs in this country. Anyone who says that charity should begin at home does not mean that it also should end at home and I commend the Government in that regard. Of course, no aid program is perfect, and while I admire the dedicated people who run our aid programs, often under dangerous conditions, I welcome also the announcement that we will be setting up an aid review under Gordon Jackson to review our programs. So much for the general features of the Budget on which I wished to comment. In the limited time which is left to me I want to turn to some specific features of the Budget which are particularly relevant to my electorate of Kingston. In particular, I wish to refer to the ways in which the Budget will assist both in bringing a return to growth and prosperity in my area and in looking after those who at present are least well placed to survive present economic conditions. Let me start with the latter group. I said earlier that the Budget was a compassionate Budget. By that I mean that it has identified those who are most in need and has sought to help them. By any measure, those who are most in need are the unemployed and the lone parents-the most disadvantaged group in Australia. I think people are quite familiar with the fact-many of my colleagues have referred to it in this debate-that we have maintained pension indexation. We have indexed the single adult unemployment benefit and will increase the benefit in November to $73.60 a week. We have increased the junior unemployment benefit to $45 a week pending a review of all youth allowances. We have increased the payments to pensioners' children by $2 a child from $10 to $12 a week and, we have increased to $12 a week the family income supplement which is paid to low income, non-pensioner families. We have indexed fringe benefit levels so that more pensioners can retain their pensioner health cards and others can become eligible for a health card for the first time. We have given an additional $10m for new children's services and have given an assurance that there will be an extra $30m for new services next year. We have also responded to the great need of the voluntary bodies which assist people in need by allocating $5m to those bodies. There are some new measures in the Budget. Firstly, there is a spouse carer's allowance for a husband looking after an aged or invalid pensioner spouse. Secondly we have amended the Act so that unemployed single people with dependent children can receive mother's and guardian's allowance. This is the single most disadvantaged group in the community, and the new provision means that a deserted wife with two children who does not meet the residential qualifications will get an extra $16.95 a week. This group was previously furthest below the poverty line of all groups, and this new measure in the Budget responds to the needs of this group. I now want to talk about the second group of measures I mentioned earlier, that is, those measures that will be particularly effective in bringing back growth and prosperity to Australia in general and to my electorate of Kingston in particular. I should like to range more widely, to talk about our real increase in expenditure to education and about the great reform which Medicare represents . It is a scheme which will bring real benefits to all Australians and give decent health care more cheaply to the vast majority of Australians. I should have liked to talk about training programs for youth, and the community youth support scheme in particular, which is getting an extra 10 per cent in the Budget. I would have liked to talk about the community employment program, but I cannot do everything. Instead I shall concentrate on three areas which seem to be particularly important in creating real jobs in Kingston. Those are the housing package, tourism, and assistance to business in general. Housing is far and away the key issue in the electorate of Kingston. Kingston, the fastest growing electorate in South Australia, is expanding at the rate of over 3 per cent a year. It has many first home buyers, and the first home owners assistance program is a very welcome measure, in my opinion, for this group of people. There are new grants of $7,000 to an eligible couple with two children, payment of which can be spread over five years. People also have the option of taking $2,000 in a lump sum and receiving $4,500 over five years to assist with the repayments of interest, or there is a third option of taking $3,500 in a lump sum plus $2,750 over five years. This will assist the 90 per cent of the market who buy homes privately. The scheme will cost $120m in 1983-84, and already its effects are being felt. The second measure under the housing package relates to public housing, which was slashed by our predecessors. We have raised expenditure by 50 per cent on that program. In 1983-84 there will be a total allocation of $1,200m, including the States' allocations. It will certainly assist the South Australian Housing Trust. It will certainly assist the Bannon Government which, quite rightly, has made housing a major priority of its own. I absolutely applaud this measure. The third leg is of course home loan interest rates. As I mentioned earlier, there has been a recent drop in home loan interest rates which is now spreading to building societies. I think a great part of that very welcome development is due to the Government's policies included in the Budget. What has been the effect of these measures? Housing commencements last year were down to their lowest since 1962-that is to say, 106,000. We said that we would get housing commencements up to 128,000 this year. Recent figures which have appeared suggest that we are well on the way to that objective. As everybody knows, this is a great way of providing jobs because for every job on the site of a housing project another one is provided off the site. It is a great confidence builder because people can see, as they can see all over the electorate of Kingston, housing construction going ahead and employing people. The other matter that is of particular relevance to Kingston is that of tourism . I will not be able to speak on that matter for as long as I should like, but I commend the Government on recognising at last that this is the real growth industry of the future. It is already the third largest industry in South Australia. My area stands particularly to benefit from it because it is the most beautiful area in South Australia and it is near to Adelaide. People can come and visit the wineries and see the almond blossom- Mr Shipton —The Minister does not like Adelaide. Mr BILNEY —I can say to the honourable member that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) will be in Adelaide on 29 September to visit Thomas Hardy and Sons Pty Ltd wineries at Reynella and to launch the Fleurieu Holiday Playground booklet put out by the tourist association in my area. With a bit of luck, Jim Hardy will be back from winning the America's Cup by that time and he will be able to promote further tourism in South Australia. I congratulate the Government also on the very substantial additional allocations to heritage programs and for the environment in this Budget. These matters are set out in some detail in the Budget Papers. We have increased our grants to voluntary conservation organisations, and the national estate and heritage program. We have increased grants for the protection of historic shipwrecks, of which there is one in my electorate. There has been a very large increase in grants to the Australian Heritage Commission for the National Estate program. The grant has gone up by 58 per cent to $1.2m. Honourable members might ask why this is relevant. People come and to see our buildings, our beautiful countryside, and so forth. If we do not protect them then we do not have the basis for a tourist industry. That is why I think these two things are particularly linked. As far as tourism itself is concerned, I very much congratulate the Government on the massive increase in promotional funds provided to the Australian Tourist Commission. Jobs will be increasingly in service industries because machines cannot make beds, cannot cook meals, cannot run restaurants and cannot drive buses; nor are they jobs which are at risk from overseas because it is hard to import a cheap barrier reef or to manufacture another Ayers Rock for people to look at overseas. I commend and fully support the objective to double the number of tourists coming to Australia by 1988. One needs to say that if Australia did as well as Yugoslavia in attracting tourists, we would have more than full employment in this country. I simply conclude on that note by saying that this Budget seeks to bring back growth and prosperity. I fully expect that my electorate will benefit from that disproportionately because it suffered disproportionately from the appalling policies and administration of the previous Government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Cowper)(11.31) — The 1983 Budget is a repeat of the old Labor formula of big spending, big taxation and big deficits. When the Australian Labor Party does not know how to deal with a problem, be it social or economic, it dips its hand into the public purse and tries to spend its way out of the difficulties. The spending which Australia can ill afford is turning out to be on ideological rather than political programs. There is no consideration of policies which make economic common sense. The Labor Government would rather fund Medicare, its health program which replaces the already adequate and efficient private health funds. It would rather see 5,000 jobs lost from the private health funds than admit that a scheme which will cost millions of dollars to establish is unnecessary. The Labor Government would rather pay for temporary job schemes than encourage the private sector. It is an accepted fact that thousands of permanent jobs could be created were the private sector made more efficient, but the Government has not chosen that avenue to economic recovery. When it comes to spending, Labor governments do not seem able to help themselves, even with the lesson of history not so far behind them. The Whitlam Government increased spending dramatically in the 1970s. In Victoria currently the Cain Government has increased expenditure by no less than 25 per cent. The same thing has just happened in New South Wales and the Bannon Government in South Australia is following a similar pattern. Labor proposes the same folly for Queensland but it will not get the chance to do it in that State. It is not the governments that pay the bills: Ironically it is the Australian taxpayers whom governments say they serve; it is the families and the businesses who have been struggling to survive during the recession and who are now asked to fork out cash yet again. The Government finances its big spending by adding to the burden of taxation borne by most Australians, and that is to be deplored. They will be the ones providing the extra funds to keep the Budget deficit down. Increases in taxes will lead to the pressure we are already seeing from the trade unions for higher wages. We are likely to see a rise of 4.3 per cent in wages through indexation of the consumer price index within the period immediately ahead. Mr Reeves —Is that all? Mr IAN ROBINSON —Of course, that interjection of the honourable member for the Northern Territory points out very clearly the folly of the Government and the tail that wags it on that side of the House. If wage rises continue at that pace the Australian inflation rate will remain high. Yet one of the Government's stated aims is to reduce inflation through its prices and incomes policy. Who can believe that the prices and incomes accord will be effective if there are to be higher taxes, higher prices and additional wage claims? The Treasury has long held the view that the prices and incomes accord is not worth the paper it is written on. Higher taxes reduce the incentive to work and discourage savings. These hikes in tax rates come shortly after the abolition of the housing loan interest rebate and the health fund contribution rebate in the mini-Budget in May. There is no doubt, if we assess the mini-Budget of May, that Australian families were disadvantaged to the extent of about $8 a week on average. The Labor Government must realise that the Australian family does not have the capacity to pay these taxes and to fund the Government's big spending spree. It is the future of our children which is at stake. Mr Cowan —Labor hits the working men. Mr IAN ROBINSON —The working man and the middle income earner are really getting it in the neck from this Budget. With the Government destroying all incentives for both the individual and businesses, what chance have they to secure employment? In spite of these taxes the Government still intends that the Budget deficit will be a massive $8.5 billion. The Government insisted on flying in the face of all the expert advice it received to keep the level of the deficit down. The Treasury thought that $5 billion should be the upper limit. The Reserve Bank of Australia said that $8.5 billion is too high an amount for the Australian economy to manage, as do the responsible sections of industry and business. It must not be forgotten that the Government has patched up the prices and incomes accord with the trade union movement on a spurious basis. It has suggested that this higher figure is in keeping with the wishes of the trade union leaders. The Government stood firm to retain what it was being told to do by its masters outside this House. Had the Government kept all its election promises, the additional Budget cost would have been between $3 billion and $4 billion on top of the present figure that confronts this country. There is no doubt that the Cabinet disputations on these issues have caused very great traumas for the Government. The result, of course, will be higher inflation which in the long run will penalise the whole community, all its citizens and all sections of industry. As the economy, influenced very much, of course, by external aspects as capital inflow continues to occur, gets into better shape, which it looks as though it will do, a lower government Budget will become essential if we are to get the advantage of this trend in the overall economic situation. The past record of the Government shows that it does not have the wisdom to follow this aspect. The Government should have provided a framework for Australian industry to recover its competitiveness, to enable it to improve its productivity at home and its performance abroad; and that was exactly what the previous Government was about. Were the Government to do this, business would become more profitable , which would encourage firms to invest and create permanent jobs, not do the patching up which we see going on today. This would have been a real advantage to the unemployed. If one looks at the way in which the Budget was put together, one can see why these strategies are no real answer to the problems ahead. The Government decided not to use the usual consultative processes by which many interest groups inform the Government on where business stands in this nation. The previous coalition Government consulted with 100 different groups prior to each of its Budgets, organisations which knew the facts and put forward constructive suggestions. This Government decided to ignore that consultative process and to set up the Economic Planning Advisory Council following the so- called Economic Summit. This hardly represents a cross-section of society and does not contain amongst its numbers one person who can be truly regarded as representative of the unemployed. Even in its consultations the Government has hardly been assiduous. The Council met for the first time just over a month ago, by which time the majority of the Budget decisions had already been made. One really cannot hope that the Government will do much with this Budget to overcome our fundamental economic problems. What hope will it give to those Australians who are out of work or in fear of losing their jobs? The consensus which the Labor Government hailed as the great white hope of the 1980s is already fading and will disappear in tatters very quickly. The Budget contains much that greatly concerns and disturbs industry in this country. The enormous size of the deficit, which is of mammoth proportions, must create long term funding problems for the Government. The impact will flow through to business, with resultant increases in operating costs and a disincentive to expansion. The Government's ability to pre-sell the concept of the deficit can only be admired as political stage management, as distinct from honesty. The facts are, however, that a deficit of $8.4 billion is not acceptable and will prove to be very difficult indeed to manage. A study of the implications of the Budget must include a reading of the Budget statements in addition to the Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Keating). Mr Reeves —Tell us what programs you would cut. Mr IAN ROBINSON —Perhaps the honourable members on my left have not bothered to read the statement. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! I remind honourable members that interjections are out of order. Whilst some latitude is extended, members who ignore specific requests from the Chair place themselves at risk. Mr IAN ROBINSON —Budget Paper No. 1 under the heading 'Risk to Sustained Recovery', states: 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. . . . . To take these risks in turn, interest rate outcomes may potentially provide major barriers to the emergence of a basis for sustained recovery . . . We know what has happened. There has been a slight fall, but for the wrong reasons. The fundamental issue is not whether interest rates will rise or fall but whether, given the configuration of other economic viabilities, 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 gross national product, of course more than doubled in 1982-83. A further sharp increase is in prospect during the current financial year. The combined borrowing of the public and corporate sectors relative to GNP is projected to rise to the highest level for the past 25 years. These aspects, of course, are the basis of the real economy, the management of which has fallen into absolute shambles under the Hawke Government. 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-banking sector. This, of course, intrudes seriously into the prospects of the private sector to be able to have its share of the economic viability of this nation. Inflation is another potential barrier to the transformation of the present pick-up in economic activity into durable economic recovery. The lagged effect of recession over the last 18 months and the slowing of wages would be sufficient to deliver a somewhat lower price outcome in 1983-84. But this outcome, surely, will be in jeopardy as a consequence of the policies that have been followed. The central issue, however, is whether the decline in wage and price inflation and their consequent effects can be sustained as economic recovery begins slowly to occur. The most recent surveys by business in this respect show that we are in great jeopardy, despite the prospects that were there to be grasped by the Government, had it had the wisdom so to do. Other factors which are very pertinent in this Budget are policies related to the wage structure of this country. It can be said without equivocation that high wages do not help the young and they do not help the poor. There is a strange reluctance among many members of the community and, indeed, even more so among professional economists, to accept that there is a relationship between wage rates and levels of employment. But recent studies show conclusively that there is this inescapable link. Two aspects have arisen in recent times. One is the persistence of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) to fob off the suggestion that the minimum wage should be held down. He is scared for his life in this respect. Another example of the Government's folly in the matter of wages was an announcement by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) that there would be an inquiry into overtime rates in the tourist industry. What happened? The Australian Council of Trade Unions sent a very speedy message to the Government, saying: 'Not on your life'. Mr Cowan —He had to apologise. Mr IAN ROBINSON —He had to apologise for making the statement, as the honourable member for Lyne said. He had to withdraw and go into hiding on the issue, and he has remained there ever since. When we look at the consequences of those decisions it is apparent that it is not the Government that is taking the lead in these matters; it is the ACTU that is directing the Government on its policy. There is in that a warning for the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), for the Treasurer and for the front bench of the present Government; that is, that they cannot serve two masters-they cannot serve the ACTU and the electors of Australia in a way that will sustain a government in office. I hope that that warning will be clearly evident to them in the months ahead because the peril is that the average Australian will be disdadvantaged if there is not a recognition of this factor. In the remaining short time at my disposal I refer to the Government's total abdication of responsibility in this Budget with regard to the rural sector. It can be said that the rural sector has been slugged yet again. It was slugged in May in the mini-Budget and it has been slugged again in the August Budget, and in a way that is, of course, very disappointing. Mr Saunderson —Share the burden; that is what it is about. Mr IAN ROBINSON —That was a typical comment-sharing the burden. Has the honourable member ever heard of the drought or of the consequences of low world prices for our bulk commodities from primary industry? Has he ever heard of the figures from the Bureau of Agricultural Economics that show that in 1983-84 the net value of rural production in real terms is still significantly below the levels for 1981-82 and 1980-81 and is below the levels for the early 1970s, for reasons that are well understood by the primary industry sector and the business sector of this country but are not understood by the political philosophies of the Labor Party. Of course, farmers need a little time to recover from the drought before they are hit with heavier burdens-heavier burdens that clearly show the lack of understanding of the Government in respect of the needs of primary industry. Not so long ago the Prime Minister said: I have absolutely no hesitation in reaffirming the Government's commitment to maintaining the viability of Australia's great rural sector and the provincial infrastructure He said that, yet we find in the Budget that all sectors of primary industry are slugged with increased costs in respect of fuel and in respect of all of the services that are provided by government agencies for primary industry. We find the contraction of taxation concessions formerly available to primary producers. We find that expenditure is cut back in essential areas of primary production. The consequences of those actions are that primary industry, which is now virtually on its knees-now of course, with a better seasonal prospect, with the possibility of a huge wheat harvest and some other good luck-will be forced once again to continue in an economic contraction because of government policies. That is not because of the realities of the income earning factor in the sale of primary products on the overseas market. It is not because of its contribution to the economy, which needs encouraging. It is simply because there is a philosophy in the minds of Labor Party members that we need to take something away from one section of the community and give it to another. However, in the process of trying to implement that philosophy they hit primary industry, just as they hit many other sectors. Let us think about the contraction in the sphere of social security benefits through the proposed inequitable means testing that is envisaged. Let us look at what is happening to the ordinary wage earner and to those who suffer from the economic disabilities which confront us. Costs that obviously will occur in the health area and taxes by stealth are but a few of the consequences of this Budget which will hit home very shortly. They will make all of this very clear to all sections of the community. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr McVeigh —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. As that was such an excellent speech can the honourable member be granted an extension of time? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr STAPLES(Diamond Valley)(11.51) —A quotation attributed to Bismarck states: The nation that has the most schools has the future. Clearly no nation can rely upon its raw materials and its elitist aristocracy to survive and grow in this rapidly changing world of the twentieth century. For years we have been beguiled by successive conservative coalition governments into relying too much upon our primary produce and our rocks. Because of poor management, poor vision and conservative ideological strait-jackets, our greatest resource, the skills and minds of our people, has been left idle, unstimulated and under-utilised. We have heard it all before in this House and we are going to hear it again. In Canada, Japan and the United States of America between 70 per cent and 90 per cent of teenagers remain in education until the final year of secondary school. In Australia we struggle to keep 35 per cent of teenagers in education and we think that we are a developed and well educated nation. We are fooling ourselves, as other have fooled us before. However, now, under the Labor Government, there is a changing emphasis on education. Never since the Whitlam Government has so much emphasis been placed on education, training and youth affairs. One of the major reasons why Opposition members now sit on the other side of the House is that they failed, and failed miserably, to give Australia's young people and Australian families a fair go in education. After the equitable distribution of education funding of the Whitlam years, when Commonwealth money was given to the needy and across a broad spectrum of Australian society, we saw , year by year, a return to the arrogant educational elitism of the Fraser Government. We have seen a severe downturn in economic growth and employment that has left 29 per cent of our full time teenage labour force out of work. Some 80,000 full time jobs, formerly held by teenagers, have disappeared in that time. Since 1975 the average period of unemployment experienced by young people has doubled. Apprenticeship numbers, which until 1981 were growing, have suddenly declined. The number of new apprentices in 1982-83 decreased by 32 per cent compared with 1981-82. That happened in one year. Despite the sincere efforts of the former Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, whom I consider to be basically a compassionate man, the former Government was paralysed by its conservative ideology and paralysed by a conservative ideologue Prime Minister. Where were the training programs? In 1982-83, in real terms, 38 per cent less was spent on work force programs than was spent seven years before, despite the fact that unemployment has doubled in that time. While 50 per cent of our unemployed are aged 24 years or more, only 9 per cent of the meagre training expenditure was directed to adults. In December 1982, when more than 200,000 15 to 19-year olds were out of work, only 2,858 training applications were approved by the former Government. Opposition members, both in their matters of public importance and in their speeches to the Parliament, are trying to portray themselves as the worker's friend when for years they allowed Australian workers to be used as factory fodder and when for years they opposed workers and their families by legislation, by their stance in the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and by their Budgets. Their crocodile tears are a hollow facade of concern. Their hollow facade of concern for training and unemployment is unfortunately matched by their treatment of Australia's education system. In the period 1976 to 1982 the former conservative coalition Government ripped the guts out of the government sector of education. Just as it destroyed the widely accepted Medibank system, so it set about breaking down the government sector of education. In the period from 1976 to 1982-those disastrous years-the former Government cut in real terms the grants to government schools from $140 to $123 a pupil, a decrease of 12 per cent, while in the same period it unashamedly poured millions into the wealthy end of the non-government sector by increasing grants by more than 250 per cent in real terms, from $189 to $509 a pupil. I repeat that Government sector grants were decreased by 12 per cent while grants to the wealthy group of the non-government sector increased by more than 250 per cent. So much for equal opportunity under conservative government! It is a point of pride for me now to compare with that sad record the program of the democratic socialist Australian Labor Government. First of all I will look at some of the initiatives of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) as shown in this Budget. Expenditure on labour force programs has been increased from $245m in 1982-83 to $333m in 1983-84. That is an increase of $88m in one fell swoop. Expenditure on trade training is up 23 per cent and on skills training by 59 per cent. Expenditure on youth experience and training schemes for young persons is up 20 per cent and we have a new initiative-the private sector assistance program. Of course, all that money does not include the $300m which was made available in 1983 under the community employment program, most of which will be available to the States, to local government and community organisations. All of this takes place in the context of the nation's first real comprehensive industry development policy. This program will be carried out in the framework of consultation, the hallmark-the Hawke mark-of the Australian Labor Government. We have consultation processes with the Economic Planning Advisory Council and with all the various Australian manufacturing and industry councils. We have greater consultation and co-operation with the States than there has ever been. We have the prices and incomes accord to back this Government, something that the former Government could never achieve and never sought to achieve. The Australian Labor Government can justifiably and proudly point to its record of consultation with business, unions and the community. This is indeed a far cry from the autocratic conservative attitude, the born to rule syndrome of the Opposition parties, the same parties that believe in their own golden rule- whoever has the gold makes the rules. If I had a few more hours available to me I could speak in more detail about the Government's initiatives in industry development, assistance and training but I want to concentrate the remainder of my time on highlighting the major initiatives of the Government in the fields of education and youth affairs. Contrary to mythology and misinformation, the Australian Labor Government clearly supports a diversity of schooling in Australia. The funding arrangements for government and non-government schools are a clear reflection of the range of the educational needs, beliefs and backgrounds in the Australian community. In 1983 there is obviously a limit to the financial resources available to the Government and it has implemented the socially and economically responsible policy of allocating these resources on the basis of need. There has been a lot of noise inside and outside the House about the reduction in recurrent funding to 41 of the 2,200 odd non-government schools in this country. If one looks at those schools and at the more than 250 per cent increase in funding to 210 schools in that group during the Fraser years, one will see that only a very few Australians are not content to see Commonwealth education expenditure being spent where it is needed most. Despite all the noise I will look at some groups in the non-government sector of education who were in favour of the Government's needs based policy. The Independent Teachers Federation of Australia, in welcoming the guidelines, said that they could provide a more coherent and equitable national pattern of education in Australia . The Independent Teachers Federation also said that the greater scrutiny of fringe non-government schools was particularly welcome. The Association of Independent Schools of Victoria said that there were several good things in the guidelines, particularly the Government's intention to help low income groups and to increase school retention rates. The Catholic Education Office of Victoria commended the general thrust of the guidelines. The Director of the Office, Father Tom Doyle, is reported in the Age on 30 July this year as saying that the significant increase in money to the most needy schools was particularly important and that it was consistent with the Government's aim of providing equal opportunity to children and so decreasing divisions within the community. I do not intend to proceed further into the issue of funding to non-government schools except to say that the Government's fundamental obligation is to make available an elementary education to all children and to permit freedom of choice. That certainly does not mean that the Government has to pay for that education of choice. That is where the argument has been confused. If some parents choose to educate their children outside the government-provided system, that is their freedom of choice. They cannot expect the general community to support them to the continuing detriment of the people's system. The Government's education reforms are aimed at increasing and broadening the education base of the whole nation. They are clearly aimed at encouraging our young people to participate more in education at secondary and, hopefully, later at tertiary level. More than $70m is being spent on a national program to make staying at school an attractive alternative to seeking work that is not yet there. The Government's program of computer education and awareness in schools will further increase the skill levels of this nation. There are substantial increases in student and family assistance schemes. An extra 3,000 student places in universities and colleges of advanced education have been funded. The Curriculum Development Centre has been reactivated. Programs are being put into operation to encourage mature age Aboriginals to seek teaching qualifications. Special attention has been paid to the technical and further education sector. The Government is seeking to improve the ability of TAFE to cater for the education and training needs of our 15-to 24-year olds. TAFE is a very important sector in our economic recovery in building up our skill levels. In deliverance of a pre-election promise, there has been a return to retrospective cost supplementation for funding of tertiary institutions. This retrospective cost supplementation will allow more stability, more rational planning and safer budgeting for our universities and tertiary institutes. The prospective funding arrangement introduced by the Fraser Government in 1982 was a cheap exercise in passing the buck-or, more correctly, a cheap exercise in not passing the bucks to our tertiary institutes. On top of these educational initiatives, the upgrading of the Office of Youth Affairs to divisional status has clearly signalled the great importance that the Australian Labor Government puts on this hitherto Cinderella section of government and policy. I have many involvements with youth groups in my electorate of Diamond Valley and in the non-government youth work sector in general. I can tell this House that they greatly appreciate the role of this Government in its concern for young people and their problems. There have been substantial increases in funding to the youth affairs area in this Budget, but people are looking beyond the dollars. They are looking at a government that has not only put its money where its mouth is but is also prepared to listen to the needs of young people, to the attitudes of young people, and to consider the alternatives for young people. We had better listen to these young people. We had better empower them, and enact laws that will give them power in this society. They will be the ones pushing our wheel chairs, looking after our nursing homes, in charge of our life support systems and possibly coming into this House and talking about euthenasia . I think we had better start listening to them pretty soon. The young people of Australia want to be involved in the forces that are shaping their lives. I am proud to be a member of the Government and proud to be working with Ministers such as the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan)-people who are concerned about young people and the quality of life options available to them. Any reasonable person who looks at this Government's policies, Budget and action in employment, training, education and youth affairs will agree with me when I say that the Government is going the right way to raise the employment, training, education and skill levels of this country. I put this quotation at the opening of my speech: The nation that has the most schools has the future. I believe that could be refined to say: 'The nation that is the most educated has the future.' That is what this Government is doing-making sure that all Australians have an education and a future. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(12.05) —I am pleased to become involved in this debate, to talk about the Budget handed down by the Hawke Government. I should like first of all to talk about the elderly section of the community as it is mentioned in the Budget, to which I have not referred yet. I have not gone public on the assets test. I have not said very much about the introduction of a means test for pensioners over the age of 70 for the very real reason that I know how much concern is generated by certain things that are said by politicians and by the media. I will not be accused again of saying that people over the age of 17 do not really understand what is going on. There are many who do understand what is going on. There are many over the age of 70 who, because of their age, because of sickness, or for other reasons become very agitated when politicians start talking about inflation or assets tests, or use some of the high-falutin words that are generated through politics. These people become very concerned. They do not understand. So for that very reason I have not said very much. I know that in the community there is widespread concern about the introduction of the assets test. There is widespread concern, too, about the introduction of a means test for pensioners over the age of 70. When the Government was in opposition its members were very ready to attack the Fraser Government at every opportunity. That seems to be the name of the game; if one attacks, if one tries to bring people apart at the seams one might score a political point. Unfortunately, in between there were many thousands of people who suffered during those bitter debates and dates. For example, when the previous Government decided to remove the half-yearly indexation of pensions I think all honourable members will recall what occurred in this House and what occurred prior to that move. There was a continual onslaught by the then Opposition on the Fraser Government which lost us thousands of friends and which created many problems within the community, particularly the aged community. I followed the issue very closely because I was involved. I do not want to get up in this House and character assassinate anybody, but I can quite clearly recall the words of Senator Grimes, who was Opposition spokesman on social security at the time. On 9 May 1979 Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, who at the time was the Minister for Social Security, made a speech in the Senate during an urgency debate. I have always had the greatest regard for Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle. She is a very competent lady, and she was able to express all the facts very concisely-always the facts; nothing either side, just the facts. I should like to recall what was said at that time, which I think is extremely important. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle said: I think it is important to say that because of the claims that are made about broken promises with regard to the maintenance of the purchasing power of the pension. Those figures show-as I have shown in other ways from time to time-that that purchasing power has been maintained as a deliberate policy of Government and as a commitment by the Government to find the funds to pay for those increases as they have occurred through our legislation. It was said also by Senator Grimes that there is speculation which is damaging, and speculation which does give concern to the poor and disadvantaged and the people who are dependent on this Government's program. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle was talking about the Fraser Government. She continued: I have said repeatedly-and I say it again-that I regret this speculation. As the Minister concerned primarily with the matters about which the speculation originates, I am very concerned as to how one is to stop this sort of speculation in a pre-Budget context- Senator Grimes-Well, you could stop Lynch and Co. . . . for a start. During the by-election, Sir Phillip Lynch made a certain statement about the indexation and means testing of pensions. There was an uproar. As a result of that, we have an honourable member in this House who could owe his seat to a certain amount of that speculation and that condemnation of the then Government. That is the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher). I do not want to say anything about the honourable member for Lowe; but that is what occurred. I continue the quotation: Senator GUILFOYLE—I think that those who express personal views should not be regarded as expressing Government policy. Government policy is expressed in the Government's own legislation. The Government's record as far as income security is concerned has been one that I think bears scrutiny. It has the support of the Australian people who receive it. Further, I believe it has recognition from those who have to make the payments that make this sort of income security system possible. Senator Grimes speculated about the concern that those who are over 70 may have with regard to future increases in their pension. Knowing they have a basic free of income test pension at over 70 of the standard rate-that was the rate before the increase of last year-they are probably not as concerned about that aspect. They know that they have that regardless of their income. Pensioners must be concerned to know that it is the policy of the Australian Labor Party to introduce a means test on the over 70 pensions- Senator Grimes-Nonsense! Nonsense! Senator GUILFOYLE—Senator Grimes, you said in the Senate that you were responsible for that change in the policy of your Party- Senator Grimes-No, I did not say that. I think that is an outrageous statement and you know it. The point I make is that as soon as anything was mentioned about means testing or about assets testing of the aged, there was continual uproar on the part of the then Opposition, and that concerned many pensioners. I thought to myself that I would not get involved in that at the time, because many pensioners contacted the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom), the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr) and the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman). Many other politicians have been contacted by elderly pensioners who have been concerned and upset by the mention of assets testing and mention of the introduction of means tests. They do not understand it, so they get very concerned. I am afraid that I must accuse the Government of attacking those who are less able to defend themselves. Mr Burr —What about Senator Grimes? Mr GOODLUCK —I do not want to get into criticising Senator Grimes. To be perfectly truthful, I am sick of the character assassination of certain politicians. Mr Hodgman —Like the Prime Minister has done to you. Mr GOODLUCK —The honourable member mentions the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and we get on to the Budget again, and to what has been allocated for Tasmania-$30m-odd . We have the Hawke Government and the attack on my friend and colleague the honourable member for Denison today by a normally kind person. That just shows what feeling the Government has towards the members from Tasmania. It has been a black day for Tasmania, with a continual attack by the Government. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) has been rushing around with a piece of paper to the honourable member for Denison-who is, incidentally, a fit man-and gesticulating in such a way that one could construe it as meaning, 'Let's fight it out today'. All week he has been calling certain of my colleagues hillbillies . Mr Newman —All of us. Mr GOODLUCK —All of us. I beg the honourable member's pardon. The Prime Minister hates Tasmania continually. It must stop, because it is not doing the Australian Labor Party any good in Tasmania. Its rating is down to zero. The Prime Minister lives in a sort of cocoon. I have called him Dorian Gray and many other names. I think the media has really got to the man. He is starting to look and sound like 'I am the greatest. I am right at every opportunity. You dare say a word against me and you will pay the price'. The audacity of him saying continually, in this House, on ABC radio, and in other places, that I, Bruce John Goodluck, am ashamed to be a Tasmanian, has worn out his welcome in Tasmania. I have said to him on many occasions 'Let's go to Tasmania and debate it', but he would not go to Tasmania and debate it. Mr Hodgman —You would kill him. Mr GOODLUCK —Of course. So for that very reason I suggest to the Prime Minister that he should stop; he should start to understand that he is not, as he thinks he is, as respected and as loved as it would appear when those three poor women kissed him in Tasmania on that day. He seems to think that they represent all the women of Tasmania. I assure him that that is not so, because in Tasmania the Australian Labor Party is not as well liked as it thinks it is. I am afraid that it will have to do better in the Budget than it has done to win the support of the people of Tasmania. I shall now move on a little and talk about the petroleum industry. Mr Uren —Don't you read the Bulletin? Mr GOODLUCK —I am a grass roots politician. I like getting out in the open and asking people about things. Everywhere I go I ask them. Mr Uren —Don't you read the Bulletin? Mr GOODLUCK —The Bulletin? I do not know who he is-Maximilian Walsh, or someone or other. Such people also live in a little cocoon. This bloke has conned them also. I do not care about their statistics. No one ever rings me and asks for my opinion about him. The point is that he lives in a cocoon. Government members interjecting- Mr GOODLUCK —He has got all you poor fellows taken in. But he has not taken me in, or the honourable member for Denison, the honourable member for Bass, the honourable member for Wilmot, the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton), the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) or the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). He has not taken in any of those honourable members. Furthermore, one man that he has not taken in is the honourable member for Braddon, the man who has been at the centre of the controversy about South West Tasmania, the man who got the highest vote of any Tasmanian politician for many years, and in a very safe Labor seat, because in his persistent way he has been able to put forward the aspirations of the ordinary, average working people of the west coast. The matter concerned work, the ethic of being able to work, and the ethic of being able to make decisions. There are some good people on the Government benches. There is one at the table now-the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren)-a good hard working fellow who believes in fair play. But there are many others who are educated to such a degree that they have reached the stage at which they believe everything that they read in a book. But life is not like that, I am afraid. The people of Tasmania have woken up to that , thank God. The question of education problems has been raised. The trouble is, again, that we have some very gutless people in Australia who, because of political points of view, are afraid to say openly what they think. Many things are occurring in Australia today. I mention, for example, $5,000 being spent on the alternative lifestyle. We all know that that is not the solution to unemployment or the real causes of our present problems. If that money were spent by the Government on trying to overcome the problems of the family or on trying to find ways of helping the aged, we could support it and understand it. School teachers have been mentioned. There are many very good school teachers; but there are a lot of very ragged school teachers and many very unusual school teachers who seem to find more delight in being political, being awkward-- Mr Chynoweth —You hate school teachers. Mr GOODLUCK —No, I have the greatest regard for them in the main; but there are a few who seem to be conned into this system that we must have a division between private schools and state schools. There should be no division at all. I went right through a state system. I have sent my girls to a Catholic school. That is my choice. I have paid for it, and I do not care what anyone says about it. But I do not like it when I am dictated to by some teachers involved in the education system, not only in Tasmania but also in Australia. Mr Connolly —They second the Labor vote. Mr GOODLUCK —The majority of them are with the Labor Party, regrettably. I issue a warning. It is about time that we started to come out and say certain things in this regard. It is the same with the Sex Discrimination Bill. Mr Saunderson —You hate women; we know that. And school teachers. Mr GOODLUCK —No, that is wrong. I have been wanting an opportunity to put this matter in its correct perspective for a long time. Unfortunately, everyone is not fair. Of course, the Labor Party seems to have a philosophy that everyone will be the same, that everyone will work as hard as others, that everyone will be as fair, that everyone will do this, that all women are the same and all men are the same, and so we should treat them like that. Unfortunately, they are not all like that. Sometimes I am accused of condemning a network of child care centres. Mr Burr —That is unfair. Mr GOODLUCK —I agree with the honourable member. The point I am trying to make is this: If a woman because of circumstances has to go to work and finds it necessary to place her children in a child minding centre, I do not mind subscribing to that through my taxation, nor do any other members I know of, but I hesitate when some women, for the pure and simple reason that they want to get into the work force and do certain things, put their children into a child minding centre when they really do not have to. In those circumstances, if they want to put their children into a child minding centre they should pay for it. Therefore, I do not subscribe to this philosophy, which is evident within the Labor Party, of having a network of child minding centres. We have to be very careful. As an opposition we should oppose such a proposal at every opportunity. There has been a bit of talk about the Sex Discrimination Bill. Everybody is entitled to his point of view, but we, as an opposition, have to say: 'We stand here'. We cannot waiver and follow some of the radical feminists. Many very good people, men and women, support the Sex Discrimination Bill, but among them are many of the women whom I detest. They seem to condemn family life. They seem to be against everything that revolves around the family. They seem to want to have their point of view thrust upon everyone else and to suppress every other point of view. I am against them. We have to make certain that their influence does not override the influence of people who do not believe in that Bill. We have a perfect entitlement to vote on that Bill according to conscience. That is enough . We do not have to have fed to us everything the Labor Party would like to put down our necks. I go back to the petroleum industry, which is very important in the Budget. I find the situation incomprehensible at the moment. I have the report of the Petroleum Products Pricing Authority, which fixes a maximum wholesale price for petrol in every capital city. I can give a classic example. I did not particularly want to talk about Tasmania today, but the price of super petrol-- Mr Steedman —Ha, ha! Mr GOODLUCK —You laugh. You talk about-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member will speak through the Chair. Mr GOODLUCK —I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. Honourable members opposite, when they talk about the average weekly wage, do not understand that in Tasmania at the moment the price of super petrol is 52c a litre, yet in Albury, which is halfway between Melbourne and Sydney, it costs 43c a litre. There is a difference of 10c a litre. It is not right. The price of liquefied petroleum gas in Tasmania at the moment is 33c a litre, while in Victoria it is 23c a litre. We as a government-and honourable members supported us-said: 'Let us look for alternatives. Let us change to using LPG for cooking, powering motor vehicles, in restaurants, in homes, et cetera'. You have to be consistent. You say you support the poor. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I asked the honourable member to speak through the Chair. Mr GOODLUCK —I swing around a bit. I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. I went to the left only temporarily. I will come back to the right again. If honourable members opposite are consistent with what they say about caring for the needy, the poor and the other people of Australia, I ask them: Please, for God's sake, do not direct all your attention to some of the trendies, do not direct your attention to only certain aspects in the community; look at what is looking you in the eye-the price of petrol and other commodities which affect the average working person in Australia today and particularly in Tasmania. We, as Tasmanians, are accused of being too parochial, of sticking up too much for Tasmania. But if we do not do that in this House I am afraid that we will be dominated by some of the trendies on the other side who do not understand what the average worker has to put up with. I have a document to which I do not have time to refer in detail. It gives a comparison between an ordinary, average working man and his family-one person working and the wife staying at home looking after the children through necessity-and two people living the alternate lifestyle. The people living the alternate lifestyle are about $100 a week better off. Mr Hodgman —Lesbians. Mr GOODLUCK —Yes, the two women who are looking after the family referred to may be lesbians. I do not know what they are. Honourable members interjecting- Mr GOODLUCK —I am just talking about the alternate lifestyle. This is the point we have to be careful of. If we are going to support the family we have to make certain that these alternate life- stylers do not get the run. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Before I call the next honourable member who is to speak I simply want to make this point: When I ask the honourable gentleman to speak through the Chair or to address his remarks through the Chair, I do not just mean necessarily that it is desirable that he should look at the Chair. The important thing to ensure is that he is not making speeches to a particular honourable member and gaining a response from a particular honourable member. He is to address the House and to do so through the Chair. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(12.26) —The honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) is a great proponent for Tasmania. It is a pity that his colleagues from Queensland are not quite so interested in this Budget debate. In fact, while one -third of the Australian Labor Party members who are present on this side of the House at the moment are Queensland members, not one Queensland member of the Opposition is in this House to take part in and to listen to this very important debate on the Budget. It is a great pity that Queensland honourable members representing the National Party and the Liberal Party are not prepared to be in this House to listen to and take part in the important debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1). There is strong support for the Bill from Labor Party members from Queensland electorates. I congratulate them on their interest because this Budget has a lot of relevance for Queensland people. I think of moves in primary industry to continue and strengthen the brucellosis and tuberculosis campaigns, which are extremely important to Queensland farmers. The Department of Primary Industry needs to consider other matters. I think it is important that, as future Budgets eventuate, primary industry allocations cover important animal diseases apart from brucellosis and tuberculosis. I think of the enormous number of feral pigs in Australia-they now well and truly number millions. I do not know whether honourable members realise the potential damage of the feral pig in Australia. I urge honourable members who are not involved in the pig industry to be aware of the fact that pigs, if allowed to become feral pigs, could devastate rural communities and ruin rural economies simply through disease. Only a few months ago in Darwin there was a scare that foot and mouth disease had been found in feral pigs in the Darwin area. When the pigs were tested it was found that the virus was not a harmful foot and mouth virus. At least that situation alerted the Australian community, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the Department of Primary Industry to the fact that feral pigs could spread foot and mouth disease, that they could ruin the export industry simply because other countries would no longer be interested in buying meat and other products from Australia while that scare existed and that that would ruin the rural economy. Other matters which need to be looked into include feral dogs. I know that recently a farmer in the Snowy Mountains had 114 sheep killed by feral dogs. I congratulate the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) on coping with a difficult task in primary industry. In fact, once drought subsidies and interest subsidies are subtracted we see there has been a 21 per cent increase in funds allocated to primary industries in Australia. This includes a $20m allocation to wool promotion. This is most welcome. I am pleased that in spite of the fact that the Government was forced into reducing the deficit it did not repeat the performance of the Fraser Government in 1979-80 when that Government actually reduced wool promotion funding to $14m. Farmers and fishermen in Australia do not want a whole lot of subsidies; they want to see a containment of cost increases which runs parallel with a containment of inflation. They want to see enhanced competitiveness and they are anxious that we do not have a repetition of the problems that existed in the meat industry a year or so ago. If this Government comes up with a meat inspection system, with a program to ensure hygenic presentation and to ensure that labels state what a container contains, farmers will be more than pleased with its actions in this regard. They want to see their competitiveness enhanced , their export industries boosted and their local infrastructures improved. I believe that with the 53 per cent increase in allocations to roads in New South Wales the south eastern region of New South Wales will be a beneficiary of the recent Federal Budget. The Federal Government is conscious of the fact that bad roads cost money. The New South Wales Premier stated recently that the increased allocation to roads will mean that $800m will be saved by his Government simply because there will be fewer accidents, lower freight costs through lower fuel use, and lower maintenance and servicing costs for vehicles that use roads. This will save the New South Wales community $800m. I also support the policy of the Government to decentralise Federal government offices. It is significant that one will not find anybody in Queanbeyan or Goulburn who will attack the Whitlam years, simply because the residents of those cities know that Queanbeyan and Goulburn were thought of when that Federal Government made decisions. When the Whitlam Government set up the Social Welfare Commission it was located in Queanbeyan. Today that building, which is four storeys high, is empty because the Fraser Government pulled out of it-rather inaptly, because a number of photographs were taken-one week before the last election. I look forward to the implementation of the decentralisation policies of the present Government and believe that office accommodation in Queanbeyan will once again be boosted. I believe that other important actions can be taken with regard to office accommodation. I praise the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) on his program to merge, with the services provided by State offices and Commonwealth Employment Service offices in areas such as the south coast and the Mornington Peninsula, some of the work done by his department. This relates to local assessments of social security beneficiaries. There is a need to stop people having to make costly phone calls to their nearest centre. People should be able to make local contact with someone who has something to do with the benefits that they are receiving. If there is a way of incorporating a social security officer into a State welfare department I believe that measure ought to be looked at and implemented. There are enormous costs ahead for the Department of Social Security. Few are more aware than the Government that a great many people will be retiring and that people are living longer. This means that a lot more people will be eligible for social security benefits. This is something that governments have to face in the long term. The present Government has faced the fact that there is a need for assets tests for pensioners at a reasonable level if we are to increase pensions to at least 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. The Government wants to increase pensions to a level of 30 per cent. We will not be able to do that unless we take action to reconcile problems associated with the increasing number of people retiring and the number of people who will be eligible for a pension. We have to do something to ensure that those who are most in need get a fairer proportion of average weekly earnings. This Government has taken the bit, something which the previous Government was not prepared to do. The Government is to be congratulated on a number of programs which were introduced in the Budget, one being the community employment program which will provide great benefits in the electorate. It is pleasing to see that consideration is being given to a water supply for Bermagui. Last summer people there were suffering from ill health simply because the water supply was not clean. They were suffering from a lack of water. They were not allowed to use water for certain hours in the day. Even one month ago, in spite of all the rain we have had, there were restrictions on hosing during the day. The community employment program will embrace a local government local roads scheme. This will apply not only to local roads but also to works associated with roads, such as culverts, soil stabilisation, side drainage, pavement maintenance and bicycle paths, all of which have relevance in a number of local government areas. It is great that the Government has allocated an amount to each local government area. In fact, each local council in New South Wales is to receive $50,000 on application. Even the small local councils will be able to get money and to take action simply because they have that minimum allocation and, of course, they can apply for bigger allocations. I urge all local governments in Australia seriously to consider making application. I know that some local councils have said that because they are required to put up a portion of the amount designated for local roads they are unable to afford it. It is difficult for them to take the $50,000 offered. I point out to them that the 30 per cent contribution required by the Federal Government is not firm. It is possible for local governments to request from the Federal Government a higher percentage than the 70 per cent offered, or even the total amount. It is well worth their making application even if they feel that they cannot make up the balance. Another program which is of great relevance in Eden-Monaro is the one under which the allocation to tourism has been made. This allocation has been increased by 75 per cent. New programs have been established which will promote domestic tourism. There will be an increase in overseas promotion and proposals for low cost holiday accommodation for the disadvantaged and low income earners will be developed. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown ) is to be congratulated on developing that program for thousands of ordinary workers and low income people who have not been able to afford a holiday for years. This program will provide low cost holiday accommodation for all these disadvantaged people and low income earners. The Minister is also to be congratulated on the sport and recreation policy which has been developed. There is no cheaper way of coping with health problems than through preventive care. The 54 per cent increase in funding for sport and recreation will go a lot of the way towards promoting preventive care and fitness in the Australian community. It is pleasing to see the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) in the chamber. He pioneered the Government's housing policies, which have been carried on so well by the present Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford). The first home owners assistance scheme, which is to start on 1 October, will boost the housing industry. Far more than that, it will mean that people who to date have been held back because of high repayments or because they have not been able to meet mortgage requirements will have their own homes. I regard the 50 per cent increase in public housing funding as another extremely important measure in that program. Many people have been unable to obtain housing in any form. I met a woman the other day who is living in a tent on the south coast, and that is no fun in the cold winters in this area. The 50 per cent increase in public housing funding will cope with some of the hidden housing problems in our community. It will also mean jobs for timber workers, bricklayers, furniture makers, glaziers, a host of people associated with housing. It will mean jobs in retail industries concerned with household goods and it will boost turnover. I believe that the Federal Government will assist small business simply through increased activity, particularly in the housing and construction field. The Government, through its Minister, is taking important measures to look at local government in this country. I congratulate the Minister once again on visiting local governments in my area, as well as in other areas, to get the views of local people and local councils on how the Government can best co- operate with them. The then Department of Urban and Regional Development had a great record of co-operation with local government. Mr McGauran —This is getting embarrassing. Mr SNOW —I can assure the honourable member for Gippsland that it is quite a coincidence that I am talking about the work of the Minister who is present in the House and the ambitions of the Government which the Department of Territories and Local Government will achieve. We believe that local government must have a role in the spending of Federal money. It is not satisfactory for local government to have no access to Federal government funding only through State governments. The Federal Government must talk directly to local governments, along with and in co-operation with the States. Mr Deputy Speaker, the aim of the Federal Government is to promote economic stability and at the same time to do its best to reduce inflation. I believe that this is the principal way in which the Federal Government will help to turn back the trend towards unemployment. It will help to improve the situation of small business, small farmers and fishermen, and will promote such important industries as manufacturing and tourism. I look forward to working with the Federal Government to achieve those objectives. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m. approximately, the debate is adjourned in accordance with sessional order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. Sitting suspended from 12.45 p.m. to 2 p.m. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I inform the House that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) will leave Australia today to attend meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development in Washington. He will also be having discussions in London, Frankfurt and Paris. The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) will act as Treasurer until Mr Keating returns. I also inform the House that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) and his wife Dallas will leave Australia today to attend discussions in Rome with Italian political leaders and the Director-General of the Sinai Multinational Force and Observers. The Foreign Minister will then travel to New York for ministerial discussions and to address the United Nations General Assembly. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) will act as Minister for Foreign Affairs until Mr Hayden returns. Mr McVEIGH —Does the Minister for Primary Industry recall confirming, in answer to my question on 7 September, that the Government's decision regarding tax on fortified wine would not be changed? At the time was he in receipt of Opposition representations and discussing the issue with wine industry representatives and the Treasurer? Does he accept that, in light of last night's announcement by the Treasurer, he has misled the House? Mr KERIN —I am always amazed at the way in which the honourable member for Darling Downs frames his questions. On the day mentioned I replied to a whole bracket of questions, rather absurd by nature, and, of course, I simply said no to them. In terms of the issue raised by the honourable member about representations by Opposition members and the grape growing and wine making industry in general, the Treasurer gave Cabinet's answer in his Press release last night. Mr McVeigh —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. The question I asked was: Does the Minister accept that he has misled the House? He has not answered the question. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member knows that, by making allegations about misleading the House, he is sailing pretty close to the wind. There is no point of order. Mr HAND —I ask the Prime Minister: What steps will be taken by the Government to ensure that there is an opportunity for the fullest debate within the Australian Labor Party concerning the future of the uranium mining industry in Australia? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the honourable member for asking this question. Obviously I am particularly pleased that it comes from the honourable member for Melbourne. As distinct from the Opposition's approach to policy formulation-I would be quite happy to elaborate over a range of those issues at length-which is totally confused and contradictory, the process within the Australian Labor Party is an orderly and democratic one, a fact of which you are completely aware , Mr Speaker. The question of uranium mining and export is unquestionably a very controversial one. It is a controversial question within the Australian community as a whole and indeed within the Australian Labor Party. I make no attempt to disguise the fact-it would be futile to do so and it is a matter of public record-that there are elements within the Australian Labor Party that hold views different from mine on this matter. I accept that these views are sincerely held; they are views which should have an opportunity to be heard before further decisions are taken. That is what the democratic process is all about. It is particularly important, given that the issues relating to uranium mining and export are, as I have said, exceedingly complex and involve considerations which go to questions-I will not be exhaustive about it-touching nuclear proliferation, nuclear safeguard arrangements, other potential suppliers to the world market and environmental factors. The issues certainly involve the economics of the industry, both within Australia and overseas, and the effects upon the Australian economy and our balance of payments. When faced with an issue which is transparently so complex and goes to so many important issues it is my wish and intention to ensure that discussion on these issues within the Australian Labor Party is rational and informed. As I have indicated, I will have a paper circulated in the near future to provide the basis for such a rational discussion within Caucus. The matter will go to Cabinet for consideration as soon after that as possible; I would hope, as I have indicated, by about the end of October. As I told the House yesterday, the timetable which I then indicated and which I repeat in this chamber today for Government and Party consideration will not adversely affect the prospects for the Roxby Downs project. That project is still in the final feasibility study stage which is not to be completed before December 1984. In conclusion, the joint venture partners have not yet sought developmental approval or negotiating licences from the Government. Mr HOWARD —I ask the Minister for Housing and Construction, in his capacity as Minister Assisting the Treasurer and as Minister responsible for most of the foreign investment work of the Government: Did the honourable gentleman say recently that 'the Board'-that is, the Foreign Investment Review Board-'and Treasury's Foreign Investment Division are doing a faithful job and are anticipating the political view'? What does he mean by the words 'anticipating the political view'? Does it mean that, under the Labor Party, foreign investment policy of this country has been significantly tightened? Mr HURFORD —I did say something along those lines. I have noticed that that has been reported in an edition of Australian Business which hit the newsstands today. I have said that I believe that there is a slight difference in the application of foreign investment policies between this Government and the previous Government. I believe that those who follow the decisions would notice that there is a very understandable application of the platform of the Australian Labor Party in making those decisions. I have noted that, in most cases, the Foreign Investment Review Board has made recommendations similar to the ones that the Labor Party would want to see applied in this country. I do not resile at all from that report. Mr KEOGH —Is the Minister for Science and Technology in a position to resolve the supposed conflict between himself and the Chairman of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation over the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory? This was alluded to by the Leader of the National Party of Australia in his question yesterday, the Minister might recall. Furthermore, is the Minister in a position to say whether the Government has made a decision about the future use of ANAHL? Mr BARRY JONES —I thank the honourable member for Bowman for his question. At Question Time on Tuesday, 20 September, I said that on Monday I had received three members of the CSIRO Executive-the Chairman, Dr Wild, Professor David Craig and Dr Keith Boardman. I said that the three of them came along and conceded that if we had known then what we know now about the diagnostic changes brought about by the technological revolution of the last decade, the whole configuration of ANAHL would have been utterly different and would have been established at infinitely less cost. The appointment was arranged at the Chairman's request. Discussion on ANAHL proceeded for almost an hour. I wanted advice from the Executive on the issues to be placed before a ministerial committee on Tuesday morning. The committee had been set up at Dr Wild's urgent request. Monday afternoon's discussion should not be seen in isolation. It followed on from several earlier conversations with the Chairman and the Executive about ANAHL. On 31 August I had asked Executive members: If ANAHL was being designed from scratch now, given the additional knowledge that we have of diagnostic techniques, what advice would be given to the Government on the configuration of the building? Dr Boardman indicated that he would probably wait for three years and see how things developed. At Monday's meeting one Executive member indicated that, with the development of new diagnostic techniques, it was possible that ANAHL would be no longer needed after 1990. On Monday afternoon I put a series of propositions to the Executive which I said needed speedy resolution and I expected the Executive to correct me or to disagree if I was wrong. The difference of opinion between the Chairman and me is that I took his silence as acceptance. He took it as indicating disagreement. I said that I would propose to the ministerial committee that an expert technical committee should be appointed to consider a range of possible new functions to get the best value at least cost out of ANAHL. They all expressly agreed to this. A ministerial committee comprising the Ministers for Trade, Defence, Primary Industry, Health and Science and Technology met on Tuesday morning, 20 September , to consider the future role and operation of ANAHL at Geelong. The Prime Minister has agreed to the following recommendations of the ministerial committee: First, the commissioning and setting to work of ANAHL as a diagnostic facility should proceed without delay with planning for the limited research function necessary to complement the diagnostic capability. Second, exotic animal viral disease agents already held in Australia should be relocated to ANAHL as soon as its microbiological security has been proved. Third, consideration should be given to extending ANAHL's function to include studies of endemic animal viral diseases at the highest level of professional competence . The ministerial committee wishes to seek further technical advice before deciding whether ANAHL will continue essentially as a diagnostic facility serving the primary export trade and quarantine function or whether the research function will be significantly upgraded. The Prime Minister has agreed to the appointment of an advisory committee for urgent technical advice. I now table the terms of reference and a list of the members of the advisory committee which will be chaired by one of Australia's most eminent medical scientists, Professor Frank Fenner. A decision regarding incorporation of an inactivated viral vaccine production unit will be delayed pending the advisory committee's advice. After receiving advice from the advisory committee the Government will decide the future operation of ANAHL and whether it should remain within the portfolio of the Minister for Science and Technology or come under the Minister for Primary Industry. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. In the light of the Prime Minister's statement to the House yesterday that 'the major requirement of the business community is the maximum possible degree of certainty', and as he has been unable to get that and give it in regard to uranium development, will he once and for all end the speculation over a new capital gains tax so actively promoted by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, or should we prepare ourselves for yet another broken promise? Mr HAWKE —With respect to the specific part of the Leader of the Opposition's question I say quite directly that there is no proposal presently before the Cabinet to introduce a capital gains tax. Having said that, let me make it quite clear that this Government, as distinct from its predecessor, is very strongly committed to reforming the tax system. In only six months in office we have already taken major steps. Let me remind honourable members opposite of those major steps. We are strengthening section 26A of the Income Tax Assessment Act which taxes speculative profits to overcome the technical deficiencies which have been used to avoid tax which should properly be attracted under that section. I also remind honourable members opposite that we are reintroducing amendments to the bottom of the harbour legislation which, if the Senate co- operates, will collect much of the personal tax avoided in such schemes. We have also announced major changes in the taxation of superannuation lump sums. In addition, we have removed and are removing a number of unwarranted tax concessions, including some that have been very susceptible to tax avoidance. There are limits, however, to the pace of change in the tax system and I do not want to speculate on changes that may be made in the future. We have recognised that the overwhelming majority of taxpayers in Australia want a fair and equitable system under which people will know their obligations under the law and under which not only will they meet their obligations but also all other Australians will meet their obligations. We have very sensibly met the overwhelming desire of the people in this regard by taking action in the Economic Planning Advisory Council which, I remind you, Mr Speaker, is constituted of representatives of all the important sectors of the Australian community-business large and small, trade unions, consumer organisations, local government and State governments. We have said there that we will examine the revenue base. As a first step, at the first meeting of EPAC we made arrangements to bring together all the reports of past years that have been undertaken in regard to the Australian tax base. I believe that everyone in Australia, with the exception of some honourable members on the other side of the House, will welcome the action of the Government in this regard. We are not trying to impose a view. We are saying that this clearly is a matter of fundamental public, economic and social importance and that the sensible and responsible way to attack this matter is to consult with this broadly representative body-not to seek to impose views upon it-to get the benefit of its accumulated wisdom and experience. Out of that process we will do what the previous Government failed in seven years to do; that is, to move towards an efficient, equitable, fair and sensible taxation base in this country. Mr MILLAR —Will the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism inform the House whether the Government has been able to meet reasonable support requests of amputees, particularly in respect of recreational and sporting opportunities? Mr JOHN BROWN —I thank the honourable member for his question and recognise the abiding interest that he has had in the position faced by people with physical disabilities in involving themselves in sport in Australia. I am pleased to say, in response to the honourable member's question, that in the Budget which was recently brought down in this House the Government has doubled the funds available for sport and recreation for disabled people. The funds had remained static at $200,000 since 1981. This Government immediately increased those funds to $400,000 to enable disabled people, no matter what their situation or chosen sport, to have greater access to the opportunities that should be available to them. At this stage I should pay tribute to the disabled people of Australia-those people who have achieved enormously high levels of success in international sporting events for amputees and disabled people. I hope the funds that the Government has made available in the recent Budget will be an encouragement not only to those people and to their self-esteem, but also to able-bodied people. Disabled people play a very important part in our society. Further, it is relevant to say something about the application that has been made by the disabled sports associations to this Government to support their claim for the Disabled Olympic Games to be held in Australia in 1988. It is a matter for regret that we lost the opportunity to stage the Olympic Games in Australia in our bicentennial year. But it is reasonable that this Government is taking every opportunity and is looking at every possibility to support the Disabled Olympic Games being held in Australia in 1988. The Minister for Territories and Local Government and the Prime Minister are both very supportive of the proposition. We will make every endeavour to see that those Games come to fruition in Australia in 1988. Dr THEOPHANOUS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I preface my question by noting that prior to the election the Government indicated that it would act to improve the capacity of the Australian Industry Development Corporation to support Australian industry. In view of the importance of industry policy in the current economic circumstances, what action has the Government taken to meet this commitment? Mr JOHN BROWN —In answering the honourable member I should pay tribute to the many hours of work that were put into the formulation of a new policy for the AIDC by the Industry Committee of the Government, which is under the distinguished chairmanship of the honourable member for Burke. In election policy statements the Government made a firm commitment to expand the role and the capital base of the AIDC to enable it to provide finance for industry reconstruction and, probably more importantly, the financing of new growth industries. This commitment was made in recognition of the fact that there is a great gap in the financial market in Australia in terms of the provision of equity and risk capital. There is a need to adopt a more positive approach to strengthening and improving the competitiveness of industry. In the Budget announced recently we made some very major and significant changes to the charter and the role of the AIDC. Firstly, we allocated an additional $12.5m in capital in 1983-84, which took its capital base to $75m. Secondly, we took steps to ease the gearing ratio, which increased the borrowing potential of the AIDC from 8 to 15 times the level of its capital and reserves. Thirdly, we relaxed the restrictions on the investment of capital to allow its use in the provision of equity. Fourthly, we guaranteed its borrowings by the Commonwealth. All of those things were important because, for the previous seven years of sterile government and sterile capital policy by the previous Government, the capacity of industries-particularly new industries, the high technology industries-to achieve equity or loan capital was almost nil, because those industries could not comply with the demands of conservative, established finance institutions. But this Government, with its very imaginative approach to industry, has now set the scene for industries to be able to expand and develop because we have taken the plunge in providing more capital for the possibility of Australia restructuring and modernising its industrial base. Since that time, of course, further decisions have been made regarding the role and functions of the Australian Industry Development Corporation. Firstly, we have enabled the AIDC to invest in any industry, but particularly we will require it to look at traditional manufacturing industry. But we have given it an extended charter to look at the services industry, particularly the tourist industry, where Australia's future belongs. If ever we are to find new jobs in Australia, the big area of opportunity is in the tourist industry, which was absolutely denied and ignored by the Opposition for the seven years that it was in government. It had a goldmine at its feet but it did not have the brains to dig up the first sod. We will see that the tourist industry, the services industry, the new technology industries will be properly capitalised by our moves to broaden the base of the AIDC. Secondly, we have increased-- Mr Hodgman —It was a good decision of Roger Shipton to appoint Paul Hogan. Mr JOHN BROWN —Do not talk about him. It is said that mimicry is the highest form of flattery. Talk about a shadow-wherever I go, he is shadowing me, writing down the things I say and then releasing them as Press releases. Occasionally he gets things half right. I will buy him a new set of gum shoes so he will follow me more quietly. Secondly, we have increased the statutory capital of the AIDC. This is a very important matter. If the Opposition had enough brains it would listen because we are fulfilling a function that it constantly refused to observe when it was in government. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I invite the Minister to shorten his answer. Mr JOHN BROWN —We have increased the statutory capital of the AIDC from $100m to $150m, to be taken up in annual increments of $12.5m. We have required the AIDC to pay an annual dividend, which it is quite capable of doing. It is a very efficient organisation. The sum of all of the moves we have made in the Australian Industry Development Corporation will be to the benefit of Australia' s industrial future. I feel very proud, in representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the committee of the honourable member for Burke, that the Government has seen fit to initiate the moves that these people have made. It is greatly to our credit. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Is the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment aware that the Australian-made film Goodbye Joey, which purports to deal with the issue of kangaroos, is to be released shortly in the United Kingdom and in Europe, notably in the Federal Republic of Germany and France? Is the Minister aware of the controversy which surrounds the film, principally about its distortion of the issue? What has the Government done to counter the potentially adverse effects that this film will have on the favourable image which Australia currently enjoys overseas, especially its high reputation for environmental consciousness? Mr COHEN —I thank the honourable member for his question. I am sorry to say that Goodbye Joey will be shown in Great Britain and Europe, because it shows a very distorted view of the kangaroo situation in Australia. People overseas, particularly in the United States and Europe where some conservation groups-I stress the word 'some'-are particularly active in propagating nonsense about kangaroos, are not as aware of the facts as are Australians. They deliberately muddy the waters by exaggeration, distortion and, in some cases, outright lies. There are some 47 species of kangaroo in Australia, of which only seven are culled. In areas where some species such as the bridled nail tail wallaby are endangered, the Government is involved with the States in programs to conserve those species. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation survey in 1981 showed that there were 19 million kangaroos-reds and greys-in Australia, many more than the number of white tailed deer which exist in the United States, which the Americans allow their shooters to shoot for sport. There has been some depletion in the numbers of kangaroos due to the severe drought in New South Wales and South Australia. However, it should be remembered that the depletion was almost certainly from an all time high in numbers. I do not have to go into detail, but there is overwhelming evidence in Australia that since the depletion of the rabbit- Honourable members-Ha, ha! Mr COHEN —If honourable members are silly enough to laugh at that I am sorry for them. Since the control of the rabbit there has been an increase in pastures and more dams in rural Australia. I would not think the Liberal Party's National Party colleagues would be laughing. The major species of kangaroos have increased dramatically in number. Also, now that the drought has broken, there is an anticipated increase of 40 per cent in the next 12 months which is well above the annual culling figure of 12 per cent. Some assertions have been made in the film about the illegal killing of kangaroos. We know that it goes on but basically Australians are not sports hunters like the Americans. Quotas for culling are established on survey methods developed by State wildlife authorities and constantly refined over many years. They assess the total population and take into account culling, illegal shooting and natural depletion through drought. Recently I toured the western Riverina area with Dr Jack Giles of the New South Wales Parks and Wildlife Service to see the survey methods and to get an idea of the kangaroo population. I saw many thousands of kangaroos from a flight over that area. As soon as there are signs of any significant depletion the authorities adjust the quotas. I anticipate that the quotas for 1984 will be considerably reduced. Another assertion which is constantly made is that there are cases of cruelty. I have no doubt that amongst some of the illegal shooters there are some sadists , just as there are fiends who will be cruel to their fellow human beings and domestic animals. There are examples of cruelty to kangaroos. There are laws against it although they are difficult to police. However, to suggest that professional shooters indulge in this, as the Goodbye Joey film suggests, is an absurdity. Anyone who knows anything about professional kangaroo shooters would know that economic self interest alone requires that they kill as quickly and efficiently as possible. Similarly, I resent the accusation that somehow or other all the wildlife authorities, all governments-State and Federal-all the professional shooters, and the kangaroo industry are in a giant conspiracy to wipe out the kangaroo. Each and every one has a strong motive to do exactly the opposite. Wildlife officers in Australia are amongst the most dedicated and educated conservationists that I have seen throughout the world. I want to make the point that not all conservation groups are taking this view. The Australian Conservation Foundation and the Queensland Conservation Foundation-by no means passive organisations-have recognised the need to cull kangaroos. The only difference of opinion relates to whether or not there should be commercial culling. Unfortunately, some of these organisations-the ones that I mentioned earlier-have campaigned dishonestly on this issue. They are opposed not just to kangaroo culling but to all forms of killing. We will be undertaking a program to inform Australia and the rest of the world of the truth about kangaroos. Mr STEELE HALL —I ask the Prime Minister: In the light of the review into the uranium industry which has now replaced his earlier confident statements about that industry, will he have the situation at Roxby placed in a position of priority in that review so that the developing company can assess the risk of losing its considerable investment in that project and so that the people of South Australia may know whether they will get the benefit of it? Will this project, set in motion by a Liberal government, be taken away by a Labor government? Mr HAWKE —I have made the position quite clear. Nothing that has been done in the processes to which I have referred places in any jeopardy the processes that are under way in regard to the Roxby venture. I have been in contact with the Premier of South Australia. His position is known. The review that is appropriate to be undertaken within the Caucus and the Cabinet of the Australian Labor Party will go ahead in the context which I put to the House before. The joint venture partners in the Roxby Downs proposal have not yet sought developmental approval or negotiating licences from the Government. There has been no indication-there should be no indication-from them of concern. They, as distinct from the honourable member for Boothby and other honourable members opposite, are not attempting to play miserable politics in this matter. They are acting rationally, a course of action which I recommend to all honourable members opposite. Mr GRIFFITHS —Is the Minister for Finance aware of claims made yesterday by the honourable member for Denison to the effect that the Commonwealth had not yet paid one cent to Tasmania following cessation of work on the Gordon below Franklin dam project? Will the Minister inform the House of the current situation? Mr DAWKINS —I did notice the remarks of the honourable member for Denison. He has persistently accused this Government of dragging its feet in relation to paying compensation to the Tasmanian Government in relation to the Gordon below Franklin dam. As the Prime Minister indicated-and I can confirm it-a draft agreement was passed to the Tasmanian Premier by the Prime Minister on 31 August . The Premier indicated that, subject to final clearance of the draft with his legal advisers, he expected to sign the agreement in about two weeks. Payments to the State under that agreement will be made as soon as the Premier indicates his acceptance of it and signs it. No one would expect the- Mr Burr —It is blackmail. Mr DAWKINS —I know that members of the Opposition have very little regard for the proprieties of public finance but no one would expect this Government to make substantial and extraordinarily generous payments to any State without there being some formal agreement. That practice was carried on by our predecessors and it will certainly be carried on by us as well. However, that was not the only falsehood which was perpetrated yesterday by the honourable member for Denison. He made some absolutely outrageous allegations about the Prime Minister. Of course, the honourable member for Denison has not been punctilious either in relation to his personal conduct or ministerial propriety. Let me give a couple of instances of the conduct of the honourable member for Denison. It gives me no particular joy to go over the record of the honourable member for Denison but as he has raised this issue I believe it is my responsibility to respond and to disclose for the benefit of the Australian people some of the matters in which he has been involved. Just after the election was called all the Ministers in the former Government were written letters in terms of the conventions which apply in the circumstances of a caretaker government. The letter stated: The first is the convention that the Government does not take new major decisions or make major appointments as from the time of the dissolution of the House of Representatives, i.e. from 4 February 1983. What did the honourable member for Denison, who was then Minister for the Capital Territory, do in respect of a very important and major decision which was before him? On 16 February he directed his Department to make a formal offer to White Industries Limited in respect of concessions sought towards the cost of a convention centre in Canberra. That was done 12 days after the Parliament was dissolved and a mere 17 days before this Government was elected. I do not want to make any judgment about that convention centre but his successor, the Minister for Territories and Local Government, was forced, as a result of that conduct, to review the very legality of that contract and the obligations which bound the incoming Government as a result of it. There have been other instances as well. The former Special Minister of State was able to reveal to the House that the motor vehicle bill of the honourable member for Denison, when he was a Minister, was something like $77,000 from July 1982 to March 1983. We all know that the Minister had substantial official obligations whilst he was in Canberra. We also know that a vast amount of that bill was chalked up in relation to across-the-border, nocturnal visits-or should I say assignations-by the then Minister. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the Minister for Finance that allegations of improper conduct should be made by form of substantive motion. He is really getting into an area where, if he feels as he does, he should take that action or else desist. Mr DAWKINS —The members of the Opposition have not been backward in making certain allegations about me. Certainly the honourable member for Denison has not been backward in making outrageous and untrue allegations about the Prime Minister. Therefore, Mr Speaker, if there is to be a common standard of rules I am perfectly happy to oblige you in relation to them. Mr SPEAKER —Order! If the Minister is suggesting that I have been biased in applying the rules- Mr DAWKINS —No, I am not. You were not in the chair. Mr SPEAKER —I invite him to reflect on the fact that I apply those rules regardless of which side of the House seeks a ruling. Mr DAWKINS —I am referring to the financial propriety of our predecessors. I am just indicating that there need to be explanations about how a Minister would chalk up a bill such as that. Mr McVeigh —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 145: An answer shall be relevant to the question. Mr SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr DAWKINS —As far as I am concerned, so long as his wife does not mind, I do not mind what he does in his spare time. The point is that the taxpayers of Australia should not be required to pick up the bill for the jaunts of the honourable member for Denison. There are plenty of other instances of the conduct of the honourable member for Denison. For instance, he is reported-as if there were not few enough Aboriginal people in Tasmania-as referring to those who are left in this way: A bunch of natives who can be bought off with beads and trinkets. These are the sorts of values which the honourable member for Denison is known to hold. Mr Goodluck —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Will you quieten this gentleman? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Goodluck —Will you quieten him, Mr Speaker? Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Franklin. Mr DAWKINS —I simply refer anyone who wants to judge the remarks I am making to the speech yesterday of the honourable member for Denison. Honourable members should simply judge that scurrilous accusation in terms of the condemnation out of the honourable member's own mouth. He said at a later stage that he was not totally opposed to the consumption of alcohol. That is an understatement. What we can say for the honourable member for Denison is that at least he has been prepared to confess. On 20 May 1981 he said to the Canberra Times: I am a sinner but I have a basic commitment to Christianity. Mr Macphee —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. You are respected by honourable members on both sides for your tolerance and reasonableness, but I do suggest with great respect that that tolerance has gone far beyond what is called for. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I have indicated to the Minister for Finance the bounds beyond which he may not go. So far he is skating very close to the border. I hope that he will round off his answer. Mr DAWKINS —I will conclude, Mr Speaker. I am surprised at the honourable member for Balaclava, because I want to know from him whether he endorsed the sentiments of the honourable member for Denison in his outrageous attack on the Prime Minister yesterday. Mr Macphee —I have never heard of that speech. Mr DAWKINS —I will send the honourable member a copy. As I said, the honourable member for Denison has been prepared to confess his sins. He has also been prepared to indicate his commitment to Christianity. I remind him of the biblical injunction: 'Let him who is without sin cast the first stone'. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —In directing my question to the Minister for Science and Technology I compliment the Prime Minister on his action in resolving the dispute between the Minister and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in favour of the CSIRO. I ask the Minister whether, following his welcome announcement that the ANAHL is to be commissioned for diagnostic work without delay and for limited research work, he will assure the House that the funds required for commissioning-about $800,000-will be provided forthwith? Mr McVeigh —Tell us the truth. You got rolled. Mr BARRY JONES —I repudiate any suggestion that I was rolled at all. Read the answer and read it very carefully. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will answer the question, address the Chair, and ignore interjections. Mr BARRY JONES —One of the reasons that there is a representative of the Department of Finance on the Fenner Committee, the announcement of which was made earlier in Question Time, is that we will have a precise indication of just what is needed in terms of staff and money. If the honourable member for Berowra has been trying to get precise figures, as I have been trying to do, he will recognise that there is some difference of opinion as to precisely how much is required. We have an expert committee, including representatives of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, primary industry, the National Farmers' Federation, and the most expert virologist in the business . I am confident that the recommendation that will come out of that will have the support of the ministerial committee and will be passed on to the Government promptly. Dr Harry Edwards —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. The amount allocated in the Budget was zero. So I can well attest that there is some difference between zero and $800,000. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Dr EVERINGHAM: I ask the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs: In view of the special immigration consideration which the Minister announced recently for residents of Sri Lanka, Lebanon and El Salvador, is it intended to extend similar humanitarian measures to help the many innocent people who have been affected by the recent disturbances in Chile? Mr WEST —This Government is concerned at abuses of human rights, wherever they occur throughout the world. We have two programs in place: Firstly, the United Nations classifaction program, that is an assisted refugee program; and, secondly, a special humanitarian program to assist people with human rights difficulties from within their own country. I recently announced on behalf of the Government special measures for people from trouble spots such as El Salvador, on the one hand, and Sri Lanka on the other. In conjunction with the Department of Foreign Affairs, my Department has been closely monitoring the latest situation in Chile. We are aware of the current trauma in that troubled country. We understand the increasing nature of transgressions against civil rights by repressive regimes, in that country, and the increasing nature of civil dissent. My colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs has already called for internationally accepted standards of human rights to apply in Chile. Within these parameters I have decided, on behalf of the Government, to apply Australia's special humanitarian program to the Chilean situation under two categories: Firstly, to those people who have been unsuccessfully sponsored under family reunion criteria and who are in addition experiencing human rights difficulties; and secondly, to those persons in Chile with no relations in Australia but who are clearly and demonstrably suffering human rights difficulties. In conclusion, I want to say that we shall be keeping this situation under continuing review. I want the House to understand the difficulties involved in assessing people from Chile and to understand that we cannot take it as far as accepting extremely large numbers. Papers and Ministerial Statement Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —For the information of honourable members I present copies of the statements which Ministers have provided to me concerning their private interests. My own return is, of course, also included. Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a statement. Leave granted. Mr HAWKE —The statements of private interests which I have presented to the House represent a hallmark in the development of this Parliament and in the provision of information to the public about the Ministers to whom that public has entrusted the government of this country. Never before in the history of this Parliament have Ministers disclosed publicly the private interests which they hold. It is right and proper that they should do so. The public-the electors of this country-are entitled to have confidence in the integrity of their elected representatives; to know that Ministers of the Government will perform their duties without fear or favour; to be reassured that a Minister's private interests-whatever they may be-do not conflict with his or her public duties in holding the high office of a Minister in the Federal Government. With those beliefs in mind the Australian Labor Party has long held the view that public disclosure of the private interests of Ministers-and of others, to whom I shall refer later-is appropriate. I want to turn now to some of the details of the system of declaration of private interests which the Government has decided upon. In respect of Ministers , there are two statements of private interests. The first is a statement in general terms of the interests held by a Minister and those of his or her immediate family-that is, spouse and dependent children-of which he, or she, is aware. It is required to be provided on an annual basis, with any significant changes in the meantime also disclosed to me, and this will cover: shareholdings in public and private companies; family and business trusts and nominee companies; real estate; directorships in private companies-and I should make it clear in respect of that category that Ministers are required to resign any directorships in public companies and directorships of private companies unless, for example, such companies operate a family farm, business or investments and the retention of the directorship is not likely to conflict with the public duty of the Minister; partnerships; liabilities, other than short term credit arrangements; bonds, debentures and like investments; savings or investment accounts; other assets, including collections but excluding household and personal effects, each valued at over $5,000-that is, each collection valued at more than $5,000, other than any used for household purposes, will be declared; other substantial sources of income-in relation to which I should say that Ministers may not derive any income through personal exertion other than as a Minister and a member of this Parliament; gifts valued at more than $250 received from official sources or in excess of $ 100 from non-official sources, in accordance with agreed guidelines; sponsored travel or hospitality, other than 'guests of government' hospitality- bearing in mind there are, as we know, long-standing restrictions on Ministers in that respect; and, finally, any other interests, such as membership of organisations, where a conflict of interest with public duties could possibly arise. I have mentioned some of the particular restrictions which are placed on Ministers. So that all members of the House, and the public, are aware of the full extent of those restrictions, I shall mention other requirements. Ministers , upon appointment as Ministers, must cease to engage in any professional practice or in the daily work of any business; nor, as I have mentioned, can they derive any income through personal exertion other than as a Minister or a member of this Parliament. Ministers have to divest themselves of shares or similar interests in any company or business involved in the area of their portfolio responsibilities. Ministers have to make a declaration at meetings of the Cabinet or its committees of any matter which may give rise to a conflict of interests. And should any particular conflict of interest arise during the course of Ministers' administration of their departments, I have to be informed so that a decision can be made on how the particular matter is to be progressed. From the statements I have presented, honourable members will see that money amounts of individual Ministers' interests-whether income, assets or liabilities -have not been included. It is the Government's belief that public disclosure of that information would be an undue invasion of the privacy of Ministers and of their families. Ministers, however, have declared those amounts to me in a private and confidential statement. This is the second of the statements to which I referred earlier which will also be required to be provided on an annual basis. I turn now to provisions which might be applied to senators and to members generally. I remarked earlier on the right of the public to have confidence in he integrity of its elected representatives. While that confidence demands particularly high standards in Government Ministers it also demands certain standards of each and every member of this House and each and every member of the Senate. The Government therefore proposes that all senators and members should disclose by way of a public register their own private interests, and those interests of their families of which they are aware. The details to be disclosed would be no more than are in the ministers' statements which I have presented today. In one important respect they would be much less: There would be no requirement to disclose money values at all. The Government also proposes that the Standing Orders be amended to require all members to declare a relevant interest if they participate in a debate or vote in a division in the House. Standing orders already make certain provisions in respect of committee membership where a member has a personal interest in the subject matter before the committee. It is the Government's intention that the precise method of implementation of the provisions to apply to senators and members should be examined by the standing orders committees of the respective Houses conferring as necessary to ensure that the provisions are as far as possible consistent between the two Houses. In addition, it is intended that the Standing Orders Committee should be asked to report upon whether, as proposed in the report of the Bowen Committee of Inquiry concerning Public Duty and Private Interest, a code of conduct should apply to all senators and members and, if so, what form it should take and how it should be implemented. The Committee will also be asked to look at the other recommendations of the Bowen Report, apart from those relating to the Constitution, affecting senators and members. My colleague the Leader of the House (Mr Lionel Bowen) will be presenting a notice of motion today giving further details and proposing referral to the Standing Orders Committee for consideration and report. One question is whether the registration system should be compulsory or voluntary. If the House ultimately decides upon the latter and a member refuses to provide a statement I am sure that people-especially the electors concerned-will be able to make their own judgment about that particular member. Some may argue any system of registration of private interests should be confined to the public's elected representatives. We believe, however, that the public is entitled to have confidence in the integrity of the wider machinery of government; in the integrity of public administration generally. Therefore, the Government has decided that senior public servants, statutory officeholders, senior staff of statutory authorities, and all ministerial staff will be required to furnish a statement of their private interests similar to the public statement required of Ministers-that is, containing details of the interests I mentioned earlier, but not as to their monetary amounts. The statements will not be public but, in the case of public servants and members and staff of statutory authorities, will be available to the relevant Minister and to the head of the department or authority concerned. In the case of ministerial staff the statements will be available to the relevant Minister, to the Special Minister of State and to me. The Public Service Board or, in the case of statutory authorities, the responsible Minister, will be informing the people concerned of the requirements in the near future. The Department of the Special Minister of State will be contacting ministerial staff to the extent that their present statements do not cover the requirements I have announced today. On such an important matter as this, I could not conclude without a reference to those who work in this building and whose task it is to report upon our activities via the media. They enjoy particular privileges and rights of access- including to the galleries of this chamber-which many other people do not. They are there, however, not only to report upon words spoken in this House but also to express views and opinions on the actions and decisions of the Government as a whole, individual members and, occasionally, the Opposition. The Government therefore believes that it would be consistent with its overall approach to this matter if the Australian Journalists Association and the Federal Parliamentary Press Gallery were invited to develop a similar system of disclosure of the private interests of journalists of those media organisations accredited to or using the facilities of the Parliament, and of all members of the media who have quarters in or who work from Parliament House. My colleague the Special Minister of State will be pursuing these aspects in the near future. The Government's decisions on this matter are the culmination of the work of many people over many years. The parliamentary committee which reported in 1975, chaired by the then member for Phillip, Joe Riordan, made a most significant contribution to a proper system of registration of private interests. One cannot overlook, also, the comprehensive report of the Committee of Inquiry concerning Public Duty and Private Interest chaired by Sir Nigel Bowen. The arrangements I have announced today represent a new extension in parliamentary democracy. The electors of this country have a right to be confident that those whom they send to represent them in this Parliament will do so in all matters without fear or favour. A large part of that confidence rests in the public knowledge that the private interests of the elected member-whether a Minister, a Government back bencher or an Opposition member-will not influence , nor will they be likely to influence, the discharge of his or her public duties in whatever capacity he or she may serve in this Parliament. I present the following paper: Public Duty and Private Interests-Ministerial Statement, 21 September 1983. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I received just before Question Time, obviously through no fault of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)-I was at a function at the American Embassy-the details of the Prime Minister's statement. But had I had even the two hours notice I would have asked honourable members to accept that after the many months that have transpired since March the Opposition would need some time to look at not only the content of the Prime Minister's statement today but also the content of the motion which it has been foreshadowed the Leader of the House and Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) will be moving. Mr Speaker, I therefore indicate to you that we will give consideration to the statement during next week and when the House resumes we will indicate a view. The fact is, of course, that the Australian Labor Party was very strong in putting its viewpoints on full disclosure in this area. In a notoriously pious manner it would advise us from time to time that it would disclose all. During the period in which it said that we were not aware that the man who is now Australia's most notorious double dipper was, in fact, engaging in those sorts of activities. We were not aware that he was in breach of the standards contained within the report of the Bowen Committee of Inquiry concerning Public Duty and Private Interest. It has taken us many months to get even to the stage where we have got this statement by the Prime Minister. So much more had been promised by this man and so little has been delivered, as we have found in so many areas. On this occasion the efforts of Ms Jan Murray, who is closely connected to one of the Ministers of the Prime Minister, I think have ensured that a degree of rational approach has been brought to bear so far as wives are concerned. I commend her for the remarks she has made on this issue. Mr John Brown —I don't know that she would fancy your endorsement. Mr PEACOCK —I am not troubled about that, old son, because if the sorts of references made earlier to wives by those from the other side is the line that is going to be taken and the standard to which this Parliament is going to be brought, honourable members opposite condemn themselves out of their own mouths. That was the reason why members of this front bench restrained themselves from coming back on that issue. So we will not follow that track because, in my view, it is the antithesis of proper parliamentary behaviour, let alone normal and reasonable conduct by reasonable men and women. I say, however, that we have listened to a fairly pious statement on propriety alluding to elements of integrity of politicians from a government which already has a record of startling impropriety. It is a government which has talked incessantly of high standards. And it has been no more than talk. It is a government which has had to consider regulating its dealings with lobbyists because its Ministers cannot be trusted to observe appropriate statements. It is a government led by a Prime Minister who has admitted accepting fees for doing no more than his job as a shadow Minister. It is a government whose trademark has become misleading and contradictory statements and a very cynical deception of the Australian electorate. We have seen that yet again today in regard to capital gains tax. Against that background the Prime Minister has come into the House with a register of the pecuniary interests of his Ministers. Of course the Opposition supports the need for Ministers to perform their duties without fear or favour. Of course the Opposition supports the need for Ministers to act impartially in the public interest and not to be influenced by their private interest. Of course the Opposition supports the need for Ministers to have the confidence of the public in their integrity. These standards must apply to all members of parliament, be they Ministers or private members. The report of the Bowen Committee of Inquiry concerning Public Duty and Private Interest of 1978 stated: . . . to introduce a register which could easily be avoided would fail to achieve any useful objective. It would constitute little more than political '' window dressing'' and would, indeed, be somewhat misleading if it suggested to the public that objectives were being achieved which in fact the register was inadequate to bring about. Frankly, I think this political statement amounts to just that sort of dissection. The Bowen Committee listed seven arguments against this type of register. It is worth mentioning them here. The report stated that such a register could be an 'unjustifiable invasion of privacy', and could 'deter suitable persons who might otherwise have entered public life'. Mr Hawke —Ha! Mr PEACOCK —These are not my words; they are the words of the Bowen Committee. The Prime Minister may laugh at them; I am simply mentioning them. I have indicated that I will give endorsements. I have not tacked like a yacht and made the original pious proposals end up with a death of a thousand cuts as a consequence of my actions. The phoney propriety that was put forward in the Prime Minister's statement is not what I am endorsing today. I will give consideration to it together with a motion that has been foreshadowed by the Deputy Prime Minister. Mr Hawke —Have a conscience vote on it. Mr PEACOCK —That would be impossible for the Prime Minister because he does not have one. The Bowen Committee stated that registration would be quite easy to avoid by lawful re-arrangement of one's affairs, that it could 'furnish information which might be used by kidnappers, extortionists or terrorists' and that there is no demand for it by the public. It is relevant to bear these factors in mind. That does not commit the Opposition to a view, but it indicates a viewpoint expressed in a report of the Committee of Inquiry, which received a very warm reception when it was brought down in this country. Not all of the arguments of the Bowen Committee that I have mentioned carry equal weight and not all apply to the measures that the Prime Minister proposes, of course. But the Bowen Committee concluded that there was insufficient justification to introduce a compulsory system of registration. I understand that the Standing Orders Committee will be examining this matter as it applies to members and senators to determine whether we will have compulsory registration. We, of course, as members of that Committee, will be participating in that examination, quite apart from the debate that will flow from both the Prime Minister's statement and the motion to be moved. I said that the Bowen Committee concluded that there was insufficient justification to introduce a system of compulsory registration. In doing so it agreed with the Salmon Committee in the United Kingdom, which observed: An individual who was determined to exploit public office for his own ends would probably be able to find ways round any registration requirements that were not of such complexity that they would be generally unacceptable and unenforceable. These comments do not outweigh the points that were made by the Prime Minister but in an immediate response, so that there is a degree of balance to be weighed up in this area, I have quoted those matters. That has been done purely, as I said, as a preliminary response. We will not take more than six months to determine our view on the proposition; we will be determining our view on the proposals before the House when the House resumes after the forthcoming break. Before concluding I reiterate that, with the constant breaking of promises, the constant breaking of undertakings and the constant reiteration of a determination to involve people in a particular area and then stepping back from it on the part of this Government, I am not prepared to allow this statement to be put down expressing a view of moral rectitude and propriety without pointing out that the Prime Minister-the man who has come before us and indicated how pure his government will be on this matter-has himself been in breach of the Bowen report. It is stated at page 31 of the report: The Committee recommends that the following Code of Conduct be adopted for general application for all officeholders: The term 'office holders' in the terminology of the report covers Minister, members of Parliament, public servants and statutory office holders-is not just Ministers and leaders and deputy leaders of the Opposition who are called office holders; The term covers all members of parliament. At page 32, under category 8 of paragraph 4.9, the report states: An officeholder should not: (a) solicit or accept from any person any remuneration or benefit for the discharge of the duties of his office over and above the official remuneration;. . . . . (c) except as may be permitted under the rules applicable to his office, accept any gift, hospitality or concessional travel offered in connection with the discharge of the duties of his office. It may well be that many honourable members have transgressed that code, but day after day we will sit on this side of the House and listen to these pious statements by the persons performing the duties of office. They reached the depths of degration this afternoon. I simply could not give even a preliminary response to the statement today without indicating that even on a matter such as this, which will receive the detailed consideration of the Opposition, the person who is to move a motion on the matter does not come before the Parliament with clean hands. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) agreed to: That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 4 October 1983, unless Mr Speaker fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The public concern caused by the increasing number of conflicting statements on Government policy, as instanced by comments on the development of Roxby Downs and capital gains tax. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.18) —The Opposition has raised this matter of public importance because yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) indicated yet again that he is quite prepared to mislead the community on a major area of Government policy. This is a very serious indictment of the integrity of the Government and the Prime Minister in particular. The Prime Minister has already misled the elderly, he has already misled the unemployed and he has already misled the electorate with a proliferation of broken promises . Now he has misled the business community over uranium mining. At the same time one of his Ministers has misled Australians over a capital gains tax and, indeed , the Prime Minister himself has come close to doing that with the denial of a previous promise never to introduce such a tax. On 2 September the Prime Minister told the Business Council of Australia: As far as our Government is concerned, the Federal Government and the Government of South Australia, the Roxby development is going ahead and nothing is going to stop that. Quite naturally, the leaders of Australia's business community accepted that the Prime Minister meant what he said. After all, the remark won their warm and undoubtedly spontaneous applause. I was there. I heard it and so did other members of the Opposition front bench. The Prime Minister spoke with great fervour and passion of the Government's announcement. Mr Howard —Unambiguous. Mr PEACOCK —It was quite unambiguous. Mr Howard —He misled them. Mr PEACOCK —He certainly did mislead them. Subsequently we learnt that the Prime Minister did not mean what he said at all. We now know that when he boldly said 'as far as our Government is concerned', he meant only as far as he was concerned. When he said 'the Roxby development is going ahead' he really meant to use the words of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) just a week ago when he said 'the formal policy decision on that has not yet been made' . To use the Prime Minister's words of yesterday, this is 'still a matter for discussion'. So the confusion has caused uncertainty in the business community. The hundreds of millions of dollars worth of investment at Roxby Downs may or may not proceed. The once in a lifetime opportunity to revitalise the sluggish South Australian economy may or may not take place. The hundreds of jobs which would flow from this project may or may not be created. We do not know because the Government has not taken a decision. It is disturbing, to put it mildly, that the Prime Minister, the head of the Government, should deceive the community into believing a decision had been taken. Yesterday the Prime Minister told the House: . . . the major requirement of the business community is the maximum possible degree of certainty. I do not know what the maximum possible degree of certainty means. One is either certain or not certain. It seems to me that anything less than that is somewhat uncertain. But the Prime Minister said: . . . the maximum possible degree of certainty. I could not agree more. Why is it then that the Prime Minister creates uncertainty by saying what he does not really mean? Even his statement on certainty is deceptive when measured against the Government's erratic performance. Australians are entitled to know why the Prime Minister has deliberately misled the business community. Does the Prime Minister tell every audience that he speaks to what it wants to hear, no matter whether it is true or false? The answer is perfectly clear; he has demoted integrity a very long way down his order of priorities. It is little wonder that he repeatedly tries to tell Australians that he is honest. We have the integrity shoebox coming out again. His strategy is built on the old political slogan: If you say something often enough, enough people will believe you. It is a strategy that will fail. It will be destroyed by the realisation that if you say one thing often enough and do the reverse every time, no one will believe you. The uranium saga is far from the first example of prime ministerial deception. In his policy speech of 16 February the Prime Minister said: . . . the Labor Party is not in the business, of making promises that cannot be fulfilled. In the same speech he also said: I believe the Australian people have had enough of election promises made only to be broken. Those words and the Prime Minister's repeated claims that he always tells the truth raised expectations in the community. They raised expectations-reasonably enough-that the Prime Minister would do what he said and that a Labor Government would be one of the highest integrity; but it is one of the greatest indictments of all against the Labor Government that these expectations, without exception, were totally unrealised. Instead of a Prime Minister who does what he says, Australians have a Prime Minister who says one thing but means another. It is classic Hawkespeak; instead of a government of integrity we Australians have a government which blatantly uses deceit to ward off criticism. The Government and the Prime Minister in particular have brought politics and politicians into disrepute. The first signs of this Hawkespeak appeared soon after the general election. The Prime Minister promised that Labor would attack the problem of unemployment. He promised that Labor would create 500,000 jobs over three years. This was, as he said, Australia's overwhelming need. He repeated that promise at the National Economic Summit Conference and he repeated it again last month. What are the facts? The facts show that the creation of more jobs is not regarded by the Prime Minister as the overwhelming need. For example, instead of choosing scenario C at the Summit, which offered the best chance of meeting that ' overwhelming need', he opted for scenario A. In other words he opted for a policy which put a deal with the unions ahead of a deal with the unemployed and ensured that 100,000 fewer Australians will get work than would have occurred under scenario C. The Prime Minister promised 500,000 jobs. By the Government's own admission, the Government's economic strategy will see dole queues 26 per cent longer this year. The Prime Minister promised 500,000 jobs! In the six months since the election 68,300 jobs have been lost, or, in seasonally adjusted terms, 100 have been created. Instead of 500,000 jobs being created over three years, at the present rate only a little over one-tenth of one per cent of that number will be created. He is deceiving not only the business community by telling them one thing and doing another; he is also deceiving the unemployed. The Prime Minister's deception extends far beyond business and the unemployed. What about the elderly who have also been deceived? On 15 April the present incumbent of the prime ministership told a Press conference that there has been no basis for the speculation that the rate of tax on lump sum superannuation payments would be increased. Mr Howard —That was after the election as well. Mr PEACOCK —That was after the election. During the election there was to be no increase in taxation. As late as 15 April there was no basis for the speculation that there would be an increase in the rate of tax on lump sum superannuation. He told not only the Press conference but also the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Honourable members will recall that members of the executive of that body nailed him for what he showed himself to be by that statement after the decision was changed. The House hardly needs to be reminded that in the mini- Budget the Prime Minister did the very reverse. He promised on 15 February that his Government would not-- Mr Howard —Oh, this is a good one. Mr PEACOCK —The shadow Treasurer recalls this matter well because he heard the Prime Minister say that the Labor Government 'will not take money out of the pensioner's cheque'. By increasing the superannuation tax, by means testing pensions for those over 70 years of age and by introducing an assets test the reality is that he has taken money out of the pensioner's cheque. What was wrong with the simple decency of telling the truth of the Government's intentions all along? Why did he tell the elderly one thing and do another? There is another example of the duplicity of this Government. It is characterised even today by the Government's approach to a capital gains tax. On 16 February the Prime Minister said: There will be no new capital gains tax. That promise has been repeated again and again since. Yesterday the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) said: It is my view that there should be a capital gains tax in Australia and I will continue to advocate it both publicly and within the Government. Today I asked the Prime Minister to put that down. He refused. He would not rule out a capital gains tax; so yet another promise, to use the Nixonian phrase, is inoperable. Any Government with integrity would stick by its commitment. This Government has abandoned its commitment and, undoubtedly, its integrity. The Combe-Ivanoff affair has revealed a government and, in particular, a Prime Minister wallowing in self-contradiction and public deception. There is, as the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) sought to imply in a question that was ruled out of order yesterday, no difference between what the former Special Minister of State (Mr Young) did and what the current incumbent of the prime ministership did in ringing his mates and tipping them off. So he should not allow statements of propriety and honesty to exude like some antiseptic atmosphere from that side of the House; it is the very antithesis. Mr Howard —I bet you will not have to put that on the public register. Mr PEACOCK —No, there will be no mention of that on the public register but I may be chased again. An endeavour may be made to put me in gaol for political comment. This is the first Australian Prime Minister to seek to have an Opposition leader gaoled for political comment. Such are the notions of civil liberties practised by this person! Some weeks ago, as the House will remember, the Prime Minister piously acted to prevent the media-quite apart from me- commenting on evidence given to the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Intelligence and Security Agencies. That action was taken, of course, to protect witnesses and to ensure that the Royal Commissioner's work was not prejudiced by outside interference. That standard was set. The Prime Minister then decided to pass his own judgment on Mr Combe's evidence and he said that much of Mr Combe's evidence was inaccurate. I bring that matter into these other elements because the matter of public importance we put down at the end of this three-week session, namely, the public concern caused by the increasing number of conflicting statements on Government policy, as instanced by comments on the development of Roxby Downs and capital gains tax, indeed contains matters of public importance to be discussed today. Double standards like that from any citizen are bad enough. It would be bad enough if we were able to nail such a schedule of double standards from any person in any honourable member's electorate, but from a Prime Minister of this country they are nothing less than a disgrace. These incidents are not the full story of the Prime Minister's record of double standards and deception-the long, long list of broken promises. Honourable members will recall the ones I read out at the end of the May session of this Parliament. We are daily adding to that list and we will trot them out again before this Parliament closes at the end of the year. The long, long list of broken promises tells a story in itself. Australians have a right to expect integrity from anybody with whom they deal. Above all, they have a right to expect integrity from their Prime Minister, for that, quite apart from elements of propriety, is central to good government. What they have instead, and it has to be said, is a Prime Minister who puts deception before responsibility; a Prime Minister who puts deception before integrity; and a Prime Minister who, in his professions of honesty, has now been seen to be protesting too much. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance)(3.34) —What we have heard today from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) is a frantic attempt to find some issue on which his Party, the Liberal Party of Australia, and indeed the other Party which makes up the Opposition, the National Party of Australia, are united . The Opposition parties are in tatters. They are now seeking to focus, in this debate on uranium, on an issue on which they are undeniably united. The Opposition parties are undoubtedly united on the issue of uranium. That is one of the few matters on which they are united. Both in government and in opposition they have pursued a policy which is clear, and it is also in clear distinction to the policies the Australian Labor Party is pursuing. The Opposition parties are entirely unconcerned about the uses to which Australian uranium is put. They are completely unconcerned about the consequences for nuclear proliferation as a result of the use of Australian uranium. They are completely unconcerned about the fact that some Australian uranium might find its way, through reactors, into spent fuel rods and into the hands of powers which have a nuclear capacity, including indeed, the possibility of Australian uranium finding its way into the hands of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. They are unconcerned about the issues of waste disposal, about the practice of some countries dumping nuclear waste in the sea, even in the sea not far from our own boundaries. They are not concerned about the establishment of nuclear free zones in the world in a way which would extend the prospects of durable and maintainable peace on this globe. On the other hand, we are extremely concerned about the consequences of the arms race. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) has taken a number of initiatives for Australia to play its role in relation to the maintenance of peace and the achievement of disarmament. That is why we have established an Ambassador for Disarmament and that is why, as the Foreign Minister said yesterday, we are establishing a peace institute in this country. Our policy is not one which is concerned simply with the size and scale of the uranium industry in this country. We are concerned also about the conduct of any uranium industry which exists in this country. We are concerned about the way in which uranium produced in this country might be used in the hands of purchasing countries. That is why our policy, agreed to at our last national conference of the Party, goes at some length into the questions of how a Labor government would determine these sorts of issues in relation to the uranium industry. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) indicated today, this is not an issue on which there is either a need to rush to a hasty decision, or indeed where it would be sensible to do so. There are legitimate and firmly held views throughout the community on what should be the size, scale and role of an Australian uranium industry. That is why the Prime Minister has indicated that the Government will encourage debate on this important issue, not only within the Labor Party but also within the wider community. He recognises that it is important that on this vexed question there should be the maximum amount of rational debate on the important issues that are at stake. That is something which this Party, as opposed to the parties that are now in opposition, has always practised. We have always been prepared to debate issues fearlessly and openly, even issues on which there are very strenuously held views amongst members within our Party. This issue is no exception. Indeed, this is a classic case of where that kind of debate can move not only the Government but also the country to a more sensible appreciation and a more sensible policy in relation to this important question. The Leader of the Opposition spent some time on what he alleged to be the broken promises of this Government. In that respect he is on very firm ground. Because nobody knows more about broken promises than do the members of the Liberal and National parties. After all, they are the broken promise experts. We do not have to remind the people of Australia about the numerous claims, the numerous promises, which were made prior to successive elections. Those promises were made only to be broken. This Party in opposition and in government has made perfectly clear the areas in which it would act. Indeed, we have a very distinguished record as far as that matter is concerned. Many of the alleged broken promises to which the Leader of the Opposition has referred in the past are simply due to the fact that, in a number of areas, we have not yet had the capacity to act and implement the policies with which we are committed to proceed. The reason for that was the appalling state of the economy which we inherited, which was not disclosed to this Party or to the people of Australia. Of course, our program had to be revised in the light of these revelations on assuming office immediately after the election. Let us go to some of the promises which we not only made but on which we have acted speedily. In the first instance there is the recoupment tax, a promise which was clearly made, a policy which was carefully argued long before the election and during the election. Yet, when we introduced the legislation to give effect to that promise the Opposition voted against it in this House and in the Senate, and of course it was defeated in that place. The Opposition now has another opportunity to allow us to give effect to one of the promises we made because a similar piece of legislation is currently before the Senate. If the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition parties are serious about keeping us to our promises, then one would have thought that the appropriate thing to do was at least not to have voted against legislation which would have given effect to important parts of our election undertaking. Secondly, there is the area of Medicare, again carefully and coherently argued over several years, a major part of our election campaign. Yet when we move to give effect to that promise, to introduce it into the Parliament, all we have is a scurry of frantic opposition from the parties opposite. They are not interested in whether we give effect to our election undertakings. They are simply concerned to try to cover up the enourmously shattered fabric which makes up the Opposition in this country. The unity in the Opposition parties is as much a shibboleth now as it was when they were in government. We need only refer the Leader of the Opposition to his comments about not only the state of the Government in those days but also the personality of the former Prime Minister with his tyrannical desire to dominate and his practice of terrorising his Ministers, and so on. That was the sort of government we had then. It was a government which existed entirely on fear, its Ministers being in fear of the retribution which could have been wreaked on them by their then Leader. It was that Government, of course, which the now Leader of the Opposition walked out of . Then when an election was imminent and when his prospects of advancement appeared to be greater he came back into it, only to help to carry it to a most humiliating defeat. This Government is entirely united. This Government is entirely coherent on the issues which the Leader of the Opposition sought to raise. I will refer briefly to the charges he made about our attitude to a capital gains tax. I will quote what the Labor Party's policy says. In the economic platform under the heading ' Taxation' paragraph 11d says: Application by an effective tax on realised capital gains and profits by taking all necessary legislative and administrative action to ensure the strict enforcement of the existing tax on speculative capital gains and profit-making schemes contained in section 26 (a) of the Income Tax Amendment Act, thereby requiring speculators and tax avoiders to pay tax presently being avoided. This was re-affirmed by the Prime Minister in his policy speech. After he said ' There will be no new capital gains tax', he added: But we will not be deterred-and no Australian Government worthy of the name should ever have been deterred-from upholding and using the existing laws of the Commonwealth of Australia, interpreted in the spirit in which those laws are now being interpreted by the High Court, to tax speculative gains and prevent tax evasion and tax avoidance. All that is needed is a government with the will and determination to apply the law. Similarly, in June the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said that we have not given any thought to the question of a new capital gains tax, that the national conference rejected the concept of a new capital gains tax and that what we are on about is making the existing law more effective. That is the question to which the Treasurer addressed himself in the Budget Speech when he indicated that we were going to strengthen the current provisions of section 26 (a). There can be no doubt that in doing so we will be strengthening the existing laws in relation to the taxation of speculative capital gains. There can be no argument about that. There can be no retreat from that as far as this Government is concerned. We recognise that one of the great reasons for the enormous tax rip-off that occurred due to the negligence of our predecessors was simply that the laws which currently exist to prevent that tax avoidance either were not being interpreted properly and therefore needed strengthening or were not being properly applied. Therefore, we have given an undertaking to use the existing law in a way which will prevent the avoidance of tax. I want to cover the points which the Leader of the Opposition raised and to indicate the Government's policy on those important issues. But I repeat that what the Leader of the Opposition is really concerned about is the fact that the Opposition, which he leads with some lack of confidence, is in tatters and hopelessly divided on a number of centrally important issues. On the question of a wages policy we find an absolutely irreconcilable difference in views between the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). In relation to the enlarging of the Commonwealth Parliament we have a complete disagreement between the Liberal Party and the National Party. In relation to the Sex Discrimination Bill there are not only serious divisions between the parties but also a division within the Liberal Party, with one of its members, the responsible shadow Minister, saying that anybody who votes against the Sex Discrimination Bill proposed by this Government is not fit to be a member of the Liberal Party. Yet in due course no doubt most of the members of the Liberal Party and certainly all the members of the National Party will be lining up to vote against this proposal when it is voted on in the Senate and when it comes before this House. The Leader of the Opposition drew attention to a number of other issues in relation to the record of the Prime Minister. He referred to the assets test and to the taxation of superannuation lump sums. We know that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is in complete accord with the Government in relation to moves in those areas. Indeed, I would be surprised if the Leader of the Opposition, in his more honest moments, did not also agree. I thought that the Leader of the Opposition came from a strand of thought within the Liberal Party which was concerned about ensuring that public funds went to the areas of greatest need- that they were applied to those people who needed them and not to those people who did not. That is the purpose behind these two important reforms. This Government has introduced them to ensure that public funds are properly applied and to ensure that those funds which are available can be more generously applied to those people who need them and not simply squandered on those people who quite frankly do not need them. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 25, clause 40, proposed new sub-section 33 (1), line 30, leave out ' '12'', insert ''8''. No. 2-Page 29, clause 49, paragraph (1) (b), lines 8 and 9, leave out the paragraph. No. 3-Page 29, clause 49, after paragraph (1) (a), add the following new paragraph: ''(b) by adding at the end of sub-section (2) the following words 'and such other organizations and associations as the Minister considers appropriate'.''. No. 4-Page 36, clause 73, after proposed new sub-section 8J (2), add the following new sub-section: ''(3) Sections 48, 49, 49A and 50 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 apply in relation to directions under sub-section (1) as if in those sections references to regulations were references to directions, references to a regulation were references to a direction and references to a repeal were references to a revocation.''. No. 5-Page 53, clause 101, line 41, leave out ''notice'', insert ''direction''. No. 6-Page 56, clause 107, line 20, at end of clause, add ''and substituting ' or served under sub-section 73BAC (2)'.''. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(4.48) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. There are six amendments in the schedule returned from the Senate. The first amendment is to clause 40. This is amended to reduce the period of 12 hours to eight hours for the purposes of defining a hospital day for the payment of private hospital bed day subsidies. The second and third amendments are to clauses 49 (1) (a) and (b). They are amended to allow the Minister to consult with the Australian Medical Association and such other organisations or associations as he considers appropriate in relation to medical practitioner membership of the Medicare Benefits Advisory Committee. The fourth amendment is to clause 73, as amended, to provide for directions by the Minister to the Health Insurance Commission to be tabled in both Houses of the Parliament and to be subject to disallowance. The fifth amendment is to clause 101 which is amended to provide that, where the Minister revokes an exemption under new section 73BAA, which deals with registered organisations not being able to carry on another business, or new section 73BAB, which deals with exemption from meeting the two month minimum reserve provision-the revocation shall be tabled and may be subject to disallowance. There is a sixth amendment which is simply consequential. This is an amendment to clause 107 and is consequential on the amendment to clause 101. I want to say a few words in recommending to the Committee that these amendments be agreed to. As I indicated both publicly and in the second reading debate, the Government was perfectly prepared to accept any reasoned amendments produced either here or in the other place provided they in no way infringe on the fundamentals of the Medicare legislation. None of these amendments do so. We are quite happy to accept the amendment to clause 40 which reduces the period of 12 hours to eight hours as the definition of a day for the purposes of payment of a subsidy to private hospitals. We wanted to move away from the customary present situation of four hours, which is clearly open to abuse. We believe that the period of eight hours will sufficiently meet the needs of the Government in preventing abuse. The Government is therefore perfectly happy to accept that amendment. The second amendment relates to the Minister consulting with the Australian Medical Association and other such organisations in relation to medical practitioner membership of the Medicare Benefits Advisory Committee. As I indicated to the honourable members during the Committee debate at an earlier stage, the Government did not intent to exclude the AMA from consultation. It was simply concerned that the AMA be not the only organisation named and given that exclusive position. The amendment which has come back from the Senate is perhaps somewhat more polite than the Government's original proposal. But it certainly achieves the same objective-that is, it does not limit consultations simply to the AMA, but to other appropriate organisations when the Government gets advice in relation to medical practitioner membership of the Medicare Benefits Advisory Committee. The Government accepts this amendment. The other two amendments are amendments which the Senate has moved in order to ensure that instructions to the Health Insurance Commission and revocations relating to registered private health insurance funds be tabled in both Houses of Parliament and subject to disallowance. It is my view that the effect of both of those amendments will prove contrary to what the move has intended. But the Government is perfectly happy to accept both of those amendments. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(3.52) —The Opposition welcomes the Government's acceptance of these amendments but, of course, notes that these amendments moved by the Opposition in the Senate under the direction of my colleague Senator Baume and passed by the Senate, really are only nibbling at the edges of this health nationalisation measure. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewet) made that perfectly clear in his remarks to the House today. We are pleased with the minor concessions which have been gained by the Senate because they ease the burden on some of the organistions that will suffer under the Medicare arrangements. I make it perfectly clear, however, that the commitments made by the Australian Democrats to support substantial amendment in the Senate to save the jobs of 5, 000 health insurance workers were not met. The Democrats did not meet the terms of their orginal public statement with Senator Harradine and me. They supported only minor amendments. They made their position clear before the debate started, so that the Opposition's role in the Senate was to try to secure whatever minor amendments might be possible, given the limited support of the Australian Democrats. The Health Legislation Amendment Bill, with these amendments, will go back to the Senate virtually intact. The statements made by me in opposition to the Bill in this House until eight minutes past three on Thursday morning of last week stand on the record. It was necessary to have a complete debate on this matter against the will of the Government. It forced us to go through the night on a measure which it said was one of its most important pieces of legislation. It apparently feared that if the debate continued until the following day, Thursday , we would be on air and people would hear more of our arguments publicly. But I point out to the Committee that these arguments are in the record in both the House of Representatives and the Senate Hansards, and can be followed by anybody who wishes to study them. We are in agreement with the acceptance by the House of these amendments secured by the Opposition in the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests : Medicare Levy Bill 1983 States (Tax Sharing and Health Grants) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983 Income Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy) Bill 1983 Mr FRY(Fraser) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, I present the Committee's report on proposals for variations of the plan of layout of the city of Canberra and its environs, 78th Series-second report, together with extracts of minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke) —I present the second report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report have been circulated to honourable members in the chamber. Report-by leave-adopted. (Budget Debate) Debate resumed. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(3.57) —The Budget which we are debating is the third step in the Government's program to return to Australia prosperity and growth. Both prosperity and growth were promises made by the Government to the Australian people some six months ago at the time of the last election. Since then we have seen two specific actions both of which have a close relationship with this Budget. I refer specifically to the National Economic Summit Conference held in April and the May mini-Budget. It is in that context we must determine whether the economic strategy laid out in this Budget will in fact achieve the objectives which I am sure all Australians would seek. Those common objectives are: A strengthening of the Australian economy, a significant lowering of unemployment, a reduction in inflation and interest rates, and, above all, sustained economic growth. This Budget was the first opportunity which the present Government has had to meet at least some of its primary promises to the Australian people. I regret, however, that in the field of taxation reform in particular it again demonstrated how easy it is to make promises and equally how easy it is to break them. The Budget strategy was based on a single major risk-the ability of the Government to maintain the prices and incomes accord with the trade union movement. It has been stated by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and in the accompanying documents from the Treasury that the 1982-83 Budget can succeed only if the Government is able to maintain the prices and incomes accord. If wages rise above the accord level of 7 per cent for this financial year, the entire Budget strategy will completely fall apart. There is no fall-back position. There has been no suggestion from the Government that if that occurs, it will still be able to resurrect something from its strategy. We believe that its entire strategy is based on the premise that it must maintain the accord with the trade union movement. Regrettably, another aspect of the Government strategy which will be a significant problem is the huge deficit which will not be absorbed by the Australian economy in the foreseeable future. On the contrary , this expansionary strategy could well lead to higher inflation and reduce the possibility of economic growth and recovery. I refer, in particular, to wage growth. On that subject the Treasury papers stated: . . . 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. The statement went on to say: 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 racheting up on the rate of unemployment. That was the Treasury's advice to the present Government. The Treasury laid out in a public document for all to see the very real risks which the Government was pursuing in developing a strategy based on the belief that it is able to maintain sanity in the trade union movement on wage increases. Another problem related to this in the context of the Budget deficit so presents both the Government and the Australian people with somewhat of a dilemma-which would be magnified should demand prove even stronger than presently expected while public sector requirements were still growing strongly. Linked in with the prices and incomes accord is the belief of the Government that the only way to overcome the economic problems presently facing Australia is to enter into a period of substantial public sector borrowing and growth in expenditure through the public sector. However, the point tends to be ignored, at least by the Treasurer. It is simply this: Most job opportunities in Australia are not found in the public sector; they are in the private sector. All we were told in the context of this Budget was that the demand by the private sector was expected to fall this financial year and the level of employment was also expected to fall. Therefore there is reason to question seriously whether the basic premise upon which the Budget is built is ever likely to meet its objective. The other extraordinary influence on the domestic and the external aspects of budgetary control which must be considered is the expected upturn overseas. While we all expect that will have some impact-hopefully a satisfactory impact- on the demand for Australian commodities at the same time it presents some very real problems indeed in terms of budgetary strategy. I refer specifically to the impact of an upturn overseas on the cost of money in Australia and, above all, on the cost to the Australian Government and people of funds obtained overseas. With the upturn in demand there is the likely result, in the United States economy in particular, of a further strengthening of inflation and, with that, domestic interest rates will rise. In that situation countries such as Australia , which depend to a large degree on their capacity to borrow overseas, will find , yet again, increased prices for money forcing up inflation within the Austalian economy. Realistically therefore one must ask: What are the chances of the prices and incomes accord succeeding as the basic plant of this Budget? I believe that they are small. Already we have seen three major industry groups achieve wage increases outside the terms of the accord. The building industry, the food processing industry and, of course, the oil industry. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), in response to questioning from Opposition members in this House, has simply dismissed this lightly claiming exceptional circumstances. But the fact of the matter is that flow on effects in industries are a reality of the wage structure of Australia. Therefore there is very little reason to believe that when some unions gain increases outside the Commission and the national wage decisions they will not stimulate a tremendous desire by other unions related to the industry to have similar increases, whether they are within the context of the accord or not. The Government has abandoned the approach taken by the previous Liberal- National Party Government to a wage pause which would have allowed inflation to be curbed and would have encourged private sector growth. The point needs to be made that what little level of growth there has been in recent months is to a very large degree due to the fact that the previous Government's wage pause did stand the test. I do not suggest that there is not a case for low income earners to be given an increase in wages to keep up with the obvious increases in inflation. But this can be achieved outside of the normal conciliation and arbitration wage fixing guidelines procedure by the process of specific low income support programs. Such programs, if implemented effectively, would be able to cater for those genuinely in need without the dangerous effects of a flow-on throughout the rest of the economy and thus the entire work force, whether it needed those increases or not. The risk that the Labor Government is taking in resting its Budget strategy on the prices and incomes accord is further emphasised when one looks at the nature of industrial relations in Australia today. Obtaining the agreement of the Australian Council of Trade Unions is simply not enough to guarantee that all unions will agree. Not all members will necessarily hold the line. Mr Dolan stated: If other unions within the building and construction industry make claims, I think they're entitled to have them dealt with . . . I would believe personally that they have a case. I have no doubt that on many other aspects of industrial relations Mr Dolan would take a similar point of view. Moreover, the Budget approach has been directly contrary to the accord which was agreed to by the trade union movement and by manufacturing industry and other elements of the Australian economy, earlier this year. The accord stated: The Government, in conjunction with the trade union movement, will annually review the tax scale so that the tax burden will not rise automatically with inflation . . . The Government will endeavour to reduce the relative incidence of indirect taxation because of its regressive and inflationary nature. What have we seen this Government do, both in terms of the May mini-Budget and the most recent Budget? It has made a range of decisions in relation to taxation , especially indirect taxation, which run quite counter to the objectives of the accord into which it entered. It is an accord, incidentally, which it is equally prepared to wave before the trade union movement and, if necessary, also bring to the attention of industry as an example of where standards should be held. However, when the Government had the opportunity in this Budget of meeting its primary promise to the Australian people of reducing direct taxation at least, all we have seen is a significant increase in a whole range of indirect taxes. The Budget is therefore based on a very high risk strategy. The current deficit is $8.4 billion, which represents 4.7 per cent of gross domestic product. That compares with a deficit of half that amount in 1982-83, or 2.8 per cent of gross domestic product. When this is combined with other borrowing demands of the public sector-I relate that specifically to State demands as well-it will produce the largest prospective public sector borrowing requirement faced by Australia over the last quarter of a century. Public debt interest this financial year will rise by some 22.4 per cent. When one looks at that in the context of the other increases in Budget outlays for a range of other items of government expenditure, from labour and employment right down to transport and communications, the inexorable fact is that we will be spending twice as much on servicing our national public debt than we will be spending on education and defence combined. The fourth highest item in expenditure is public debt servicing alone. Below that we have a whole range of areas of major importance to economic development. Above it are only three items-labour and employment, health and housing. We are spending more on the public debt than we are spending on social security. The Budget predicts an economic growth of 3 per cent. The Treasurer has pointed out-it has been confirmed by Treasury documents-that this will not be enough to finance the huge public debt, nor will it be enough to build the basis for expansion in employment, one of the principles upon which this Government was elected. Regrettably the Government has demonstrated in this Budget that it has no long term economic strategy at all. It is literally living month by month in the hope that-provided the trade union movement does not let it down and provided its accord will hold over this financial year-by next year it may be able to demonstrate some small increase in overall productivity. But it is a long term gamble; a gamble which every Australian man, woman and child- especially the families of Australia-will have to live with and, quite likely, if it fails, pay a very high price for. There are four major and clearly interrelated risks in achieving the sustained recovery in the domestic economy for which we all hope. These relate to interest rates, inflation, the balance of payments and the high uncertainty linked with low private sector confidence. The Treasury has gone further than this. It has predicted a fall in private business investment, increased unemployment and continued pressure on interest rates. Yet these are precisely the problems which the Government was elected to overcome. Contrary to the economic strategy adopted by the Labor Government, the Liberal party believes that the only last means of achieving sustained economic growth is through the private sector. The 1983-84 Budget provides an expansionary thrust to the economy but there is nothing in it to encourage the private sector which, as I said earlier, is the ultimate dynamo-the base upon which employment is to be developed in the Australian economy. The Budget concentrates on big government public spending. It has been demonstrated time and again that when it is related to a significant increase in public debt it will not solve the long term economic problems currently facing Australia. It cannot solve them because it will build into the system a further demand for money which will force up its cost, which in turn will affect the volume of supply as well as inflation. One of the fundamental principles that we have been facing in this country for too long is the need continually to bear down on inflation and make sure that our fiscal policies as well as our monetary policies are not inconsistent with that fundamental requirement. I refer once again to unemployment. The Budget provides only palliatives to assist those already hit by the recession rather than creating new job opportunities. The various schemes which the Government has initiated are simply directed at changing the statistics in an aggregate sense. As I have said in this House before, what use is it simply to offer those who have great difficulty finding jobs access to the public or private sector for between three and six months, after which time they find themselves once again on the social scrapheap of unemployment-a situation from which no honourable member of this House can draw any comfort or satisfaction? Ultimately we must create, through direct government support of the private sector, opportunities for individuals to increase their productivity and reduce costs and to increase their opportunities to improve the level of employment. The whole effort by the Government to use the public sector for the creation of jobs, such as the 6,500 extra public servants, as well as what little may be done to assist the private sector in this regard, is limited by one fundamental point, namely, that there will be a risk of a rise in interest rates and inflation if economic policy proceeds along the lines directed by the present Government. There will be pressure on wages and hence there will be difficulties if our industry remains uncompetitive. Declining business investment and weaker consumer spending will also have a major effect in relation to taxation. Meanwhile we see in other sectors-specifically the farming sector-that there have been significant increases in meat inspection charges, decreases in assistance to forestry and fishing and decreases in specific assistance to pastoral and agricultural industries. But, of course, the biggest problem of all facing much of Australia, namely, the degradation of our land-soil erosion- received the most ungenerous subvention of exactly $1m. The Treasurer has admitted that, of all of the problems facing Australia, unemployment must be seen as the primary one. But he has also stated that it will not decline next year. The Treasury Papers predict that a further 140,000 people, on average, will be receiving the employment benefit over the remainder of the financial year. The Government has therefore adopted an ad hoc approach to many important issues which will affect fundamentally the Australian community. These include an assets test on pensioners, changes to superannuation taxation and additional taxes on fuel and fortified wines-the latter tax has now been cut by 50 per cent due to an error in the Budget. These are just a few examples of the measures introduced as part of the Budget. They are worth mentioning because these are areas where the Government has already had to reassess its actions and, in some cases, even to reverse policies. The assets test for pensioners, which has been the cause of such major concern, is a prime example of the chaotic and insensitive approach that the Labor Government has taken. The Government claims that the assets test will stop the greedy and the wealthy pensioners receiving the full pension and other assistance. What the Government has forgotten in its glorious test is that many thousands of pensioners do not even own their own homes. That has not been taken into account. Pensioners should be encouraged to have savings which they legitimately keep for their long term independence and wellbeing. Those people now find themselves being discriminated against because they are not traditional home owners. Many honourable members of this House would confirm that evidence. I have received it from many of my own constituents. Furthermore, pensioners who have put their savings into a holiday home or a piece of land, or have saved up for their children so that they in turn can build, are to be regarded as greedy. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat)(4.17) —Firstly, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on his first Budget. I would also like to welcome to the Gallery some friends of mine from Kyneton Sacred Heart College -a very fine school. There is no doubt that this Budget has enjoyed much wider acceptance than any other Budget in recent years. This was mentioned by the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Bilney) this morning. We recognise-as I think any government recognises-that because of the perspectives which a government has to have and the depth of understanding which it must apply, there will be some sections in the community who will not be quite as elated as others about the Budget. But this will always be the case. I believe that because of that it would be quite unjust to make judgments about people who might feel aggrieved. Before I continue I would like to make one point with respect to the address by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), the previous speaker. He commented that the public debt interest estimate for 1983-84 was 22.4 per cent of the proportion of total outlays. I suggest that he would be wise to pay stricter attention to the statements accompanying the Budget because the figure is actually 7.3 per cent. The general recognition that this is a good Budget is not really surprising. The Budget is aimed at ensuring that there is some directional change, but this has been done without placing further pressure upon an already hard pressed economy. Also, this is not a divisive Budget. This is in keeping with the philosophic stance of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), as portrayed in the decision to call the National Economic Summit Conference on assuming office. I believe that the Prime Minister deserves congratulations on that initiative. It would have been quite impossible to set in train the necessary co-operative planning projects in this nation without such a Conference. It is a very sad but a real legacy of the previous Government that the industrial climate we inherited was one of conflict, suspicion, bitterness and division. That Government's only response was to invoke punitive action upon unions. I cannot say how successful will be the thrust towards consensus. Enormous good will and the subjugation of self-interest will be required. But without commitment to this change of direction, the future of our nation will be bleak indeed. This is a moderate Budget, yet it has received the usual predictable response from the Opposition. It is a ritualistic reaction. The Opposition has obviously felt obliged to oppose the Budget irrespective of its merits. I can understand this reaction. Leaving aside established tradition, the political characteristics of this Opposition need to be understood. It has a peculiar mix of conservative and liberal philosophies, with a heavy dose of reactionaries, opportunists and populists in its ranks. Nevertheless, the contrived posturing of horror and outrage is predictable. Some honourable members opposite have reacted with what has all the outward signs of apoplexy. They have strenuously striven to achieve a high state of hysteria. It should not come as any great surprise to us that the peak of this hysteria was reached in prime broadcasting time. Unfortunately, hamming it up has become the last line of defence of this remnant Opposition, thrashing around in a desperate bid to find a cause that might give it a credible image in the eyes of the electorate. The Opposition is still reeling, I suggest, from its electoral defeat on 5 March and more recently from the collapse of the appallingly anti-democratic coalition in Queensland. In the best of all possible worlds, the Government would love to have brought down perhaps a different Budget; but sadly, the economic climate and the disgraceful legacy of a disastrous 1982-83 Liberal Budget deficit were facts that had to be faced. Most Australians recognise the truth of that statement. Because we are part of the world community, we stand to suffer with the rest of the world the hardship of decline in its economy. What is worse, we are not as well placed as we should be to pull ourselves out of the depression. Under the administration of conservative governments we have grown less able to cope with the necessary changes required to regain prosperity and to maintain it. For too many years we have been too dependent upon our physical resources, by way of both primary industry exports and minerals developments. Both of these sectors are extremely important, but we have undervalued and devalued the most precious resource that we have-namely, the brain power of the nation's youth. The combination of our peculiarly Australian tendency to suspect the intellectual high flyer and to enshrine mediocrity, together with a superficial and immature approach to the question of sound economic and industrial planning, have left us poorly placed to face the ever-present threat to traditional work models and the changing technological impact upon traditional industries. We cannot afford to continue to thrash around groping for answers which we hope will enable us to maintain the mythical status quo. I just do not believe that we have a future as a prosperous nation unless we can change our attitudes towards constitutional change, the relationship between industry and government, and the relationship between management and labour. In all, we shall require more co-operation between the States and the Commonwealth, with an emphasis upon national rather than more parochial State, sectional and regional interests, more co-operative planning between the Government and industry to facilitate more rapid change in the national interest where desirable and necessary, and the breaking down of the differences between management and labour through genuinely shared ownership of enterprises and a shared responsibility for decision-making. Unless we are determined to improve the situation in each of these areas, there is little likelihood that we shall achieve any long term prosperous future for this country. As I said earlier, the Budget we have before us has been formulated in very difficult times. We are faced with the highest unemployment figure for half a century, we are an ageing population, and we have a rising number of other needy sections of our community. Therefore, we had no choice but to give a high priority to welfare needs. We certainly make no apology for that. In this initial Budget of the Hawke Government, we have been unable to complete all of our desired programs. In most instances we have only begun the process. The measures announced will not meet with universal approval, as I have said, but the Government deserves credit for its courage in making decisions based upon need which will be perhaps unpopular with some. The Government recognises that in some areas, such as the proposed introduction of an assets test on pensions, there will need to be a lengthy process of consultation and discussion with interested groups before it is put into place. My colleague the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) has indicated that that will be undertaken. After years of mismanagement by timid, reactionary and crudely populist governments, it will take time to redress some of the injustices and the unfairness that have developed in our system of resource distribution. After all , the previous Government and its predecessors of like conservative disposition have been the willing collaborators with the forces of privilege in this country to contrive legislation and other measures, some achieved by default, to entrench the interests of the greedy at the expense of the welfare of the needy. Like one of those vast super-tankers, the ship of state just cannot be easily turned in another direction. People have been conditioned to accept the legitimacy of preferential treatment for the privileged wealthy. The values and aspirations of the greedy have been portrayed as virtues and held up as examples for all to own. For many the goals derived from these values are unattainable. The result is not just disappointment but a sense of failure and the development of bitterness. There is something obscene in the normalisation of greed. Masquerading in the garb of the respectable doctrine of reward for one's efforts, greed has been used to excuse all manner of dubious activity. Even during the debate on the bottom of the harbour legislation in 1982, some members of the Liberal-National Party coalition at the time advanced the extraordinary viewpoint that it did not really matter that the perpetrators of those schemes should not be brought to account, because the money returned to circulation. Labor came to office in this climate of conservative moral turpitude. My electorate of Ballarat has suffered seriously from the neglect of the previous Government in its seven tragic years of office. Industry confidence declined. For instance, engineering works which for decades had been a major claim to fame of Maryborough and Ballarat have had to reduce their work forces alarmingly. Most of these workers are highly skilled and some are paying off their own houses. The housing industry suffered a most serious decline in activity during this period. It is to be hoped that with the initiatives taken by the Labor Government, activity might well be regenerated in these sectors. The housing support package, as announced by the Government, should inject funds essential to a resurgence of activity. It is of significance that where such an injection of public funds into the housing industry is made, as in Victoria, the job creation potential in that industry and related industries is clearly demonstrated. Given that official figures for unemployment in my city of Ballarat alone represent 15.05 per cent and those for Maryborough about 18 per cent, the need for these programs is surely obvious. These figures are a far cry from those indicated in the notorious Budget statement of the previous Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), in 1982-83. The grossly understated figures admitted at that time were totally cynical and dishonest. It demonstrated the depth of the moral abyss into which the Fraser Government had fallen. It is no wonder that the revulsion of the Australian community resulted in that Government's crushing defeat. Since that Government's aura of decadence has affected the Australian people's faith in government in general, the Labor Government has been required to repair this damage. We have also had to raise the vision of government in the light of our knowledge of demographic data which show the aging state of the Australian population, the reducing work force overall, and the reducing work force in manufacturing industry in particular. We are all by now fully aware of these statistics. Some of these are well known statistics and they make startling reading. Twenty years ago there were 11 people working for each person on a pension. Today there are four people working for each person on a pension. By the year 2000 there will be an estimated 2.5 to 3 people working for each person on a pension. These are alarming figures. What is more, it is anticipated that not only will more people be receiving pensions but that they will be receiving them for much longer periods. Unless we begin now to ensure that the welfare dollar is distributed according to genuine need through the departments of Social Security, Veterans' Affairs, Housing and Construction, and Health, the nation will face a major financial crisis by the end of this century. It is a pity that the previous Government allowed the situation to get out of hand and lacked the conviction and the courage to rectify these problems. The Government, therefore, has had to give some emphasis to this direction. As I have already said, some specific interest groups will no doubt be aggrieved because of our pressing and immediate priorities. I feel very sympathetic to the cause of many of these people, but in the face of an enormous inherited deficit situation, not all policy goals could be achieved. Certainly not all of them could be pursued even in the first year. Mr Deputy Speaker, you may recall that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) did indicate before the election that if the Budget deficit for 1982-83 turned out to be significantly higher than the then Treasurer was prepared to admit, a number of our policy promises would have to be trimmed or postponed. The dissembling or worse descended to at the time by the then Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong, is now history. The deficit blew out from $1,670m to $9,600m. I should like to mention several measures of special significance to me which were announced in the Budget. This Budget provided special assistance to families and children. In particular, it was pleasing to see that family allowances were maintained. The Government is committed to assisting needy families. It was heartening to note that payments for children of pensioners and other social security beneficiaries will rise by 20 per cent to $12 per week for each child. This is the first such rise since 1980. The increase of $21m in the funding allocation for children's services indicates the Government's commitment to children. Children and their parents in Kyneton and Maryborough will benefit from the much needed grants for child care centres in those two communities. The Government decision to increase allocations for emergency relief is certainly to be welcomed. The $5m currently granted for this purpose is 10 times that of the previous Government's Budget. That an extra $2m was given just before the election indicates the rather callous disregard of that Government and the use which it was prepared to make of an election. I would not be surprised if more assistance is required in this area before the year is out because of the enormous difficulty voluntary organisations are having meeting these demands. I have been approached by representatives of a number of welfare agencies in my electorate of Ballarat who have virtually exhausted their resources in the service of our needy people. The final initiative of the Government in the Budget to which I would like to refer is the spouse carer's pension. This will make it possible for men to care for their chronically needy, aged and invalid pensioner spouse. I have a considerable number of such people in my electorate so I know just how important that initiative will be. Before I conclude my remarks I would like to mention a couple of things. The first is the Government's determination to put in place a universal health scheme. One must not let this pass. We are doing this very early in our term because of our determination to ensure that the fear of financial disaster for those who suffer from ill health does not occur. I know, and I suppose most honourable members who are concerned about their electorates would know, that under the previous Government's health scheme many people suffered enormous bills because they were not able to afford health cover. If they or members of their family had to go to hospital they found themselves suffering from enormous costs. Mr Chynoweth —It is a shame. Mr MILDREN —It is a shame. The job creation programs as announced under the provisions of the community employment project will save many people from disastrous long term effects of unemployment. It is interesting that members of the Opposition are so critical of these schemes. They know what they are for. We recognise that if people are out of work for extended periods they lose much of dignity and self-esteem. We also recognise that it would be marvellous to be able to create these jobs on a full time basis. That is what we are doing with our housing scheme. We are injecting money into the housing industry because we know that that creates full time jobs. It is to be hoped that all those jobs will assist the people who are currently the long term unemployed. The Budget cleans out some of the dead wood and removes some of the injustices created by the previous Government. It also makes certain changes in provisions which point the way to the future. The future must not depend upon the continued sacrifices of the needy. Rather, it is encumbent upon all those Australians who care for social justice to limit their material aspirations and to be prepared to make sacrifices because we will be in difficult times for many years to come. We want all those people who are concerned about social justice to give their consideration to those three to four million people in the Australian community who suffer from deprivation and the invidious effects of unemployment. We ask people to be prepared to share their wealth and their privileges so that others might also gain the benefits of this great nation. Debate (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) adjourned. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —by leave-During Question Time today I told the House that the Roxby Downs joint venture partners had not yet sought development approval. That statement was based on information provided to me today by my Department. I have since been informed that the joint venturers wrote to the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) on 1 July advising that they had environmental approval from the South Australian Government and foreign investment approval from the previous Commonwealth Government and were seeking development approval. Senator Walsh in reply said that the Government would consider the matter. I understand that Western Mining Corporation Ltd has not sought approval to negotiate contracts based on mining from Roxby Downs and that it is unlikely to do so before mid-1984 at the earliest. Western Mining has also advised that it has no difficulty with the framework for consultations and decision with the party and the Government to which I referred in the House today. I am indebted for the agreement to allow me to make that statement. I regret that on the basis of the information that had been provided to me the statement I made was not entirely accurate. I have taken this first opportunity of putting the position accurately before the House. (Budget Debate) Debate resumed. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(4.38) —On the night the Budget was delivered I said its strategy was extremely risky. Events since that night have confirmed the validity of that criticism. It is a criticism which has been echoed throughout the community and in recent days by two of our major financial institutions. In this Budget the Government has chosen an approach which involves high risks and will delay our recovery for a longer period than should otherwise have been the case. The Budget sets the wrong course for Australia. It fails to maximise the benefits which can flow from the United States of America recovery and it fails to lay the groundwork for a rise in private sector investment and employment growth. The most lethal criticism of all is that this Budget totally stands or falls by the very definition of its authors on the success or failure of the prices and incomes accord. No fair assessment of the 1983-84 Budget will deny that the Government faced a very tough job in assembling it. The depressed state of the Australian economy due overwhelmingly to the international recession but in no small way on the domestic front to the effects of the drought and the wages explosion of 18 months ago, meant that in putting together this year's Budget the responsible options available to the Government were limited. Despite a few faint signs of recovery and despite the very welcome ending of the drought, the Australian economy remains in very deep recession. The unemployment outlook remains particularly bleak. The road back to a significantly lower level of unemployment will be a very long and difficult one indeed. That having been said, I believe the Government could and should have done better in this, its first Budget. A proper analysis of the Budget requires an examination of the background against which it was framed. For a number of years Australia swam against the international economic tide and outperformed many industrialised countries. In the late 1970s our inflation and unemployment rates were lower, and our economic growth higher, than the average of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. However, the combination of excessive increases in wage incomes far ahead of productivity and the lagged effects of the international recession upon Australia finally took its toll. The Australian economy suffered a severe slump towards the end of 1982. This produced a downturn in activity and a surge in unemployment beyond what had been anticipated by most at the time of last year's Budget. The deeper recession pushed up welfare payments and sharply reduced taxation receipts. The deterioration in the economy as the last financial year wore on contributed more than anything else to the expansion of last year's deficit beyond the initial estimate at Budget time of $1.6 billion to $4.3 billion, and not the $9. 6 billion referred to by the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren). The extent of the deterioration is illustrated by the fact that in August of last year the Treasury forecast of the likely Budget deficit for this year was only $ 4.3 billion. This point needs to be emphasised. There has been much confused debate about last year's Budget and its contribution to our present economic situation. It is true that last year's Budget was more expansionary than earlier Budgets produced by the Fraser Government. It should not, however, be forgotten that the Australian Labor Party wanted an even more expansionary Budget last year and that if its advice at that time had been taken, the framing of this year's Budget would have involved absolutely horrendous difficulties. Throughout the whole of our seven years of office, the Australian Labor Party repeatedly and consistently advocated greater government spending, larger Budget deficits and looser monetary policy. The fact, therefore, is that the Hawke Government inherited an economy and a Budget problem essentially the product of the sharp downturn which overtook the Australian economy at the end of last year . That is not to say that there were not policy failures under the previous Government. The popular criticism of the economic policies of the former Government is that they were mistakenly based upon a policy of fighting inflation first. I do not believe that such a policy is wrong. It remains, in my view, the only effective method of tackling unemployment on a permanent basis. In case those opposite imagine I am expressing an isolated view on this, they might care to hear the following from a recent issue of the London Economist in its introduction to a very well balanced review on Australia: There is now something close to a consensus- what a word to be used- in the non-communist world about the right way to deal with the economic crisis that began in the 1970s and is reaching deep into the 1980s. Since the Williamsburg Summit-- Mr Howe —Labor has-- Mr HOWARD —Wait for it; do not get too excited- in May even a reluctant Mr Mitterrand has attached himself- and he is a socialist- for the time being, to the Reagan-Thatcher-Kohl-Nakasone prescription. The consensus is that it is first and foremost necessary to bring inflation under control and keep it under control. Any attempt to re-expansion has to fit into that priority. Control of inflation requires rigorous restraint both on government spending (with the exception, big in America but modest elsewhere, for some more defence spending) and on wage increases. That is not a bad quotation from a highly respected international journal. The error of the former Government was not that its policy was wrong, but that on occasions the policy was pursued with insufficient zeal and enthusiasm. However, it is quite clear that if the economic alternatives offered by the Labor Party when it was in opposition had been embraced by the Fraser Government, the problems faced by the new Labor Administration would have been infinitely greater. Not only does this Budget lack an effective anti-inflationery strategy, but worse still, it is based upon a prices and incomes accord which, even if successful, will produce higher unemployment, and if unsuccessful, which appears highly likely, will produce an even bleaker jobs outlook. From the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) down, members of the Government have repeatedly admitted that if the prices and incomes accord does not succeed, then the strategy of the Budget will be totally inappropriate. It is therefore absolutely crucial to know exactly what is happening to the prices and incomes accord. But that is not the end of the matter. Even if the prices and incomes accord does hang together, the Budget offers no hope of lower unemployment and does not of itself contribute to the projected reduction in inflation this financial year. In fact I believe that the best thing economically the Hawke Government will have going for it this financial year will be the continuing benefits of the wage pause which it has so prematurely and needlessly terminated. In this context I quote from the annual report of the Reserve Bank of Australia tabled on the day of the Budget, where it said, in describing what happened to the Australian economy last year: As production declined and unemployment rose dramatically, the link between wage increases and the level of employment became increasingly apparent, more responsible attitudes towards wage demands developed and there was widespread support for the pause in wages from about the middle of the year. This contributed to a lessening of inflationary pressure and a slowing in the loss of jobs. In case any honourable member believes that the Reserve Bank's annual report is an apologia for the policies of the Fraser Government, let me remind the House that the present Prime Minister was himself a member of the Board of the Reserve Bank for five years and that the report from which I have quoted was delivered to his Government. The Government is wrong to be returning to full wage indexation in present circumstances. The Australian economy simply cannot afford it. Full wage indexation will provide higher wage rises than could possibly result from a free market for labour. This must mean that unless there is a spectacular and totally unforeseen increase in economic growth, higher unemployment will result. It is an indisputable fact that at a time of falling national income the choices are clear. Either the fall in national income is distributed amongst those who have jobs, with each taking a little less in real income, or alternatively all of the fall is translated into a higher level of unemployment with those left in jobs either maintaining their real incomes or experiencing a lesser reduction. There is no alternative. The Opposition is not alone in arguing this way. It is a view widely held by many economists, endorsed by the OECD and recognised as a fact of life by the Australian business community. It is true that there has already been a reduction in real incomes over recent months which has partly offset the unaffordable wage rises of 18 months ago. However, the point has to be understood that the state of the economy and the level of unemployment are such that unless there is a further reduction in real incomes of those in work and an absolute rejection of any notion of catch-up, more people will be thrown out of work. It will only be when the economy resumes growing at 5 per cent or more a year that we could possibly contemplate a policy of real wage maintenance without the prospect of higher unemployment. That is why the Opposition condemns the Government's support for full wage indexation in present circumstances. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) continue to whistle through the graveyard about the prices and incomes accord. The facts do not justify their optimism. The agreements in the building industry cannot be reconciled with the prices and incomes accord, nor can agreements reached in the food industry. To compound matters, Mr Dolan said a few days ago that the food preservers should get the anticipated 4.3 per cent increase, which, presumably, the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission will hand down tomorrow, on top of any sectional claim won by them within their own industry. The bullying ultimatum delivered by the Australian Council of Trade Unions to the Arbitration Commission last week shows what little give and take exists in relation to the accord, which is supposed to be built upon acceptance of the umpire's decision. The Prime Minister derives obvious pleasure from what he regards as full support from the Australian business community for his economic policies. He ought to stop deluding himself. Much of the euphoria of the National Economic Summit Conference has gone as successive decisions of the Government have fallen short of the formal commitments to economic rectitude given at the Summit and repeated by the Prime Minister overseas. There is a growing belief throughout the business community that the prices and incomes accord will not succeed. The Australian Chamber of Commerce has said that the Government is taking an enormous risk in budgeting for a mammoth deficit and has warned the Government not to be misled by media views that the business community uncritically accepts the Budget strategy. The Westpac Banking Corporation has said that the prices and incomes accord shows signs of cracking. The Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia has condemned the Budget strategy as a gamble that Australia can perhaps ill afford at this time. The National Farmers Federation described the Federal Budget as an opportunity lost and criticised the Government for not pruning the deficit further. The Confederation of Australian Industry said the Budget did not give enough stimulus for the private sector. The National Australia Bank has also condemned the riskiness of the Budget. This hardly represents ringing applause from the business community for the economic policies of the Hawke Government. The Opposition believes the Government should have continued the wage pause at least until the end of this year and at the very most should have returned to partial wage indexation in 1984. This would have made a much greater contribution towards stemming the loss of jobs than will the path chosen by the Government. The Prime Minister could easily have used the undoubted authority and goodwill of a newly elected Prime Minister to secure an extension of the wage pause. The Opposition does not believe that the wage pause could have been continued in perpetuity. That has never been our position. We have always recognised it to have been an emergency initiative in an emergency situation. I have indicated before that I believe we need a more flexible and market- sensitive system of wage fixation than has ever prevailed in the past in Australia. I do not believe that we can prevent the recurrence of a wages explosion unless we are to overturn the principle of comparative wage justice which has been at the heart of our wage fixation system for so many years. It is inconceivable that if economic recovery occurs those in the community who can secure wage increases above the average will not do so. They have always done so in the past. They will do so again in the future. The Government's wage fixation system will not stop this happening. What will be wrong, however, will be the transmission of those above-average increases via a rigid wage fixing system to the rest of the work force and into areas where industry is clearly unable to meet increased wages and salaries. Until we have greater flexibility and until we have a system which recognises the great variation in the capacity of various firms throughout this country to pay, we are doomed to repeat some of the mistakes and failures of the past. Despite the attempts of the Government to portray the Budget as disciplined and responsible, it is undeniably based upon a very expansionary fiscal approach. The Budget deficit represents 4.7 per cent of gross domestic product. The total public sector borrowing requirement will be between 8 and 9 per cent in 1983-84. This is the largest public sector borrowing requirement for more than a quarter of a century. Over the seven years of the Fraser Government the average increase in spending in real terms each year was less than 2 per cent. Spending in this the first Labor Budget will rise by no less than 7 1/2 per cent in real terms. The deficit will exceed last year's deficit by more than $4,000m. The Budget deficit should not have been more than $7,000m. The hypocrisy and sheer dishonesty of the Government's repeated claims over many months that it inherited a difficult fiscal position as a result of the former Government's alleged deceit is totally disproved by the Budget figuring. This is not just because its revised growth figures from the unreal levels that were used in the March forecast have added $1.4 billion to revenue. Moreover, the Government claims to have excised $1,200m of spending from a continuation of the former Government's expenditure programs. One would have imagined, given the repeated expressions of concern, that those savings would have been applied to a reduction in the Budget deficit. But no, having saved $1,200m the Government proceeded to spend an additional $2,500m on programs of its own. That single act gives the lie to so much of what the Government has said over recent months. It is ironic indeed that if the Government had not spent that additional $2,500m this year's deficit would have been almost precisely $6,000m, a figure frequently derided by the Government in recent months. The Government has not laid the groundwork in this Budget to reduce the size of the structural deficit. The Government has indulged itself in a grand delusion about recent falls in interest rates. They are undoubtedly welcome, particularly in the housing area. However, it cannot be disputed that interest rates have fallen for the wrong reasons. They have not fallen as a result of the superb economic management of the Hawke Government. They have not fallen because the Government has reduced its demands on our money markets for finance. They have fallen because of the depressed state of the Australian economy, combined with a very relaxed monetary policy. However, a reversal of interest rate sentiment abroad, particularly in the United States, or a revival of business demand for funds here in Australia- which, after all, is meant to be the goal of the Government's economic policy- will lead to a re-emergence of upward pressure on interest rates. The Budget has been built upon a prices and incomes accord which is already crumbling. It has not created the conditions for increased private sector investment so crucial to economic and employment growth. It has in many respects worsened the risks which now confront the Australian economy. Such is the delicate balance of those risks that the Government has admitted that if the world economic recovery is stronger than presently forecast our position will be in even greater peril. In other words, if the world does better we could well do worse. There could be no sharper judgment on the inadequacy of the Government's approach. Mr Deputy Speaker, I therefore move: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst not opposing the passage of the Bill, the House- (1) rejects the Budget strategy because it takes excessive risks with the Australian economy by depending on the crumbling wages accord with the unions and, even if successful, will result in- (a) increased unemployment; (b) inflation rates more than double those of our major trading partners; (c) upward pressure on real interest rates; (d) an increase in the structural public sector deficit at the expense of the private sector, and (e) further severe falls in private sector investment, and (2) condemns the Government for having persistently made false promises of tax cuts and other benefits which it is now breaking in this Budget'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Sinclair —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak at a later stage in this debate. Mr CHYNOWETH(Flinders)(4.59) —I am extremely pleased to note that the science and technology portfolio will receive a total appropriation of $574,193,000 in the 1983-84 Budget. The appropriation represents an increase of approximately $ 22.5m over the funds provided in the 1982-83 Budget and ensures that funds are allocated according to the needs and aspirations of the community. At the same time increased encouragement is being given to technical innovation and the efficient development of Australian research programs. The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) has stated that the major thrust for the development of the sunrise industries must come through industrial research and development. Therefore, significantly increased support has been provided to the Australian industrial research and incentive scheme. More than $71m is being allocated to this scheme in the 1983-84 Budget compared with only $54m in 1982- 83. Included in this allocation is $45.5m for specific research and development grants, incorporating funding for approved projects under the national biotechnology program and support to specific software programs. The national biotechnology program has been established to promote the development of biotechnology industries through the support of selected high quality biotechnology research and development programs, especially those having commercial potential. The 1983-84 Budget contained an allocation of $1.5m as the research grants component. The total Budget appropriation for biotechnology programs is $12.2m. This clearly demonstrates the Government's resolve to expand the economy through the development of sunrise industries. Mr Barry Jones —That is a minimum, too. Mr CHYNOWETH —Yes. The Australian Labor Party identified 16 areas with the greatest potential for growth and development. These areas were termed sunrise industries. All are brain-based industries rather than industries based on physical finite resources. All these sunrise industries depend on the exploitation of existing capacities in research and craftsmanship. The Government is confident that, with relatively modest sums, it can stimulate investment from the private sector and create new industries with world-wide potential. The 16 sunrise industries are: Biotechnology, personal computers, software, computer chips, scientific instrumentation, medical technology, lasers , communication technology, industrial ceramics, solar energy cells, the development of shape-memory alloys, fusion, robots, intermediate technology projects, hydrogen generation and storage and biomass. The Government has been consistent with its science and technology Budget allocation as it directly reflects the policies that were put in place for the March 1983 election. I commend the initiative displayed by the Minister for Science and Technology in being so far-sighted as to see the need for Australians to take their place in the world of technological innovation while they still can. I also commend the Government for making a decision to implement the report of the Espie Committee on High Technology Financing in giving tax relief to high technology industry. To be in the front line of technological advance is certainly preferable to consuming other countries' old technology, especially today when it is too easy to be left behind by not initiating, investing in and supporting research programs in Australia. As the Minister has aptly stated: Seven years of Fraserism has led to a disastrous running down of Australia's technological capacity. Almost without exception, high technology industries are in foreign hands. Technologically, we were approaching the status of a Third World nation. Sweden, with half Australia's population, sells us cars, trucks, chemicals, telecommunications equipment, ball bearings, cameras and sewing machines but we sell it nothing. How much longer can we afford to have such an insular and narrow view of technological advance and funding? Again I commend the Government on trying to bring Australian technological research out of the dark ages and towards the twenty-first century. As I am a member of the Australian Robot Association I take particular interest in robots being included in the list of sunrise industries. The importance of robots can be grasped when I indicate that, whilst computers can manipulate only data or information, robots extend computers by having the ability to manipulate physical objects as well. Robots, commercially available within the next decade, will be able to accomplish at least half the tasks now performed manually in manufacturing. An industrial robot is a device that can be programmed to move some gripper or tool through space to accomplish a useful task. These robots are typically programmed by recording each task as a series of points in space. This recording is then simply replayed whenever the task is to be performed. This simple procedure is adequate to perform a surprising number of industrial tasks, such as the spot welding of automobile bodies, tending diecasting machines, loading and unloading machines, and spray painting. Robots can perform a wide variety of material handling tasks. Australia has about 200 robots in operation. At present there are about 5,000 industrial robots in use in the United States of America, the number having increased by about 30 per cent in 1981 alone. That represents about 15,000 jobs taken by these machines. Robots are being produced in the United States at present at a rate of about 1,500 a year. It is predicted that this figure will grow to between 20,000 and 60,000 robots a year by 1990. A number of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development studies have projected a growth in the utilisation of robots from 2 per cent in 1981 to 60 per cent in 1990. Right now, with currently available robots, the potential market for them is between 100,000 to 200,000 units. Robots will rapidly replace assembly line workers. Only about 5 per cent to 10 per cent of the work force will still hold manufacturing jobs in 25 years time- roughly the same percentage engaged in agriculture today. It is interesting to draw a comparison between the growth of robots and the explosive growth of computers. The number of computers grew from zero to 10,000 between 1946 and 1960 and from 10,000 to 10,000,000 between 1960 and 1980. I believe that robotics will experience a similar growth. By 1990 the cost of a robot could fall from about $40,000 to $10,000. Running costs could fall-I stress this figure-as low as $1 an hour as compared with an estimated human running cost of $30 an hour. Service industries have provided many jobs in recent times. Microprocessors and robots will move into these areas very quickly. Once robots become intelligent enough to set up and assemble their own work, productivity will improve and more human workers will be sacked. When robots become clever enough to look at the job and figure out where to put the weld, how to tighten the bolt or adjust the screw, et cetera, productivity will improve even more. Robots will be able to work nights and weekends-four shifts a week-completely without human supervision. At that point productivity will improve vastly over our present methods. During the 1990s robots will enter the construction trades under the tutelage of a human master craftsperson. Robots will carry materials, lift and position walls and floor panels, cut boards, lay bricks, paint and dig drains. Eventually I foresee that robots will be used in some of the following areas: Farming, nursing, mining, food preparation, military service, undersea exploration, space exploration, mining and manufacture, security services, supermarket stock counting and checkout and road building. These are only some of the areas that will be affected. The areas in which they will work are limited only by our own imagination. Australia, because of its innovativeness and expertise in the field of engineering and electronics, can move towards the manufacture of these silicon slaves. Australia could easily be to the forefront of this new technology. The robotics industry could employ more people than the motor industry. Sophisticated robotics is still a long term research topic. We are still a long way from a sensory, interactive, intelligent, highly skilled, dextrous, economically feasible and commercially manufactured robot, but we must plan and act now. We certainly need to list robotics as a sunrise industry. We also need to know the future impact on society of the introduction of robots. The first industrial revolution drew people away from the land and concentrated them in urban industrial communities. The robot revolution will free human beings from the pressures and congestions of urbanisation and allow them to choose their own lifestyle from a much wider variety of possibilities. We must be mindful, I believe, that we continue to fund robot technology research and manufacture and that we are able to guide its introduction into the work force so as to maximise its effect on productivity and at the same time minimise its effect on existing levels of human employment and, therefore, the complete fabric of society in general. With the Federal Labor Government addressing itself so diligently to the problems of unemployment and with new trends in unemployment being revealed, we need to get these two questions in balance. One solution may be the introduction of a technology tax on robots and similar people-deploying technology. This would be to offset any deployment of labour which will arise from their increasing use throughout our society. The premise behind this concept of a technology tax-the buzzword is 'tech tax'-is that even where technological change can be seen demonstrably to benefit society as a whole, some people are harmed by the introduction of new technology. My concern arises from the fact that robots will not be consumers in society. They will not contribute to payroll tax, to income tax or in any way to the general revenue of the country. This can be demonstrated in this very simple statement: Robots do not wear shoes. With these facts on one side, coupled with the fact that the cost of running and manufacturing robots will continue to decrease significantly in the future as our technological expertise in robotics increases, we will eventually produce robots that can work virtually 24 hours a day, seven days a week, without overtime, penalty rates, taxes and so on ever being incurred. With this in mind, I feel that if a technology tax were levied according to the memory capacity of different robots it would somewhat reflect the taxation society today; that is, those performing more diverse and responsible tasks gain greater remuneration commensurate with their work and, therefore, pay higher levels of tax according to a higher salary scale. I suggest that if the Government considered this 'tech tax' proposal on these silicon slaves revenue raised from it could be directly channelled into job creation projects, creative training and retraining programs, and better education for all people, not just for a privileged few. These proposals must be directed towards those people who in the long term will experience some negative employment effect. There is much work to be done in this world. Robots may allow us in Australia to help many not so fortunate as ourselves. Again I commend this Appropriation Bill. I feel that as we have already successfully defined technology research areas and growth areas for the future through the identification of sunrise industries, equally we will address ourselves to planning for the future to ensure continuing and, hopefully, better levels of employment in Australian society. Let me conclude with a statement made by Wedgwood Benn which was a variation of part of a speech by Winston Churchill: In the beginning we shape our technology, but if we are not very careful in the end it will shape us. It is for the democratic process to operate to see that it does not do so in a way that damages our central rights and liberties. Technology can be our salvation or, in a few powerful and greedy hands, it can be our enslavement. Mr SINCLAIR(New England)(5.15) —I was interested to hear the contribution of the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Chynoweth). I think it unfortunate, however, that the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) behaved as he has in recent weeks with respect to the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory. I am delighted to hear that it seems as though common sense may yet prevail and that the laboratory will be able to undertake those very necessary functions which the Australian primary industries so sorely need. One only hopes that the allocation of funds now necessary to enable the laboratory to function is provided in the Budget and that today's explanation by the Minister for Science and Technology is not yet another attempt to prevent that very excellent facility at Geelong opening and proceeding on schedule. I was delighted that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) intervened as he did to ensure that the dispute between the Minister and Dr Wild of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation was resolved. Dr Wild is a very excellent scientist whose advice has been valued by successive governments. I second the amendment moved by my colleague the shadow Treasurer to the second reading motion. There is little doubt that this Budget has created concern in the two areas which I see as being of prime importance for the recovery of the Australian economy. The first is the extent to which its provisions will generate job opportunities for Australians and the second is the degree to which inflation, as a result of the high deficit and the direction of the expenditure in the Budget, is likely to be increased at a rate which will deny Australia marketing opportunities of competing competitively with those countries with whom we, a major exporter, need to trade. As far as jobs are concerned, I think the whole tactic of the Government in the development of this Budget is highly suspect. It seems to me that the economic theory which suggests that the prices and incomes accord will give the certainty of more jobs to those who are unemployed is good only so long as the accord survives. Indeed, that has already been indicated by the Treasurer (Mr Keating), by the Prime Minister, and by those within the Government who have predicated the whole of their forecasts for the future on the stability of that accord. Of course, the accord itself is extraordinarily suspect. I think it is of interest that in the edition of Australian Business published this morning the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford), who is at the table, was quoted as expressing his fears that the Government's target rate of housing may fall short because of increased costs flowing from the building industry agreement. We all know that the accord is threatened as a result of the housing industry pay settlement involving increases of $17.60 a week. We know as well that increases have been applied in the oil industry and for food processing workers. They have all been disguised as allowances. We are told that they really do not affect the accord because they are not wages. I want to direct my attention to the general state of the Budget as it affects not only the work force at large but also several people within the work force who I think are particularly disadvantaged. I think we also need to remember the manner and form of the Budget's progressive development. As honourable members will recall, we had the National Economic Summit Conference. I do not think any of us who participate in various forums around Australia at a political and non- political level could have seen a greater snow job as far as the business community was concerned. I think it is very sad that those in business were not listened to and that scenario C, to which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) referred earlier today, was not accepted. Of course, the product of the National Economic Summit was that the preferred scenario for the Government was that scenario least likely to contribute more jobs in the community. Equally, it is the scenario that is least likely to provide for those in employment a real increase in their living standards. The difficulty of this Budget, and the product of that earlier National Economic Summit, is that economic strategems have been developed which are not likely either to provide more jobs for the Australian people or to improve the living standards of those in employment, unless on the other hand the prices and incomes accord sticks and unless on the other all of the fringe perks and lurks that are now emerging as the way by which the accord will be broken are in some way removed or at least not allowed to spread. With regard to the economy, when the Government came into office it is true that two particular features made our economic performance appear far worse than it had seemed such a short time before. They were the deterioration of world economic conditions, with the state of the United States economy and with talk of very high unemployment in Europe and in countries such as Canada-which in some provinces had levels of unemployment as high as 19 per cent-and, of course, domestically the very severe drought. As a result of those two features, we suffered a level of unemployment that was totally unacceptable. We also saw an increase in inflation which prejudiced the opportunities of private business to operate profitably. From the previous Government's point of view we certainly were intent, however, in our 1982-83 Budget not only to contain inflation but also to generate opportunities for the private sector of business so that it could generate the jobs which I am afraid this Budget will fail to provide. We also, of course, provided generous drought assistance. We recognised the significant problems suffered by primary producers around Australia and the difficulties of those who were the generators of wealth. We understood the problems of the mining industry and were intent on creating an economic framework within which the community could not only generate new jobs but also overcome the economic depression from which it suffered. Following the National Economic Summit honourable members will recall that the May mini-Budget was announced. It was in the May mini-Budget that we started to see the first of the imposts which, when taken in conjunction with the product of the Budget which we are now debating, have led to significant discrimination against a number of very sensitive areas of our community. As I say, we have seen discrimination which I do not believe will either enhance employment opportunities or lead to the containment of inflation, and hence the maintenance of real living standards for those Australians in work or for their families. Three sectors seem to have been particularly discriminated against. These include the rural community-I will say something about the imposts that have affected it-and the aged. There is little doubt that the specific measures undertaken against the aged are not only discriminatory in the extreme but also completely contrary to the national superannuation scheme which on occasions we are told by members of the present Government they are intent on developing. The third area is the education of young people. With regard to the rural community, there is unfortunately a long list of measures which has prejudiced the ordinary processes of those in the rural sector. What is worse, of course, at a time when farmers are recovering from drought, is an inevitable delay between the rain and the time that they receive their first income. Those who have anything to do with rural electorates will know that while there may well be a potentially excellent crop, the extent to which that crop has been affected by rain, rust and the fact that it has not yet been harvested means that there are significant uncertainties ahead. But this Government has set aside all of those concerns. In both the mini-Budget and this Budget it has taken a series of steps which will reduce the capacity of the rural community to contribute to the domestic economic recovery. Everybody knows that while a lot of money may be generated as a result of the wheat and grain harvesters in the agricultural sector, very little of that money remains in the cockies' pockets. A very large percentage of it goes either to State or Federal governments or to the transport system. Mr Lloyd —Too much. Mr SINCLAIR —Of course, as the honourable member for Murray suggests, far too high a percentage is spread. It also goes to contribute to generating employment opportunities not only in country towns and cities but also in our major metropolises. Those same farmers are major consumers. They buy motor cars, tractors and tyres. They buy all the products necessary to sustain agriculture. Yet this Government, in this Budget and in the mini-Budget, has deliberately taken steps to reduce the capacity of those in the rural community to survive and to enable a revival of the Australian domestic economy. That is one of the highly suspect areas of the Budget stratagem to provide more jobs. The mini-Budget gave a reduction in general depreciation allowances; a removal of the tax incentive from income equalisation deposits; an increase of 2c a litre in excise on aviation fuel; the abolition of the special depreciation allowance for petrol storage; the abolition of the in-out opting provisions of the tax averaging scheme; a decrease in the amount payable under the petroleum pro- ducts freight subsidy scheme; and increased interest payments charged on Telecom Australia and Australia Post borrowings, which resulted, of course, in higher telephone and postal charges. Since then further adjustments have been made by Telecom which mean that for the first time in rural areas local people are called on to pay for local calls at a timed rate. Other measures contained in the mini-Budget were the suspension of parts of the aerodrome local ownership plan and the termination of the home deposit assistance scheme and the housing interest income tax rebate scheme. There was also a reduction in expenditure, of course, in regard to the development of the Alice Springs-Darwin railway line. On top of that, the Budget contained a number of other measures, all of which were directed at the rural community. Of course, many of them will have not only an impact directly on the rural community but also are completely contrary to the undertakings given by the present Prime Minister and members of the present Ministry prior to the last election. In this Budget only $20m was provided for wool promotion in 1983-84. The wool industry is going through a period of increased competition from synthetics. We are all aware of the general effect of the deteriorating price circumstances of the oil industry and, as a result, the extent to which the synthetic alternatives are becoming more price competitive. As a result, the lowered amount of contribution to wool promotion lessens the opportunity of the wool industry to compete and lessens the opportunity of preserving what could be a significant increase in wool earnings which, in turn, would generate jobs and flow to the rest of the community. As I say, the Budget provided only $20m for wool promotion instead of the $28m promised by the present Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) before the election. The Budget provided only $1m towards the national soil conservation program instead of the promised $4m in the first year. Honourable members will recall that the excise on fortified wine which has just been changed still leaves a totally unreasonable impost in the manner of its application. It marks, like the other two changes in the Budget since it was introduced, what I see as the inevitable uncertainty that this Government is intent on generating in major productive sectors of the economy. The excise may well now have been reduced and it could well be that the industry is better off than it thought it was; yet it is incredible that in the presentation of the reduction we are told that the amount the Government expects to take from that excise is about the same-about $ 13m this year. How could that possibly mean that the industry will be any better off? Mr Fisher —Just a slower death. Mr SINCLAIR —As the honourable member for Mallee suggests, it only means a slower death for those in the wine industry. The Budget provided for a doubling of the cost of export inspection charges for the rural industry from $18m to $ 36m-we all know what that means for those involved in the cattle industry; an increased excise on manufactured tobacco; the cutting back of the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme; the removal of tax concessions for clearing and cultivating new land and swamp drainage; removal of the sales tax exemption for oils and lubricants; an increase in and indexation of the excise on petrol and diesel fuel; and so on. That is an incredible list of specific imposts affecting the rural community. As I say, not only the rural community but also the aged have been affected by the removal of the means test which occurred in the mini-Budget. Uncertainty has been generated as a result of the introduction of an assets test; we also had the superannuation tax and the uncertainty of what that would mean. The other area of concern is schools. The discrimination that this Government is introducing against independent schools will significantly prejudice the opportunity for many people in rural areas to give their children the same education that is enjoyed by every other citizen in this country. Secondary schooling is not available as readily in the bush as it is in the city. Many children have to leave home, go away to the city and board. The changes that are being introduced by this Government are going to deny many children the opportunity to receive a normal secondary education, and that is a disgrace. In another area of prime concern changes have been made which I see as the beginning of the end of the effectiveness of Australia's defence capabilities as a result of the changes in budgeting provided by the Treasurer in his Budget of 23 August. The short-sightedness of the Government will, in my view, result in serious problems by the end of this decade and into the 1990s. A close scrutiny of the defence allocations highlights some frightening prospects. The forward spending on defence has been slashed and the Government is only honouring those capital commitments that we undertook. It would seem that the Government has failed to recognise the long term effect of its decision. It has failed to understand that without additional funds being provided for capital acquisitions for the Services manpower and operating costs will be pruned and the inevitable result will be a reduction in our defence capabilities. The Government has failed to realise the long lead time-up to eight years- needed for buying major equipment. No amount of catch-up funding by a future government can ever recoup the time lost by the inaction of this Government in this Budget. Yet it is said that the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) did well in the Budget. Pity help us if he had done badly. There is no significant new defence expenditure in this Budget. The defence shopping list provided in the Budget Papers totals about $1,100m. It makes it clear that all of that sum is for the tactical fighter, the FA18, the follow-on destroyer, the FFGs, the Orions, the Pave Tack for the F111 and so on. Only $1,025m of this sum is actually provided in the appropriations. As the Budget Papers point out funds provided are in fact below the total obligation level. It will be necessary to recoup $83.7m in Supplementary Appropriations or to take it out of funds provided for manpower or operating costs. The only alternatives would be deferring payments through foreign military sales, rescheduling some other payments or if the exchange rate moved in Australia's favour. In any event that is not the basis on which to allow for future acquisitions as there is no flexibility at all in the funds which are now provided for any new defence capital equipment. The Government has decided not to acquire an aircraft carrier and to disband its fixed wing aviation division. That is in spite of the fact that the A4s and the Tracker aircraft still have many years of useful life. Indeed the A4s are flown by many countries in our region and are needed not only in their ground defence and fleet support role but also to provide tactical exercises with aircraft that are similar to those of other nations in our region. Clearly, the Government's priorities lie in other fields. Existing forward commitments made by our Government amounted to some $5,612m. We were intent on upgrading the capital capability of the Services. Unless fresh funds are injected into the rolling program there can be no serious consideration of any new equipment in the foreseeable future. The paucity of allocations for new capital equipment is graphically demonstrated in the papers which have come before us. Department of Defence notes show that only $11m is allocated to new major equipment programs to be announced by the Minister. An appropriation of some $165m is not allocated to any particular service. Let us look at that amount. Some $95m is allocated to a large number of specific projects leaving $70m not allocated. Of this, $39m is specifically earmarked for new obligations and the remaining $30m cannot be identified. The total allocation to manpower, excluding the $110m allocated to cover future wage and salary adjustments, is $2,200m or some 43.45 per cent of the total defence vote. Last year this figure was 47 1/2 per cent of the vote. There has been a fall in the proportion of the Budget allocated to manpower and that, of course, reflects the fact that the Government is intent on reducing numbers as indeed the Budget identifies. It is also doing this through the changes that it has imposed on the Defence Force retirement and death benefits scheme and the elimination of the tax exemption on reserve forces pay. Those two measures are quite diabolic in their impact on the structure of the manpower of the armed forces. This Government is also specifically providing a lower sum of money for operating costs than was provided last year, if we take inflation into account. The result is going to be a lessened ability to maintain training standards and the overall level of corps efficiency. Whether it is defence, the aged, the young or the farmer, this Budget is directed against the citizens of this country. It will enhance inflation. It is predicated entirely on the wages accord surviving and staying in place. That accord is already fragile; it has already been broken in four select industries. I believe that this Budget, unfortunately, will increase unemployment, not reduce it, and will reduce the living standards of ordinary Australians. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(5.36) —In extraordinarily difficult circumstances the Hawke Labor Government has, in its first Budget, pursued its major commitments to start Australia on the road to recovery. Australia needs new policies to initiate and sustain permanent economic recovery. They must be both short term- to make sure that no one is hurt in the changeover-and long term policies, fashioning policies and actions to meet the needs of a new technology. We in the Labor Government are moving to meet both challenges. Manpower and training policies are at the crux of social and economic recovery in Australia. We on this side of the chamber reap the bitter harvest of mismanagement sown by the Fraser Government-unemployment and inflation at double digit figures. I note that the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) is appalled at the fact that we do have double digit figures of unemployment and inflation. I point out that this situation developed from the beginning of the 1960s under a conservative government. The policy dilemma arising from this situation stems from the fact that past governments controlled inflation by policies which reduced economic activity and thus deliberately created unemployment. It is obvious that the budgetary, monetary and exchange rate policies used to tackle unemployment or inflation in years past no longer work. Statistics show that it would now take a far greater level of unemployment to keep inflation at a certain level than was the case in 1970 or indeed in 1960. Using a controlled pool of unemployed people-not statistics but people out of work-as a tool to influence the economy has never been morally justifiable while there were other means of maintaining a healthy environment which is admittedly essential for the continuity of jobs. While there did exist another pool of affluent people who were deliberately defrauding the Government by large scale tax avoidance and evasion there were other means of achieving the desired results. Moral considerations aside, if ever they can be put aside, the use of these traditional levers to stimulate the level of economic growth in the situation we have inherited and in the absence of other policies would inevitably lead to higher inflation which would in turn prevent that sustained economic recovery and substantially reduced unemployment which are our aims and our overriding priorities. While we as a government were restrained from moving along expansionary lines to the extent that we as a party of social reform would have wished, we nonetheless have taken the first important steps on the road to recovery. A successful prices and incomes accord is, of course, basic to a sustained long term recovery. The basis of that success is some confidence, confidence which should be instilled in the people and the businesses of Australia by members of this representative Parliament. While we on this side of the chamber are doing our bit to substantiate and back policies which will lead this confidence and lead this recovery, I am appalled at the point of view taken by members of the Opposition who were nothing but destructive today in their comments on this Budget. This Government has in its first six months in office clearly demonstrated its commitment to implementing its side of the accord. The re-endorsement of the accord as the basis of the Australian Council of Trade Unions economic policy at its Congress in Melbourne last week added another rung to the ladder leading out of recession. The heartening positive response of the people of Australia to a Budget which strives to ensure that those people who have been suffering bitterly in the midst of our once affluent nation and who should now, have so relief as a priority provides the other rung. With such Australians, we must succeed. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said earlier in this debate that the Government is taking risks in this Budget. The party to which the honourable member belongs does not really mind taking risks; it is just that he would prefer that the risks be taken by lower income Australians. While in government he did not mind gambling with people's jobs. He thinks it is the right of the affluent to enjoy games of chance with the Commissioner of Taxation, as long as they do not get caught. Australia's big time tax avoiders enjoyed a prolonged hey day under the Fraser Government. The honourable member for Bennelong also said that Australia cannot afford full wage indexation. What we cannot afford is continuing large scale tax avoidance. If the honourable member for Bennelong were on the level he would have supported Government legislation to recoup much of the $6 billion lost to Australia because of his past inactivity. He did not move to recoup any of this money until forced to do so by the revelations of the report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. He voices concern that more people will be thrown out of work. It is a pity that he did not feel that concern a few years earlier. Little he and other members of the Opposition care about people out of jobs. In government they refused point blank to change from the perilous course on which their outdated policies had placed Australia-a course leading directly down to our worst recession in 50 years. How dare he comment on the size of the deficit, when if he were now in government, on the basis of the figures given to us he would have a deficit of at least $2 billion more. It is a matter of a decrepit, outcast, past government now calling for results which it was not able to achieve. I was likewise unimpressed by the comments of the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair). He sees the accord as suspect. He implies that the workers of Australia will not co-operate with the Government. He suggests that the highly regarded and intelligent business people who participated in the National Economic Summit Conference were tricked by a snow job. No wonder his party when in government failed so resoundingly. He could not instil job confidence in the heir apparent to a senile monarch. On the other hand, we in the Labor Government are proud of the extent to which we have been able to offer expansionary policy to the Australian people. I remind you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that because this Government inherited an economy undergoing its worst recession in 50 years with nearly 750,000 people unemployed -an increase of 263,000 on the number unemployed in the previous 12 months-and with an inflation rate at 11.5 per cent, more than double the average of the countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, we have been prevented from implementing our full program immediately. This has been distressing. It has been suggested that we used the inherited deficit as an excuse for not fully implementing our policies of social reform. What party in its right mind would choose to put forward an excuse for not implementing policies rather than use the money which it expected would be in the Treasury to implement the policies it was planning in opposition? Our key task must be to facilitate a sustained recovery that wears away the unacceptably high levels of unemployment we are now experiencing. This Budget is about meeting crisis needs until the economy lifts. We can all feel the benefit. Meanwhile, even with that scenario, I would like to give a brief rundown of some of the increased expenditure that we, as a government of social reform, have managed. Our first priority is jobs and training. Expenditure on jobs and training will increase by a massive 110 per cent over last year to $733m. These funds will be allocated as follows: $300m to the community employment program to create up to 40,000 new jobs for the long term unemployed and other disadvantaged groups; $100m to generate jobs for about 10,000 unemployed people under the wage pause program; and $333m, an increase of 35.7 per cent, for other labour force programs and services. Queensland is to receive $41,268,000 under the community employment program. Overall, expenditure on jobs and training for 1983-84 will be $958m ultimately benefiting 300,000 people annually. In addition , over the next five years $100m will create 500 to 600 jobs a year in the steel industry. This Government is interested in facts and figures rather than a negative knocking of Australian governments, Australian business people and Australian unions. We are putting forward positive policies setting us on the road to recovery and putting the unemployed people first-on the top of our list of priorities. Until we came to government unemployed people had been right at the botton of the list, for political expediency. It is well known amongst politicans that many young, unemployed people who are thoroughly dissillusioned with society and with any government do not enrol on the electoral roll and therefore do not vote at general elections. It would take an entirely cynical government to fashion its policies for trendy, more affluent people rather than be willing to put money towards alleviating the plight of unemployed people who are not voting for any part at the polls. But this Government is motivated by moral as well as economic considerations. Another great initiative is that taken in the area of housing. I would like to point out the practicality and the logic of our putting funds into the housing sector, and in doing so not only stimulating the private housing sector and giving many people jobs but also putting homeless people into homes. I was appalled this morning to hear a member of the Opposition attacking our Government for expending money to look at alternative lifestyles. It was quite apparent that this gentleman would rather see people sleeping under bridges than do anything so appallingly new as to consider ways and means in which we can alleviate the trauma felt by people caught between two different types of economy. I am talking about the poor kids from 18 to 25 years of age who have not been in work yet, who are required to have experience before they can get a job, who are part of a lost generation and who, if it were not for the new training and employment schemes being introduced by this Government, would not be able to qualify for jobs when employers want to pay for 16 or 17 year old inexperienced people in coming years. Total funds for public housing have increased by 50 per cent to $500m. Overall outlays on housing in 1983-84 are estimated at $912m. Queensland is to receive $ 63m, a 52 per cent increase. A total of $120m-an increase of 40 per cent-will go to direct non-repayable grants of up to $7,000 for many first home buyers. Young people at last can aim towards being in their own homes. I pay tribute to the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) for his attitude and his foresight in meeting the needs of this important sector. People who are really interested in families and in their welfare will be applauding moves to see that young couples can at least afford to move into their homes. Another area in which I am proud of the Government's performance is that of roads and road safety. Grants to the States and the Northern Territory for roads will total $1,233m, an increase of 45 per cent on last year's allocation. Queensland is to receive $262m, an increase of 42 per cent. Road safety funds will increase by 56 per cent to $6.1m. As chairperson of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety I speak for the entire Committee, which is apolitical in make-up and intent, when I congratulate the Government on its interest in road safety. The Budget gives families a boost. We have, of course, retained family allowances. We have allocated $118.95m for children's services and pre-schools and we have increased benefits for children of pensioners. We have put forward an increase of $21m for children's services over the amount for 1982-83 and made a forward commitment of $30m for 1984-85 for new projects. Mr O'Neil —And helped the Aboriginals, too. Mrs DARLING —Of course. We have put extra money into trying to alleviate the lot of pensioners and people on welfare. I find it offensive that members of the Opposition, who are trying to stir up antagonism towards this Government, are trying to belittle our efforts for pensioners. The plight of the disadvantaged has deteriorated sharply over the past seven years. It is generally accepted that the damage cannot be repaired overnight and that job creation is not a solution. But it will alleviate damage to this generation, who have had to cope with a shift in emphasis of the life-style through technological change. Help for the unemployed is a high priority for the Government. The Budget has introduced significant changes in respect of the unemployment benefit. It is appalling that people suggest, for political reasons, that there are young people in Australia, or indeed, people of any age, who would prefer being on a meagre unemployment benefit to having a job. Anyone who has close contact with those who are suffering trauma through their lack of ability to find a suitable job, or any job, will be aware that the need for and the dignity of having their own job and making their own money is to the forefront of their thinking. However, the jobs are not there, and until we are able to effect the change that will result in greater activity in the different industries-- Mr Connolly —Why are the jobs not there? Mrs DARLING —They are not there because for seven years we had a government which absolutely refused to change course and did not, until just before the election this year, consider introducing any job creation schemes. I point out that in February this year different noises were made by the then government, which suddenly changed its tune and thought: 'Yes, indeed; we should have job creation'. This Labor Government does have a job creation scheme. I remind members of the public that if this Government had not come to power Australia no doubt would have continued on the downward trek. No doubt we would not have seen the introduction of programs such as the community employment program, which has been accepted so well by people throughout Australia. There has been intense interest in the community employment program in Queensland. The Department's employment branch has received 546 inquiries from organisations and individuals throughout Queensland. Meanwhile, the under-18-year-olds will get an additional $5 per week from November 1983. Single adults without dependants will receive an increase, from $ 68.65 to $73.60 per week-an increase of $8.50 since May-from November, and from this date their payments will be indexed in line with consumer price index increases. A further $2 a week on top of indexation will be granted from May 1984, in line with the Government's election commitment to increase unemployment benefits for single adults progressively to the standard rate of pensions. We are encouraging people to take casual or part time work if they can find it by allowing them to earn $20 a week without loss of any benefits. Additional payments are to be made for unemployed people with children from November 1983. There are a number of areas in which this Government has moved despite the very difficult circumstances which we inherited. Under Medicare, which begins in February next year, all Australians will automatically be covered for the cost of basic health regardless of their income. The defence budget provides $5,280m for defence, an increase of 10.4 per cent. Total expenditure on legal aid is estimated to increase by 23 per cent to $71.4m. There has been a direct spending increase on education, a rise of 11 per cent to $4,211m. Secondary allowance schemes and tertiary education assistance scheme allowances will rise. The parental or spouse income testing of the student assistance scheme will be eased . We have managed increases in a number of very important areas that will benefit the public socially, in jobs and training, in roads and road safety, in housing, and in every important area. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(5.56) —What a dreary world the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) inhabits. It is a very stark and awful world, but it is also a very simple world in which all the people on her side of the House are caring, compassionate and wise, and all those on the Opposition side of the House are ravening monsters who are preying on the weak and the poor. If one listens to the honourable member day in and day out, one has to regard her speeches as a grave reflection on the Australian people because, for the best part of this century, they have entrusted to our parties the work of social reform in Australia. Most of the social reform legislation on the statute books of the Commonwealth of Australia has been written into them by parties of our persuasion. The Liberal Party of Australia, set up in 1944, has been a party of moderation and reform. If it had not held office for most of the last 30-odd years, Australia would be a much less satisfactory place than it is. I give credit to honourable members opposite for having objectives for the betterment of the Australian people, which they honestly hold. I hope that the honourable member for Lilley, as her time in this place goes on until the next election, when I understand that it might cease, will find out in that time that all those on this side of the House are not quite as bad as she claims we are day by day. I refer to the Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the paragraphs in that speech which relate to the provision of health services by the Commonwealth, and I refer also to the implementation of Medicare, legislation for which has passed through this House and through the Senate with some amendment, and is now back with the Senate. I should like to make a few comments about Medicare. On Wednesday of last week we had a very lengthy debate in the House. We were not allowed to have any air time. We were not allowed to speak about it in response to the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) when the proceedings were being broadcast. The previous week, in introducing the legislation, the Minister made sure that he spoke during air time. So it is necessary for the Opposition to point out some of the difficulties of the Medicare scheme now, in an objective and quiet way, whilst the proceedings of the House are being broadcast. Firstly, I point out that Medicare is not really about the improvement of health care delivery in Australia, but it contains measures which threaten good health provision in the future. In fact, Medicare is a major act of nationalisation. It will add $1.7 billion to federal taxes in a full year. It will add about 2,500 expensive extra staff to the public sector. It will add a great deal of unnecessary computer equipment and extra offices for Medibank in the public sector, and it will result in the sacking of 5,000 people in the private sector within the voluntary health insurance funds. Those 5,000 people are employed at generally lower levels of conditions than the public sector employees who will replace them. The unfortunate aspect of Medicare is that it obscures the real costs of health care. The Government claims that the one per cent levy on taxable incomes will make people aware of the true costs of health in Australia; but the one per cent levy will raise in a year only about $1 billion in additional tax whereas the Federal and State governments spend about $8 billion a year on health. The Medicare levy will cover only about one-eighth of the nation's government- supported health costs. That will not give any real idea at all to the people about what the costs of health care are. It is basically a political levy. It is set at one per cent in order to make the Labor health scheme appear cheaper, but honourable members will notice that of that $1.7 billion additional tax to be raised in one year, only $1 billion will be from the levy. The other $700m is a straight increase in ordinary taxes. Another way of obscuring the real costs of health care occurs in the doctor's surgeries and in the hospitals. The purpose of Medicare is to make surgery visits to the doctors apparently free. Its purpose also is to make public hospital beds apparently free. Under Medicare public hospital beds will be available free of charge, without any means or income tests. The money for those beds, of course, will have to come through the tax system and the subsidy for doctors' surgery visits will have to come through the tax system. The purpose of Medicare is to disguise the true costs of health care. Medicare raises big problems for consumers. Pensioners will be hit substantially as a result of Medicare. Although pensioners with pensioner health benefit cards will still get the same benefits after the introduction of Medicare, the effects on the consumer price index of the introduction of Medicare will mean that pensions will be reduced effectively in 1984 by $3.90 a week for married couples and by $2.30 a week for single people. Those pensioners who currently have pensioner health benefit cards and do not have to pay for their health costs will not have to pay for their health costs under Medicare but will, nonetheless, suffer because of the 2.6 per cent reduction artificially in the consumer price index on which their pensions are based. As a result, in 1984 married couples will lose $3.90 a week and single people $2.30 a week. Many people may well drop private hospital cover, trusting in the Government's propaganda that they will be covered by Medicare for their health costs. In fact , people will not be covered for everything by Medicare. It will cover 85 per cent of doctors' fees and public hospital beds with no choice of doctor. If people wish to have choice of doctor in a public hospital or to retain the option of going to a private hospital, which will be a necessary option as the squeeze on public hospital beds occurs, they will have to take out additional private insurance. Medicare will provide no cover in private hospitals. The lowest $5 private hospital cover with private funds-assuming that it is $5; the Minister says it will be but I have been told by funds that it could be as high as $8-could leave patients on a six-day private hospital stay $400 to $500 out of pocket. They could pay $40 to $50 a day over and above what they get back from the funds and also theatre fees of a couple of hundred dollars. So if they are not careful, even if they take out the lowest level of private hospital cover, they could find themselves considerably out of pocket if they stay in a private hospital. The Victorian Bush Nursing Association, which operates almost 40 hospitals, is very concerned about this aspect of the scheme and its problems have not yet been resolved. I remind the House that those Bush Nursing hospitals are in areas where there are generally no public hospitals. At least one-third of the existing insured will pay more, directly, under Medicare, on the Minister's estimate. I think more than that one-third will pay more when the actual figures are known and when we know what the real cost of private hospital insurance will be. All taxpayers will pay extra taxes over and above the levy to finance Medicare. Medicare also attacks private health provision. It aims to make doctors totally dependent on the Government by forcing them into the situation of bulk billing for all patients. This is being done, firstly, by propaganda. The Government is persuading all patients to ask their doctors to direct bill the Government and, therefore, give no bill at all to the patient. Secondly, the Government is banning insurance for the gap between the government subsidy and the fee charged by the doctor. There will be strong economic pressures on doctors to cave in and bill the Government directly . When the doctors are getting 85 per cent of their schedule fees direct from the Government they will be under the total control of the Government. That is a very substantial step towards the control of private medical practice by the Government, despite the constitutional provisions which should prevent that. Medicare will also reduce the competitive position of private hospitals. By changing the comparative basis of subsidy between public and private hospitals Medicare will make insurance for private hospitals much less attractive. The problem will be that if fewer people are able to go into private hospitals, or see it as economically difficult for them to go into private hospitals, there will be an increase in pressure on public hospital beds, which in many cases are already overstressed. I believe that this will lead to queueing in public hospitals. People waiting for elective surgery, who may be desperately uncomfortable, will have to wait. They ought to be very worried about whether they get private hospital insurance. Medicare will promote unnecessary servicing by doctors. This bulk billing about which I talked earlier, when extended to all patients and not just the elderly and disadvantaged, will promote overservicing. There will be a tendency for doctors who are getting 85 per cent of the schedule fee direct from the Treasury to try to tick the meter over a little more rapidly to make up the difference. That can always be explained in terms of patient care. There can always be an excuse for seeing somebody a little more often or for longer because some definite medical reason for that can be found. Of course, the temptation to extend that will exist because the bill will go directly to the government and the patient will take no direct interest. The Opposition's belief is that the removal of the patient from the billing process will corrupt both doctors and patients and will certainly lead to queueing in surgeries of doctors who bulk bill. In the long run it will be highly destructive of the relationship between doctor and patient. The Government announced in the Budget a doubling of the computer surveillance equipment at a cost of $8m per annum as opposed to $4m previously. This is an acknowledgement that there is a very real concern about overservicing under the direct billing system. The Minister is like the policeman who, going down High Street at dead of night and seeing the door of Woolworths open, fails to close the door, sets up surveillance equipment on the other side of the road in order to count the goods going out throughout the night, and subsequently tries to catch the culprits by looking at statistical profiles. We suggest that a better way of dealing with this problem is actually to close the door. We are moving into a police force type of situation in relation to the doctors. The doctors will be told: 'We would like you to send all your bills directly to the Government. We will pay you 85 per cent of what you would normally get. We are going to put in an extra $4m worth of computer surveillance equipment and we will add to the staff in this area in order to keep a very close watch on you'. I believe that this system firstly will not work and secondly will have a very destructive effect on the morale of the medical profession. I think it will rebound very seriously on the Government. What is the Opposition's view of these changes? What is our position for the future? The Opposition is examining afresh its health policy and new policies will be announced in due course. However, we make it absolutely clear at this time that we could not live with certain key aspects of Medicare. We could not live with bulk billing for general patients as opposed to the disadvantaged; in other words, we do not believe in so-called free hospital care in the surgery regardless of means. We do not believe in so-called free public hospital beds regardless of patients' means. We are in favour of the maintenance and extension of private hospitals and private provision of health care. Finally, we are totally opposed to a tax on private medical practice and we believe that fee-for -service medicine with a patient contribution is at the heart of the continuity of a healthy private sector delivery system. The independent medical practitioner in the city, the suburbs and the country is at the very heart of good health care delivery. The moment we get all those medical practitioners receiving all their income directly from the Government on fees which cannot be varied, we will be well down the way towards destroying the morale of a profession which is essential for the maintenance of good health care in Australia. This Government is taking an historially mistaken step in this direction and if it is not reversed within a reasonable period the Australian people will have something to be very sorry about indeed. The Opposition does not claim that everything in the existing system is marvellous. There are aspects of the existing system, which is being replaced, which could have been changed to improve it substantially, but it would have been possible to make those changes without introducing this major nationalisation measure. I shall again go quickly through the fundamentals of Medicare. The one per cent levy on taxable incomes replaces the basic insurance tables of the current scheme, the one per cent, of course, bearing no relationship whatever to the real cost of health provision in Australia; in fact, it provides only one-eighth of the cost. Patients will be entitled to a free hospital bed with no choice of doctor without means test, and 85 per cent of the scheduled medical fee in the surgery, but with the Government pressing doctors to bulk bill for all patients so that there will be no patient interest in or concern about the cost of the service. Gap insurance to cover the remainder of doctors' bills is to be prohibited; indeed, all private medical insurance is prohibited under the Medicare bills. There is to be a $150 ceiling on patient contributions to medical bills over 12 months which is no concession at all because one can get gap insurance for less than $150 a year but which will pose very grave difficulties in overservicing because it will be possible for a patient to build up that amount of money in one series of major operations or a major operation and from then on doctors will be able to get from the Government 100 per cent of the cost of the medical procedures and consultations for that patient until the end of the year. So a great loophole has added to the others in this overservicing problem. Doctors are encouraged to bill the Government direct so that the Government can eventually control doctors' incomes precisely, and once it is seen that servicing moves up, utilisation of services will move up because there will be no control at the point of service. Then the Government will start to put the squeeze on the schedule fees and start to apply more regressive controls to the medical profession. Doctors who might believe that in the short term some of these proposals will assist them financially will find after a relatively short period that the decisions in these matters are being taken out of their hands and placed in the hands of the officials of the Department of Health and politicians. Two-stop shopping will be necessary for anybody who wishes to have private hospital cover or choice of doctor in a public hospital. People will have to go to two places-first, Medicare for the basic cover and, secondly, the fund of their choice for their additional cover and any ancillary insurance such as for dentistry, chiropractic, physiotherapy and the like. So Medicare is no more simple than the present scheme; in fact, by requiring people to go to two separate places for their health cover, it is more complicated. Ultimately the private hospital bed subsidies will be paid, via block grant to State governments. Certainly, the relative attractiveness of private hospital insurance is reduced within these measures. I fear very much for the survival of the private hospital system when subjected to the oversight of Ministers such as Mr Brereton in New South Wales and Mr Roper in Victoria, whose hatred of the private hospital system is well known. The other aspect of the scheme is that all basic insurance associated with the levy will be processed by Medicare; that is, it will be removed from the private funds which will be left only with the extras insurance. The private funds will lose 60 per cent of their business and in February 5,000 members of the staff of private funds will be sacked. This is a major act of nationalisation. It moves the decisions in health care very much away from the patients, the consumers and the providers who are closest to what is happening and takes them very substantially in the direction of the bureaucracy and the politicians. It is a major move away from the private sector and in the end it will have a very bad effect on the quality of health care delivery in Australia. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Howard's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 25 —— Baldwin, P. J. Johnson, LesBeazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. McLeay, LeoCampbell, G. Maher, M. J.Charles, D. E. Mayer, H.Chynoweth, R. L. Mildren, J. B.Cohen, B. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G.Everingham, D. N. O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Reeves, J. E.Fry, K. L. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Holding, A. C. Steedman, A. P.Hollis, C. Theophanous, A. C.Howe, B. L. Uren, T.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wells, D. McM.Hurford, C. J. West, S. J.Jacobi, R. Willis, R. Aldred,, K. J. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J.Burr, M. A. McVeigh, D. T.Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ian Newman, K. E.Carlton, J. J. O'Keefe, F. L.Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Drummond, P. H. Shipton, R. F.Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, P. S. Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Street, A. A.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Hodgman, W. M. Blewett, N. Fife, W. C.Kerin, J. C. Lusher, S. A.Morrison, W. L. Rocher, A. C.Child, J. Groom, R. J.Hayden, W. G. MacKellar, M. J. R.Edwards, Ronald Adermann, A. E. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The CHAIRMAN —In accordance with standing order 226 the Committee will first consider Schedule 2 of the Bill. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Leader of the House) —Mr Chairman, may I suggest that it might suit the convenience of the Committee to consider the items of proposed expenditure in the order and groupings shown in the following schedule: Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and Department of the Special Minister of State-together. Department of Defence, and Department of Defence Support-together. Department of Trade, and Department of Resources and Energy-together. Department of Transport, and Department of Aviation-together. Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, and Department of Education and Youth Affairs-together. Department of the Treasury, Department of Finance, Advance to the Minister for Finance, and Minister for Finance-Special Funds-together. Department of Home Affairs and Environment, Department of Territories and Local Government, and Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism-together. Department of Communications. Department of Administrative Services, and Department of Housing and Construction-together. Department of Primary Industry. Department of Industry and Commerce, and Department of Science and Technology- together. Department of Social Security, Department of Health, and Department of Veterans ' Affairs-together. Attorney-General's Department. Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, and Department of Aboriginal Affairs-together. Department of Foreign Affairs. The consideration of the items in groups of departments has met the convenience of the Committee in past years. I also take the opportunity to indicate to the Committee that the proposed order for consideration of departments' estimates has been discussed with the Opposition which has raised no objection to what has been proposed. The CHAIRMAN —Is it the wish of the Committee to consider the items of proposed expenditure in the order suggested by the Leader of the House? Mr Howard —Yes, an excellent suggestion. The CHAIRMAN —I will allow that course to be followed. Schedule 2. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Proposed expenditure, $73,855,000. Department of the Special Minister of State Proposed expenditure, $207,955,000. The CHAIRMAN —The question now before the Committee is: That the proposed expenditures be agreed to. Sitting suspended from 6.28 to 8 p.m. (Quorum formed) Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(8.03) —I am very grateful for the warmth of the reception of honourable members opposite. In considering the estimates for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet it is significant to note that the Australian Labor Party during the election campaign produced a document called 'Labor and Quality of Government'. In that document the Labor Party recognised: One of the most important administrative matters for any government to settle is the structure and operation of the interface between Cabinet and the bureaucracy. Unless the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and the Cabinet Committees are effectively serviced the whole system will very quickly break down. That unexceptionable truism is, of course, supported by the Opposition. I also have a good deal of sympathy for the document's subsequent statement that there is considerable scope for streamlining and reshaping the structure and mode of operation of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet so that it becomes less a department to second guess or second think, often on a less well informed basis, the whole range of other departments. That statement reflected a determination somewhere deep within the Australian Labor Party to improve the overall efficiency of not just the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet but the whole of the Public Service. Like so many of the Labor Party's election commitments this one proved to be an empty promise. So has its equally sensible proposal to divide the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet into 'two sections devoted respectively to policy and organisation'. The estimates show that the Government has done nothing to streamline and reshape the Department. In fact, it has done the reverse. The Department's second guessing functions have been expanded. Instead of eight divisions the Department now has 10. A new community development division has been established and a new security division has been set up. Both of these divisions cover the work of several specialist departments. A justice branch within the security division has had to be established to cope, I assume, with the enormous volume of work emanating from the Hope Royal Commission. It is, in other words, a branch established to handle the impropriety of the Government and in particular , of course, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). The Government has also failed to divide the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet into two sections as it promised to do. That is of less concern but it is indicative of the Government's failure to pursue its election commitments now the votes have been counted. One can only speculate on why the Prime Minister has chosen to strengthen, not weaken, his Department. His lack of confidence in his Ministers and their repeated acts of administrative and policy incompetence may have played an important part in the explanation. Another matter of concern to the Opposition is the Government's clear move towards the politicisation of the Public Service. Members will recall that this was a distinguishing feature of the Whitlam Administration. All the signs are that we will see a re-enactment of that policy with the Hawke Administration. Mr Burr —Disgraceful. Mr PEACOCK —It is indeed. The signs are evident, as the honourable member will be aware and as I have just mentioned. I particularly draw the Committee's attention to the Government's clear intention to dispense with Sir William Cole as Chairman of the Public Service Board and to replace him with a servant of the Australian Labor Party, Dr Peter Wilenski. Mr Dawkins —Just wait and see. Mr PEACOCK —'Just wait and see' says the Minister for Finance. We have been asking questions on this and the Prime Minister has refused to deny it. One can reasonably assume with the refusal to deny that that is so, and not even the most tacit endorsement of the extraordinary service to the nation given by Sir William Cole has emanated from the Prime Minister at any stage. It may well be that the Labor Party has someone other than Dr Peter Wilenski. One can only speculate who is being kept under the covers if it is not Dr Wilenski. Under the Westminster system of government and public administration an independent, impartial and apolitical Public Service is regarded as essential. The Government must get independent advice from the Public Service, advice removed from political ambition and ideological adornment. Public servants must be able to give advice without fear of any political consequences or favour should that advice suit the Government. By appointing a political crony-I use that term very deliberately-to the pivotal position of Chairman of the Public Service Board the Government is taking a major step towards abandoning the independence of the Public Service. We can only hope that the Cabinet becomes receptive to the arguments we are putting forward in this area and abandons its proposal to appoint Dr Wilenski. Once again, it may be that the continuing pressure from the Opposition in this area will occasion a change of mind as it did with the Hope Royal Commission. It appears from the interjection of the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) earlier that the Cabinet is having second thoughts. Throughout our period of government I formed a very high impression of the commitment, the integrity and the calibre of public servants. The quality of our Public Service is one of Australia's very substantial assets. In the years ahead the Government must come to recognise what so many public servants already know- that the rapidly changing character of Australia will require a continuing, sensitive but particularly flexible Public Service. For policy formulation and the execution of policy to be successful, the Public Service must maintain an effective dialogue with the community. It must understand the competing claims of sectional interest groups and have the capacity to understand the overall context of those competing claims. I think it is fair to say that individual departments are often captured by particular interest groups. As a result they have a reduced capacity to formulate effective policies. That can only be overcome with a fuller understanding of community concerns. Equally-and this is not unrelated- departments must not look on policy in terms of their traditional territory. They need to understand the interconnections between policies and the need for policies to be considered in broad terms. They must understand that, for example , technology policy cannot be separated from education and industry policies even though each of these areas has its own department. They must understand that taxation policy cannot be separated from wages and industrial relations policies. In conclusion, the interdepartmental committee system has become an institutional solution. But, too often, interdepartmental committees are simply a forum for interdepartmental rivalries and a battleground for competing fiefdoms. As a consequence, far too often they become a forum for tenuous agreement-the lowest common denominator. The Government must encourage-this is a criticism of previous governments as well-a much more effective dialogue between departments. It must understand that rational policy making is co-ordinated policy making. So the challenge that the Government must meet is to build a more efficient, co -ordinated and streamlined public service and to do so without duplication and competing fiefdoms. In doing so the Government must maintain an apolitical and independent Public Service. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(8.13) —The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), in his comments on the estimates for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Department of the Special Minister of State, referred to the need for an independent and impartial Public Service. Of course, this Government supports that view. But the Leader of the Opposition made no reference to the fact that, in the seven years of the previous Government, the Public Service was allowed to run down and that morale was at its lowest ebb. In the few months since this Government has been in power we have seen a dramatic change in morale in the Public Service. We are also seeing an increase in numbers in the Public Service. Instead of running the Public Service with a view to cutting down costs and numbers, this Government is looking at the Public Service in terms of efficiency and in terms of providing people to do jobs. We are looking at the Public Service in terms of training and management. In other words, we have looked at the Public Service from a constructive point of view. The previous Government looked at it from a destructive point of view. The Leader of the Opposition referred to the possible appointment-in the Opposition's view the proposed appointment-of Dr Peter Wilenski and Chairman of the Public Service Board. I am not privy to discussions in Cabinet in relation to this matter but I, as the member for Canberra, and this Government have no criticism of Sir William Cole. As I understand it, Sir William Cole's term of office as Chairman is about to expire. Thus any government would look at that appointment. A procedure has to be followed. The Leader of the Opposition made critical comments about Dr Peter Wilenski. I worked with him as a member of a task force. As I understand it, he is the Secretary of a department of the Australian Government. Previously, in the early 1970s, he was also secretary of a department. He is highly qualified in terms of government administration. He was a professor at the University of New South Wales. He has very good qualifications for his position as Secretary of the Department of Education. Opposition members interjecting- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Order! Honourable members on my left will remain silent. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will remain silent. Mrs KELLY —Opposition members believe that an independent Public Service means that they can put their own people in. The previous Government had a history of doing that. But, of course, when the Australian Labor Party is elected it is considered not to be correct to put in people whom we consider to be the best people for the job. What is important in terms of running an efficient government is to get the best people for the job. We do not exclude people because of membership of a political party, whether they are members of the Liberal Party or members of the Australian Labor Party. We believe in getting the best people for the job and having a Public Service which is responsive to the needs of government. More progress will be made in that direction under a Labor government than was made in the seven years of the former Administration. Opposition members interjecting- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! I remind honourable members that the honourable member for Canberra, in common with all honourable members, has the right to be heard in silence. If honourable members persist in interjecting, notwithstanding the request of the Chair to remain silent, they expose themselves to risk. Mrs KELLY —I would like to refer to the annual report of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and, specifically, to the Office of the Status of Women and the new emphasis that this Government has given to the role of women in the community and in the bureaucracy generally. I am very pleased to see that the Office now comes under the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Under the control of the Prime Minister I think it is given new importance. I am also pleased to see that the head of the Office is about to be appointed. It is a position of high status within the Public Service. Mr Aldred —Which party hack is going to get this job? Mrs KELLY —The honourable member asks who will get the job. I do not know; I am not on the interviewing panel. We have not put our person in that position. Instead we have opened this position to ordinary Public Service recruitment for senior officers. All the applicants will be interviewed in the normal course of Public Service procedures. I am not privy to who will get the job. We are establishing this Office of the Status of Women under the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. It will have a wide range of functions which, I believe, in the long run, will make a contribution towards improving the status of women in our community. Mr Peacock —Ha, ha! Mrs KELLY —The Leader of the Opposition laughs. Obviously he is not concerned about improving the status of women in our community. I refer specifically to their role in the Public Service. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The Leader of the Opposition is not exempted from the exhortation of the Chair. I ask him to remain silent. Mr Ruddock —Mr Chairman, I take a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition really laughed in response to an interjection that was made on this side of the chamber. Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Dundas will resume his seat. Mrs KELLY —I believe that the honourable member for Dundas must be questioning my 50 : 50 vision. Before I was interrupted I was referring to the role of women within the Public Service. It is obvious how much interest Opposition members show in regard to this matter. From figures in the Public Service Board's annual report we see that there are only very small numbers of women in the Second Division of the Public Service. I believe that that is one area that the Office of the Status of Women must investigate. We really need a program to increase the number of women in the Second Division. We see on page 123 of that annual report that there are 31 men and no women in the First Division of the Public Service and 1,280 men and only 30 women in the Second Division. That is an appallingly small percentage of women. If we do not have an affirmative action program, at the very least we need to have special programs to assist women to get promoted through the Service. I also support the proposal for a committee of permanent heads to look at the status of women. I welcome the establishment of that committee. I am only sorry that at this stage there are no female permanent heads to serve on that committee. Mr Brumby —It will not be too long. Mrs KELLY —I hope that it will not be too long. I also welcome the Register of Women for Government Appointment, referred to in the annual report of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. For too long we have not seen sufficient numbers of women on statutory authorities and it is important that now Ministers will put forward the names of men and women in equal numbers for government appointment, wherever possible. I believe that is a very big step forward. I congratulate the Office of the Status of Women for the work it is doing. Honourable members who have actually bothered to look at the annual report of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet may have noted the photograph on page 31 which shows the poster that has been prepared for the Office of the Status of Women. I should like to show that poster to members of the Opposition. For the record, I point out that it demonstrates that these days men in our community are taking a more equal role in domestic affairs. I believe that will lead in the long term to a more equal role for women in our community. That statement is met only with mirth from members of the Opposition. I will send some copies of the poster to members of the Opposition if they are interested in it. I should now like to refer to the Public Service Board estimates. I note with pleasure the emphasis the Board is now putting on the need to train senior managers in the Public Service. I hope that the next annual report of the Public Service Board will tell us that the British subject requirement for entry into the Public Service Board has been abolished and replaced with an Australian citizenship requirement, although I believe the responsible Minister should have the right to make exceptions to that. Before I conclude, I believe the Public Service Board should have-- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired . Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(8.23) —The presentation of the estimates for the Department of the Special Minister of State raises the question why the Department was set up at all. In the first few days and weeks of its operation it was indeed a mystery why the Government had set up this Special Minister of State organisation. The first description of it from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in a Press release on 10 March, soon after the elction, under the heading 'Other Important Changes', was this: The new portfolio of Special Minister of State, under Mr Young, who will also be Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the House, will take over electoral matters and police and protective services and certain other policy functions from the Department of Administrative Services, which will be a more clearly focussed 'common service' department. This change will also enable a greater concentration on important law enforcement responsibilities. That was a rather mysterious explanation of its origins and its purpose. On 15 March, five days later, the new Minister in charge of that Department said on a radio program that his title sounded pretty impressive. Mr Coleman —Who is he? Mr STEELE HALL —That was Mr Young, who became the political agent of the Government for a short time while heading this Department. He was reported to have said that after languishing on the Opposition benches for seven years it was going to be rather refreshing to have something to do. He said: To wake up each morning and think, well, I'm getting down to the business of doing something for Australia today-it's one hell of a change. He found out what a hell of a change it was because he not only did something for Australia, he also did something for a friend who was a lobbyist. That landed him right out of the Department which he had been thrust into in the early days. Of course, it was difficult to find out what the Department was about because the Government was extremely secretive about it. In fact the Ministerial Directory was published only in August, and even that is inefficiently put together because it still shows Mr Young as the Minister, although he resigned back in July. The Commonwealth Government Directory this year is to be published in three volumes. We do not have it. It will contain descriptions of the functions of and services provided by various departments and authorities, but it may not be available until November. So we had to find out from practical experience, the test in politics, what the Department was all about. Of course, we found out, and we received confirmation in these estimates. Page 13 of the explanatory notes shows that the numbers employed in the Department are to be increased from 288 to 417. The explanation given to the Senate Estimates Committee for this was that most of the increase was due to a transfer of responsibilities for automatic data processing work from the Department of Administrative Services to this Department. That does not adequately explain the position at all, because we find from the questioning that took place in the Senate Estimates Committee that new appointees are envisaged to take up some of the increase in staff numbers in the Department. During questioning in the Estimates Committee Senator Durack asked: Positions for six ministerial advisers to be attached to the staff of the Special Minister of State were advertised recently. Can you tell me something about those positions? What will the people appointed do? Will all six be appointed for one Minister? The answer was this: The Government has agreed that the Special Minister of State, in his capacity as Leader of the House, should be provided with additional resources in the Department to give him advice on matters which come to his attention as Leader of the House. Following Mr Young's resignation, arrangements have been made for the staffing of the executive projects units to be suspended so that there will not be positions in our Department unless the Special Minister of State is also the Leader of the House . . . This matter is left in abeyance. We do not know whether these six new senior positions are to be filled because the ministerial vacancy has not yet been filled. When one goes further into the Senate's inquiries one finds a reference to that old subject of the Government Information Unit, now called the National Media Liaison Service. We could refer back to remarks made by Ministers about this subject, as the Minister for Aviation and Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley), who is at the table, well knows. I will be surprised if he had not joined his colleagues around Australia in criticising the previous Government for the numbers in the then Government Information Unit. Senator Button led this campaign, with the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) when in opposition. On 14 February this year a newspaper reported: A Labor government would wind down the Government Information Unit, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator John Button, announced yesterday. He amplified his remarks, as the Minister at the table well knows. I am sure that he, in his electoral work, presented to the Australian people the argument that the then Government Information Unit was a waste of public money and ought to be disbanded and got rid of. What do we find that our colleagues in the Senate discovered in their inquiry? The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), in answer to a question, said: May I give you a ministerial answer in respect of the nature and functions of those two respective organisations. The National Media Liaison Service comprises 23 positions. How many did the old Government Information Unit have? It had 21 positions. The Government says that it is economising for the sake of the Australian public, yet here is one more deception practised on the Australian public, one clear deception added to the dozens of others that have permeated the whole political scene since this Government came to office. This is not something that it can say is beyond its control. It cannot look to overseas; it cannot look to the economy. All it can do is look to its own ranks and decisions and admit that, for political purposes, it has not only taken over the old GIU but it has also expanded it into two other areas in Australia-Darwin and Townsville. That was done, of course, to further its political ends. I was concerned to find that in June the Minister who was then in charge of this Department had entered into what can only be described as the role of a commissar. Mr Milton —Ah! Mr STEELE HALL —The honourable member should listen again. I remind him of an article published in the Canberra Times on 10 June headed ' ''Politically Sensitive'' cases for police to be screened'. The article states: Commonwealth departments and agencies wanting police assistance on '' politically sensitive'' matters- I reiterate 'on politically sensitive matters'- have been told to make their requests through the office of the Special Minister of State, Mr Young. . . . . Mr Young said in his letter- this is a letter to departmental heads. I emphasise what Mr Young said: that all such requests should be raised with him in the first instance to ' ensure that a coherent and consistent approach is taken to the area of police activity, both from a law-enforcement and from a Government point of view'. We then had a reaction from members of the Public Service. The article continues : The instruction has caused consternation among officers of some public service departments, who have raised the possibility of direct political interference, or the appearance of it, in the conduct of investigations. I could refer to other actions of the Minister. He used to rant all over Australia, talking about the Opposition, and talking about capital gains tax. Mr Howard —He used to talk about corruption. Mr STEELE HALL —Yes, I am reminded by the shadow Treasurer that one of the favourite themes of the Minister who resigned his position was to point to others and cry: 'Corruption'. He used to look around the chamber and say: ' Corruption'. Why did he leave the ministry? He left because on the eve of learning one of the most vital national security secrets in this country he sought out in a car park a friend-a long time friend of this Government-and a lobbyist to tell him a national secret. So it has been revealed that this Department is the political arm of government. It does not serve the public. It does not serve the Public Service. It serves Ministers not in the performance of their duties but in the performance of politics in Australia and the furtherance of the Labor Party's anticipation of political success in this country. It is a political arm of Labor and I resent it very much. I put to the new Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) who, I suppose, holds this position temporarily, that he should take it up with the Prime Minister and reverse what Australia has not seen before. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired . Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(8.33) —Those members of the public who have been listening to this debate can hear from the remarks of the honourable member for Boothby ( Mr Steele Hall) the kind of negative attitude the Opposition has in relation to the Budget. There was nothing positive from the honourable member, just personality slanders and accusations. It is a pity that we are not on television tonight because had we been on television the public could have seen that when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) spoke after dinner at the commencement of this debate there was nobody on his side of the House to hear him speak. In fact, he had to call for a quorum to be formed in order to get his own supporters into the House. That is how far the support for the Leader of the Opposition has fallen. Another factor I mention in this debate is the attempted derision by members of the Opposition in relation to the remarks of the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) who spoke about the positive role that women should play in the Public Service. They completely derided her by interjecting all the time. The sheer hypocrisy of the situation would dawn on people if debates were televised because they would see that there is not one women member on the other side. That is how much the Opposition cares about women in our society! Having made those remarks, I give my general support to the appropriation of $73,855m for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in the 1983-84 Budget. I make one or two remarks in relation to some of the functions of the Department. In reading the 1982-83 annual report of the Department I noted the following comment: The workloads of the divisions vary according to the current activities of the Government. For example, the Economic Division bore much of the workload connected with the National Economic Summit Conference; it is also involved heavily in the Budget process, although all divisions share the responsibility for briefing the Prime Minister on Budget matters. As the Treasurer (Mr Keating) indicated in his Budget Speech, the economic policy approach of the Government is based on the prices and incomes accord between the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions, which was a positive initiative arising from the National Economic Summit Conference. The essential ingredients of that accord are worth mentioning, as their adoption is essential if the living standards of Australians are to be improved. The essential ingredients relate to the policy areas of industrial relations legislation, industrial development and technological exchange, immigration, social security, occupational health and safety, education, health, and Australian Government employment. Many of these policy areas will be the subject of inquiry and consultation by the Federal Government with the aim of framing legislation and introducing planning procedures which will create a sound base for national economic revival and social equity for Australian workers. I will concentrate on those elements of the accord which can be directly identified with Budget initiatives, bearing in mind the statement in the annual report of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. I begin with the area of health and the most welcome introduction of the universal health system, Medicare, from 1 February 1984. Whilst Medicare in its first year of operation will not be able to cover all the aspects of the many deficiencies in health care which emerged during the chaotic Budget policies of the Liberal-National Country Party coalition Government-- Mr Dobie —Mr Deputy Chairman, I raise a point of order. We are discussing the estimates for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Department of the Special Minister of State. I am having difficulty in seeing the relevance of Medicare to those departments. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —The Chair is similarly tested. I ask the honourable member for La Trobe to make an effort to maintain relevance. Mr MILTON —Mr Deputy Chairman, I draw your attention to the fact that in the annual report of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet mention is made of the National Economic Summit Conference. I am trying to point out that areas of the accord are contained in the Budget and I am drawing a parallel with those items of the accord. I will show how the prices and incomes accord agreement has been met. If the honourable member will bear me out, he will hear the points I am raising. I was talking about health. I was pointing out how the Government ought to be congratulated on the very prompt introduction if Medicare . I will mention something very briefly about social security and social welfare because that, too, was an important aspect of the accord. Mr Dobie —Mr Deputy Chairman, I raise a point of order. I regret having to say this about my friend on the other side, but this is the estimates debate on the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the other department. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —The honourable member for Cook has made his point. The Chair is prepared to allow that there could be an extremely tenuous link. I am prepared to hear the honorable member further. But I again exhort him to maximise his efforts to be totally relevant. Mr MILTON —Thank you, Mr Deputy Chairman. I will try not to try your patience. The point I was trying to make was that, contrary to what members of the Opposition have been saying, a number of matters in relation to the prices and incomes accord have been met in the Budget. Some matters do give me concern which perhaps have not been met in relation to the accord. One of those was the fact that that amount of unemployment benefit paid to those under the age of 18 was only $45 a week. I think another $5 a week would have been very appropriate. In that respect, I draw attention to the fact that in the budget of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet there is an item relating to the Office of National Assessments. That item has had quite a large increase in its allocation. The point I would like to make is that in the total Budget there has been a large increase-some 31 per cent-in the amount of funds allotted to security services. I think it would have been far more beneficial if that money had been directed towards the under 18-year-olds. So to that extent I have one criticism of the Budget allocation for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. However, in general, I support the Budget and the amount which has been given. I believe that if in the following year, the Government follows what is in the accord, we will find that the union movement will be fully in support of the Budget initiatives. Mr DOBIE(Cook)(8.41) —I am very pleased to be able to speak on the estimates of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Department of the Special Minister of State. I point out, in view of the remarks made by one of the previous speakers, the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly), that while she was talking of interest in the Public Service many more Opposition members showed an interest in the Public Service than was the case with other Labor Government members. That cannot be denied; these are the facts. However, I do not want to enter into a controversy. I thought I might bring some moderation to the debate on these estimates. Mr Beazley —You are losing weight, Don. Mr DOBIE —I am very grateful that the Special Minister of State has noticed this and I wish him well in his endeavours. I will acknowledge him when he too has this success. Having mentioned that and been nice to the Minister I will raise one point with him. It relates to one small problem that happens to our staff when they come to Canberra. I know that he will give this matter a most sympathetic hearing. One of the silly things that happen when our electorate staff-of all members of this place-want to come to this building, is that they do not get transport to it during the day. When they work here into the evening they, along with everyone else in this building, are entitled to transport facilities back to their residences. All honourable members-if they have brought their staff-will have faced this problem. For some incredible reason they have no facility whatsoever. It is very unfair because most of them have no local knowledge of public transport. They have no right to the use of taxis or to a refund of the fare. Although this is only a small point it would service the welfare of our staff, who come here to work for each and every one of us in the House, if the Minister could give this matter consideration. I am sure that with his kindly nature and our association over years in this place he will give this matter consideration to the benefit of all our staff. Mr Beazley —We have Dawkins sitting here, Don. Mr DOBIE —As the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) is sitting beside the Special Minister of State I hope the Special Minister of State will make the appropriate motions to him. I was not going to be contentious in my speech as honourable members can see previous speakers have forced me so to be. The whole problem of the present Government's approach to the Public Service, and what is filling our minds with deep concern, is this wretched politicisation the Government is going on with. I can assure the Government that when we were in government and we appointed known Labor candidates as ambassadors to Japan and known Labor candidates and known members of the Labor Party as heads of departments, we did it because we had a feeling that they just might be the people for the jobs. Some of us were not convinced but we went along with our Executive at the time and said 'We are not going to politicise the Public Service; we never have' and away we went. Now we find people such as Peter Wilenski, who is known to me, being mentioned as possible head of the Public Service Board. I must confess with some sadness that he has a tremendous association with the Australian Labor Party. I do not suggest for one second, perish the thought, that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)-and we are talking about his Department-would in any way use Peter Wilenski, as head of the Public Service Board, to influence the Public Service. Perish the thought that John Menadue, head of a department, could become head of our main communications area, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. These things bother me and I am sure that they will bother the Prime Minister when he has to face them. But we are concerned that for the first time since 1975 we have a public service in Canberra that is more fearful of its future, more fearful of its being politicised, than has ever been the case. I have mentioned one or two names. I could go on. I would like to think that so many of the people who are up for promotion did not have any connection with the Australian Labor Party. But try as I may I cannot reach that conclusion. So it is with distress that I have to be contentious and say that the move by the Labor Party to politicise the whole Public Service is evidenced in everything that has been said tonight by my Leader and by the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall). Within a very short time we have seen a move around. I have some hope that the Special Minister of State will use his undoubted influence to have this stopped. We on this side of the House have reason to believe, if we listen to the Press, that there are people in the Labor Executive who are similarly distressed by this move. If they put up their heads we will support them. I believe that the great problem with the estimates of these two departments is this: The permanent Minister-I say 'permanent' because we have reason to believe that the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) may be coming back again some time, somewhere, somehow-is a master of expertise when it comes to politicising situations. I stand here in great sorrow and say that. Believe me the honourable member for Canberra will have to have some answers when we next go to a general election. She will have to explain to her constituents that she agreed to the whole situation of the Public Service being politicised to a situation in which the Prime Minister, the head of the Public Service, the head of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and goodness knows who else, control communications and the promotion system within the Public Service. Mrs Kelly —Oh! Mr DOBIE —I hear the honourable member groaning; I trust that she is well. All I can say is that she will not be quite so well in two years time. I am sorry that I have to be so rude to the honourable member but it has to happen. She is politicising the Public Service and it grieves us on this side of the House more than annoys us. That is all I want to say. I thank the House for its rapt attention to my speech. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister of Aviation and Special Minister of State)(8.49) —The honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall)- Mr Newman —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I am probably usurping the position of the Leader of the House but I thought that we had agreed to an hour's debate on these estimates. It appears that the Minister is cutting 10 minutes off the agreed time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —I think the honourable gentleman might be speculating that the Minister's response will close the debate. I understand that that is not the case. I call the Minister. Mr BEAZLEY —The honourable member for Boothby raised a number of matters that I think deserve a response. He relied very heavily on the estimates committee of the Senate and the Senate Hansard. I would have thought that that type of Hansard raiding would have been no longer necessary by the front bench members of the Opposition, given the very generous way we have treated them since we have been in government compared with the way in which they treated us. I notice that those sections of my Department's estimates that relate to those matters have drawn virtually no comment-in fact no comment at all-from honourable members on the other side of the chamber. The honourable member for Boothby started off by raising a point concerned with the increase in staff in certain divisions of my Department. He commented in particular on the increase from 76 to 172 in the resource management branch. That difference of 96 is made up of 52 personnel from the Department of Administrative Services for the automatic data processing program, 15 extra ADP jobs and 29 other possible positions that the Department of Administrative Services thought might be needed but at which we are looking critically. If we think we need those positions we will take the matter up with the Public Service Board. So the concern that the honourable member had in regard to that increase in the number of staff really need be no concern at all. The honourable member for Boothby went on to express some concern about the National Media Liaison Service and wondered whether there were any differences between that Service and the Government Information Unit. It is a very legitimate question to ask. I do not think any government could come into this place and possibly justify an organisation that operated in the way in which the Government Information Unit did under the previous Government. The operations of that Unit severely discredited government information services. It effectively operated as an intelligence branch for the Ministry and, beyond that, as a body devoted to assisting with the campaigns of the Liberal Party of Australia. All that was adequately revealed at a time in the Parliament. On the other hand, we have set down a disciplined series of criteria for the operations of the National Media Liaison Service. As the honourable gentlemen opposite are Hansard raiders I will not need to detail them here. They will find them on page 457 of the Senate Hansard for 16 September. But I will mention two essential criteria. There are many others, which illustrates the very detailed and disciplined way in which we have gone about ensuring that that body is a genuine information unit and not either an intelligence operation or a government-subsidised branch of a political party's operation. In the points outlined in the Hansard point (e ) states: Representatives will not work with local or State ALP branches and will not be involved in party programmes or campaigning in electorates. Point (d) states: State representatives are to provide local members of all parties with details of government programmes. In fact, when those representatives are put in place they will be available to be used not only by honourable members on this side of the chamber but also by honourable members on the other side of the House in securing information on Government activities. There are other points. Honourable gentlemen can read them in the Senate Hansard if they want to do so. What those two points clearly establish is that the National Media Liaison Service will not be utilised in the haphazard, lackadaisical and deeply doubtful form in which the previous Government Information Unit was utilised. The complaint was also raised that we have increased from 21 to 23 the numbers of staff of the Government Information Unit in the formation of the National Media Liaison Service. The additional two positions are provided for Townsville, which is a demonstration of the fact that this Labor Government takes north Queensland and other such regions very seriously. The fact that we take that area seriously is reflected in our preparedness to ensure that adequate information on the Government programs is available to the people of that area in the politically sanitised way in which this Unit will operate. I should also say that another principal difference between us and our predecessors is that we can be confident that the Government Information Unit will actually operate as an information unit because we in fact have something to say to the people. The other side did not have much to convey to the electorate. I think honourable members will be able to see from that that we are being every bit as serious in our intentions in the creation of this Unit as we need to be. Another reason why the Unit has not come into operation to this point is that we have gone through a very careful selection process involving both the Director of the Unit and, on occasions, representatives of the Public Service Board. We are picking highly capable journalists in the hope that we will be able to overcome, both with the Press services in this country and with the general public, the difficulties experience with the previous Government Information Unit-difficulties which it imposed upon those who were serious in their intent to get government information to the general public. The honourable member for Boothby raised one other item that I think requires an answer. It concerned the requirement that the previous Minister be advised of any requests for Australian Federal Police assistance on politically sensitive matters. The honourable member did not go on to mention that the previous Minister had been questioned on that matter and pointed out that the advice he gave on that matter merely repeated instructions of the previous Government dating from November 1979 and was in recognition of the considerable potential for media and public interest in many areas of police activity. The letter simply requests that the Minister be advised of the AFP's involvement in matters of a politically sensitive nature so that the Minister is able to make informed comment if he is requested to do so. I do not think there is any more sensible constraint under which a Minister who is responsible for a police force ought to operate. It would be absolutely absurd to assume that a Minister for police in any State, a previous Minister here with responsibilities for the police or anyone else would operate on any basis other than that. If the honourable member wishes to sustain the case that there is a degree of political interference involved I think he is obliged to come into this chamber with evidence. So all the matters raised by the honourable member for Boothby have answers. One matter raised by the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) does not. That is the question related to the use of government cars by electorate staff. I will have a look at that matter and see what might be done about it. Mr NEWMAN(Bass)(8.58) —I would like to deal with the National Media Liaison Service in a bit more detail. The Government would have it on the record that this is an open organisation, that it was established without any secrecy. But that really has to be questioned. If one looks at the Budget Papers one finds no mention at all of the National Media Liaison Service. It only comes to light when one looks at the explanation of estimates in the papers which the Department provided, in which there is a little bit more detail of what is going on in this Department. But even in that publication, whilst page 12, which contains a general comment on the Department and goes through all its various branches, deals with grants commissions, remuneration tribunals, the Bureau of Criminal Intelligence, parliamentary ministerial staffing services, the public order and police affairs division and so on and so forth, there is no mention at all of the National Media Liaison Service. It is only when one goes through the fine print that suddenly this organisation becomes apparent-in fact, that it even exists. I ask the Minister: Why is it that the Budget Papers and this explanation of estimates goes to such lengths to conceal the fact that the organisation exists at all? The second point is that when one tries to find out exactly what is the budget of this organisation, once again it is only by combing the papers with a fine tooth comb that one can start to get any idea of what that budget is. Whatever the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) may say, the last Government went to great lengths-in fact I personally ordered it-to see that all expenditure of the Government Information Unit, as it was then known, was clearly stated in the Budget Papers, right down to how many cars, telephones, stationery and so on it used. I ask the Minister a second question, seeing that he is in the mood to answer all these questions tonight. Exactly what is the budget of the organisation, in detail? Before I go into further questions, I should like to make a couple of things clear. The Minister alleged that it had been proven that the Government Information Unit of the previous Government was operating with political parties in other States. That is simply not so. It was never proven. Allegations were made. Some spurious papers were produced in this place. There was an attempt to make a connection between those papers and the operations of the Unit. But it was never shown that there was a connection. So, for the Minister to say here that it worked with political organisations is a falsehood, and he knows it. I see that the Minister is nodding his head. Let him go to his colleague the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) and ask him to produce the post-election correspondence that I have had with him. I am sure that the Minister would then see there that what he has said is a falsehood. I have had correspondence with Senator Button pointing out that certain things that he said in the Senate when we were in government were false, and I drew his attention to certain facts. That is the correspondence about which I am talking. As for the Government Information Unit helping honourable members on the other side of the House by giving them details of what the then Government was doing, that help was available to honourable members when they were in opposition. It was part of the charter of the old Government Information Unit. Mr Robert Brown —It was a propaganda unit. Mr NEWMAN —It was part of the charter and it was there for honourable members to use. I have a few more questions for the Minister. Is it true that the National Media Liaison Service will have a computing service of its own? If it is to have such a service, exactly what is the Service to be? What will be the system instituted? If there is to be a computing service in the NMLS, how much money will be spent on that Service? What exactly will the Service do? Will it extend to providing media clips for proselytisation in relation to the Government's policies? The Minister mentioned that the old Government Information Unit was an intelligence gathering unit. I suppose that in one sense that was true. It certainly monitored State newspapers, State media, and provided a report to the Government every morning. I always felt that that was a proper thing for the Unit to do. After all, if Ministers did not know what was going on in the various States, regions and provincial cities of our nation, how could they service their electorate by providing answers to the questions being asked and perhaps countering the comments that were being made by the then Opposition? I have another question. Perhaps the Minister could pay attention for a few seconds. Is he operating here or not? The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable gentleman will continue his remarks. Mr NEWMAN —Will the Minister please tell us whether the NMLS will provide a service to Ministers? Will it monitor what is happening in the media in their States? If not, will the Minister make that clear? If it is going to do that, will the Minister acknowledge it here tonight? He seems to be saying that it will not have an intelligence gathering function, but from the information that I have it is already doing that. Maybe I am wrong; the Minister can confirm that or otherwise. There is another point on which I hope that the Minister will provide an answer tonight. I notice that in promulgating the National Economic Summit Conference, so-called, $1m-odd was provided for advertising campaigns. I notice in the booklet provided by the Department of Administrative Services in relation to its budget that the Information Co-ordination Service of the old Department of Administrative Services has now gone to the Minister's Department. Is that information co-ordination group working with the NMLS? If so, what is its budget ? If it does not have a budget, will the Minister give an assurance now that there will be no more advertising programs such as that which cost $1m-odd, which was spent on proselytisation in relation to the National Economic Summit Conference? There are my questions. The only other thing I will say is that I hope that the Minister will answer my detailed letter on this subject, or at least have the decency to acknowledge it. It is about a month since I sent it to him. The CHAIRMAN —For the guidance of the Committee, I point out that we are running pretty well on schedule. We are not scratching around for speakers. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation and Special Minister of State)(9.05) —We are, in fact, Mr Chairman, running behind, so I shall provide the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) with written answers to the questions that he has raised this evening at some later date. I am sorry if we have not given him an answer yet to his particular letter. I suspect that he has canvassed some of the issues tonight and I shall answer both sets of questions at the same time. Proposed expenditures agreed to. Department of Defence Proposed expenditure, $4,585,935,000. Department of Defence Support Proposed expenditure, $385,220,000. Mr SINCLAIR(New England)(9.06) — There are a few things about which I wish to comment in respect of the estimates now before the Committee. Obviously, given the time allotted and the intricacies of the Department of Defence and the Department of Defence Support, it is impossible to deal with them other than with relative brevity. I was most concerned today to read that there is yet again another suggestion that the Defence Force retirement and death benefits may be changed. The suggestion is that apparently there is to be a five-year commutation instead of a four-year commutation, and that as a result the onerous tax liability that has been imposed by this Government on those who are under the age of 55 at the time of their retirement will in some way be lessened. As most people would know, the commutation formula means that the pension that a serviceman is entitled to receive is, as to four years of the prospective entitlement, paid by way of lump sum if he desires and intends to commute his pension. Apparently there is some absolutely incredible idea that if he takes five years of entitlement he will be just as well off as he would have been before this Government introduced its onerous tax that takes a 30 per cent cut of that commuted five year, or four year as it is now, Defence Force retirement and death benefits superannuation entitlement. That is not an answer to the changes that this Government has imposed, quite contrary to the undertakings given by the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) on 3 March in a telegram sent to every unit of the Australian forces. It is incredible that a Labor Government, which supposedly is interested in the welfare of those in the Australian work force, has taken this step, along with a number of others that I intend to mention shortly, to reduce the terms and conditions of employment of those who work in that permanent service. Of course, they wear the uniform; they are loyal. I do not in any way resent the fact that it is now suggested that they will have to form a trade union. If they have any sense, it will be a radically left trade union; they will go on strike and do all the other things. That seems to be the only way to get the Prime Minister ( Mr Hawke) and other Ministers to react to industrial pressure. The Government's proposition is a nonsensical development of our Defence Force. I have spoken on a number of occasions about the lifting of the tax exemption on reserve forces pay. As most people would know, one of the difficulties in our present tax scale is that if someone who is working has a second job, he is taxed at a different tax rate from that which he would have been if he were working ordinarily and perhaps served overtime, or for some reason received an increment. The lifting of the tax exemption for members of the reserve forces will not only destroy the incentive to serve; it will place on those who are now prepared to give their spare time to serve in the reserve forces a disincentive to do as they are now doing. The whole concept of Australian defence has been that we have a core force which can be expanded. The reserves have been made part of the forces so that they can be seen as part of the total Australian Defence Force. The effect of this Government's decision is not only to destroy that incentive, I believe it is also deliberately to reduce the manpower component. If I had time I would go through the statistics, which show how tight the pressure is on both manpower and operating costs. I believe that this Government has deliberately set about reducing the manpower and has intentionally reduced the capacity to go out and perform normal training exercises. I think the result will be quite a disaster for the Australian forces. I believe that in those two areas-the superannuation tax and the lifting of the tax exemption for reserves-this Government has acted in a way which is totally unacceptable. Of course, it has also reduced the number of hours that reserve personnel serve and it generally seems to be moving to reduce the incentives we provided so that we could have a capacity to expand the core force in a meaningful way. I want to talk about two other areas in the brief time allotted to me. One is my concern about some of the implications in the report of the Auditor-General. I believe that the way the defence forces generally now operate in conjunction with the Department of Defence is not very satisfactory. I want to talk about the Utz Defence Review Committee, but I believe that one thing that needs to be done is that those who have responsibility in particular areas need to be given the capacity to implement their responsibilities. It is absolute nonsense that people who at a time of war would be given enormous responsibility are so circumscribed by the committee system of the Department. If they are in charge of a project-it might be a ship that is being built or some other project on behalf of the Department-they have to report back constantly to those in Defence central. I was interested that on page 34 of the Auditor-General's report, which Mr Speaker tabled in this House the other day, reference is made to the responsibilities of a project director. Had we remained in government one of the areas I would have wished the Utz Committee to cover would have been the whole field of how we could utilise those with very considerable skills, in both the military and civilian side of the Department, to a greater degree and with greater effect. I believe it is essential that we provide greater delegation of authority in that Department and that we find a way by which those who are put in charge of a new project can be given more authority. I noticed today that the Minister for Defence Support (Mr Howe), who is at the table, talked about handing down a contract to Williamstown Naval Dockyard for two follow-on destroyers. I trust that those ships can be built in Australia. I believe there is every reason why they should be. I think we need to encourage production within this country. It would be a very good way by which we could move within existing plans and programs; and also, whether it be in regard to WALER, the defence integrated secure communications network, the generation of new submarines or whatever, we have to develop the skills and capability within Australia. I think it would therefore be a very good idea if we can give the follow-on destroyer contract to Williamstown. If we are to do so, whoever the military commander is-if need be we could appoint a Department of Defence adviser to stand alongside him-those people need to be given delegated responsibility. They should be given an ability to implement the construction. Hopefully, the particular service, whichever one it might be, can set down what it wants at the time the contract is let and not have the successive changes that, regrettably, have taken place in so many of the contracts we seem to have let over recent years. In that respect, I was particularly unhappy about the number of changes the Royal Australian Navy insisted should be implemented on the contract for what is to be HMAS Success. The other problem relates to cases where a contract is let and there are necessary changes. I find it quite unacceptable that the shipbuilder and the people on the job are not allowed to interfere in any way to have anomalies corrected. I know that a number of us have seen changes that were needed on the patrol boats. I am told that because of the nature of the prime contract with the British designer it is not possible to change that design. I find that absolutely ridiculous when ships are to be built and Australians are to serve on those ships which go out on patrol, wherever that might be. The report of the Utz Committee was tabled in this House after its presentation to me last year. This Government has been in office since March. The only change implemented out of the Utz Committee recommendations was that the Department of Defence Support was constituted. I am concerned about relations between the Department of Defence Support and the Department of Defence. To a large degree I blame the present permanent head of the Department of Defence Support, yet I have a great deal of sympathy for him. I think there are problems with the way in which the relationship evolved and in the development of his responsibilities . I believe it is essential that we find a way in which that very wide responsibility for domestic production can be carried out. There were many other recommendations in the Utz Committee report and they need to be responded to by this Government. It is now nearly six months since this Government was elected. It is about time the Government told this Parliament what it is going to do about that report. Many things in the report would be beneficial to the Australian forces. I hope that within the very near future we can get a statement on what is happening in both the Department of Defence and the Department of Defence Support and on what the Government is doing about the final report of the Utz Defence Review Committee. Unless we get some changes in the structure of the departments I do not believe those very few funds that are allotted to them will be applied economically and wisely. Goodness only knows, under the Australian Labor Party we will have enough difficulties. If we cannot get the funds spent wisely and well I think that this country will be the poorer . Mr JACOBI(Hawker)(9.16) —I wish to speak to the estimates for the Department of Defence. This Government takes its defence responsibilities seriously, as the 4 per cent real increase in the defence budget illustrates. There has been criticism by honourable members opposite of that figure, criticism based on the use of the implicit deflator for defence which is different from the non-farm deflator used for other government expenditures. Let me stress that the implicit deflator for defence has been arrived at in exactly the same way as it was arrived at by the previous Government. In fact, this year it is a lot closer to the general non-farm deflator used for the rest of the Budget than it was the last year under the previous Government. The Government is using an inflation rate this year of about 7.5 per cent, while the implicit defence deflator is around 6 per cent. Last year the Liberal Government expected an inflation rate of 11 per cent when it brought down the 1982-83 Budget. Yet the figure it used was around 7 per cent-almost 4 per cent less. That shows clearly how groundless the criticism is. When it comes to defence budgets this Government has a different approach from that of its predecessor. We do not make grand speeches or set up fancy five-year programs for defence. Some of those programs were good assessments of Australia' s defence needs. Some of the speeches were eloquent and that was about all. For instance, the previous Government announced the new defence program in February 1980 in response to the Soviet invasion of Afganistan. Amongst the projects the previous Government promised in that program, which were abandoned two years later, were a second underway replenishment ship, 10 more patrol boats, and the update of the Mirage aircraft's avionics. The previous Government promised that expenditure on capital-type equipment would rise from around 15 per cent to 25 per cent over a five-year program. That promise went by the board. The very next year the percentage of the defence budget spent on capital-type equipment actually fell dramatically from 15.5 per cent in 1980-81 to around 11 per cent in 1981-82. The effect of these sorts of grand promises and even grander delays is that this Government has no financial room to manoeuvre. There is no room in the defence budget for new initiatives or new equipment. This year capital-type equipment will take almost 20 per cent of the total defence budget and outstanding obligations, mainly for capital-type equipment carried over from last year, are a little over $5 billion. Faced with the situation which allows no major new equipment purchases or other initiatives, the Government is using the period to review Defence Force structures, our strategic situation and the system of determining Defence Force wages and conditions. We will not do what the previous Government did when it began to feel the pinch of the capital equipment bill which it had built up by constant deferrals. That Government first made the Defence Force and the Department of Defence absorb the cost of pay increases and then denied pay increases to the forces. In 1981 the Liberal Government circulated a seven-page document to the Department and the Services outlining how the cost increases would be absorbed. Let us look at the cynical approach of the previous Minister. How did he go about implementing these deferrals and expenditure cuts? Let us see how he put them in place. Discretionary expenditure was to be deferred until further notice . No new commitments or expenditures were to be made except where necessary for essential operational activities and where payments were required, as distinct from permitted, to be made by legislation. Contractual commitments in respect of major equipment acquisitions were not to be entered into and increased wage and salary expenditures were to be absorbed by eliminating overtime. These guidelines spoke of a test of essentiality. They went on to state: Even where the test of essentiality is met the scope of activities and functions is to be reduced wherever possible. They continued: Only the minimum level of training and exercising necessary to avoid long term degradation of the Defence Force is to continue at this stage. The next time wage and salary increases were likely honourable members opposite decided not to try to absorb them in the rest of the defence budget. But that was not good enough in 1982. Instead, the Minister ignored the issue altogether. The Committee of Reference on Defence Force Pay in its fourth report on the Adequacy of Defence Force Pay in August 1982 implored the then Minister to give it a reference to be completed by the end of 1982. The Committee said: With respect, such a review will be essential not only upon economic grounds but as an indication of the efficiency and worth of the pay system instituted for Members of the Defence Force. With all due respect, what was the then Government's response to that plea? It indicated just what little worth that Government attached to the system of Defence Force pay determinations. The former Government refused to release the report for months and responded to it only in November. At the time it said: Recommendations dealing with future reviews of Defence Force remuneration were still under consideration. That consideration continued until the very day on which the pay freeze was announced. The ease with which the then Minister ignored the recommendation of the Committee of Reference on Defence Force Pay illustrates why the Labor Party has put such a high priority on changing the pay determining scheme. This Government is in the process of bringing forward legislative changes to make the Committee of Reference a tribunal with an independent right of operation which is able to meet at its own discretion rather than having to meet following a reference from the Minister. Under our legislation the Committee will be able to make determinations with the same legal weight as those of the wage fixing authorities or other sections of the Public Service; that is, its determinations will be able to be rejected only by the Parliament rather than just ignored by the Minister. A position for a professional advocate for the Services will be created to put the Services viewpoint to the tribunal. The former Government had more than adequate scope and time with which to do that. This will ensure that there will be no easy way out of pay rises. That is all one could expect, I suppose, from a party which even now, in Opposition, is doing all it can to undermine Service morale. There are difficult decisions to be made in the defence area, and we will face them. For instance, the former Government could not make the decision not to buy the carrier despite advice to that effect from the highest level of defence advisers in the Services and in the Department. It delayed taking the matter to Cabinet despite having this advice to hand, and now that this Government has accepted this body of professional advice, the Opposition misrepresents it on every occasion. Honourable members opposite stand indicted for what they are. Mr Spender —Not true. Mr JACOBI —It is true. The Opposition ignores the firm commitment of the Defence Minister (Mr Scholes) and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to an anti-submarine warfare carrier alone and their stern warnings that the Harrier aircraft are far in the future if indeed they will ever be acquired. Mr Killen decided that the fixed wing of the Fleet Air Arm would no longer be needed but to hear the Opposition now, with all due deference, one would think they were offering us the USS Nimitz. I conclude on this note: This Government is not interested in cheap tricks and conspicuous pieces of equipment to grab some free publicity. We are interested in making the Defence Forces effective and efficient and equipped with weapons and back-up items which will ensure the future security of Australia. Unlike our predecessors we are not afraid to say to the people that an aircraft carrier is not needed. The people recognise the truth of what we have said. Our opponents held out false hopes to those who wanted the ship. They waited until after the election until they really made a decision on the matter. By dropping the carrier, we have saved precious resources in the five-year defence program which can now be allocated to things that really matter, such as the new submarine and follow-on destroyer, minehunters, the F18 fighter project and the Jindalee radar project. We ought not forget that it was the Whitlam Labor Government in 1974 that authorised the first early experiments on this project, which promises to give Australia an unmatched long range surveillance system. The Government supports the middle way. We do not support foolish isolationism, neutrality or subservience to anybody. This is the only policy for Australia. I believe that it is the only firm policy for the Labor Government, and it will institute it. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(9.26) —This evening I wish to say something on the subject of accountability, efficiency and the future in relation to defence support and at the same time to say something about defence. On the subject of accountability, a newly formed department-the Department of Defence Support-came into existence in 1982 as a result of the report of the Defence Review Committee . That Department should be more susceptible to stringent control by the Minister for Defence Support (Mr Howe). The Minister will be aware that some very severe criticisms have been made by the Auditor-General of what has happened in the Department. I shall put some of those criticisms on the record. When we next come to consider the Estimates, if the Minister is still the Minister for Defence Support, I will want to note why these criticisms have not been met, if in fact he has not met them. On page 61 of the Auditor-General's report one sees under the heading ' Munitions and Ordinance Factories' a number of criticisms. I will just touch on a few: Work in progress was not subject to verification or valuation. Standard accounting practices were not adopted in relation to depreciation; there was an absence of factory stockstaking of holding stocks; buildings were not properly verified; and expenditures were not brought properly to account. Under the heading 'Aircraft and Guided Weapons Establishments'-one can only just touch upon a few matters-one sees that once again depreciation was not taken into account in what seemed to the Auditor-General to be a satisfactory manner. The basis of insurance was on the original cost rather than present cost; it was not possible to verify the value of stock; and it was not possible to verify the existence and value of work in progress. Other criticisms also were made by the Auditor-General. On the subject of the format and publication of financial statements within the Department, the Auditor-General made a number of very clear criticisms. He referred to the attitude of indifference on the part of factory management. In particular, he said: The requirement for annual financial statements and the resultant section 41D determination originates from the 34th Report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts which recommended, inter alia, that: there should be an obligation upon the factory to keep a 'profit and loss account and a balance sheet', the annual profit and loss account and balance sheet should be certified by the Auditor- General, and unless policy requirements are expressly to the contrary, the factories should prepare annual reports . . . He went on to say: The current arrangements do not accord with these recommendations. The final accounts are not presented in the form of a profit and loss account and balance sheet; nor is a report furnished to the Parliament. It is, of course, perfectly plain that it is essential that there be proper financial accounts so that as a general proposition there should be no doubt that in the interest of accountability and the proper and efficient use of public funds the Auditor-General's criticisms of the format and publication of financial statements should be met, as should the criticisms made by him in relation to specific areas within the Department of Defence Support on which I have touched so very briefly. All financial statements should be prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally applied in commercial practice. All statements should be published. All statements should be prepared and furnished to the Auditor-General within three months of the close of the financial year, and not 12 months. All factories should prepare annual financial reports which are to be presented to Parliament for its scrutiny. The Minister will have adequate time between now and the next occasion when he sits at the table for the purpose of hearing the debate on Estimates to ensure that these criticisms are met. I hope that he acts to make sure that they are met. I shall say something briefly on the subject of efficiency. Efficiency within the Department of Defence Support, as elsewhere, when one is in the business of manufacturing, may broadly be measured in terms of capacity to manufacture defence equipment within time constraints, quality control and cost effectiveness. Deficiencies in all these areas are illustrated by the saga of that ship which is ironically named the HMAS Success. The Auditor-General deals with the fate of the HMAS Success at pages 15 to 25 of his report. I shall refer briefly to what he had to say at page 25 of that report. He referred to the latest estimates which he said: . . . indicate the ship will be completed approximately three years later than previously provided for in the 1979 ship construction contract. In six years, the approved project costs have increased by $114.1 million to $187.3 million. Audit is unable to state with certainty the extent of the real cost increase. He also said: Audit considers that the Department did not allocate sufficient or appropriately skilled resources to a major project that it knew would be complex and where the risks were clearly recognised in respect of such fundamental issues as design, production control and quality assurance. We all believe, I think, that there should be a shipbuilding capacity in this country, but it is nonsense that these kinds of problems should be experienced in the manufacture of what is not really a tremendously sophisticated kind of vessel. The saga of the HMAS Success is an object lesson in what should be avoided. I hope we do not hear ministerial bromides in 12 months time as to the reasons why HMAS Success is still floundering along in the dockyard. I shall now say something briefly about the future. Defence support is purely ancillary to defence. Its purpose is to provide optimum support for the defence forces during peace and war. Our task in this Parliament is to look to the future, to gauge our long term needs and to plan to meet those needs. The kinds of long term objectives which I believe we should plan for would include these: Firstly, to increase national self-reliance and progressively to enlarge our capacity to meet our defence requirements from our own industrial, technical and scientific resources, to increase Australian research and development and to do more design, development, engineering and production in Australia; secondly, in general to give preference to Australian industry for the manufacture of defence equipment; thirdly, to plan the future use of existing defence industry resources so that there is a high degree of use of those resources, thus promoting efficiency and cost effectiveness; fourthly, to keep under continuous review our defence industry resources with the aims of filling gaps in those resources on a planned basis, increasing efficiency, eliminating unnecessary duplication of capacity, and disposing of or liquidating government-owned projects whose functions can be more cheaply and efficiently carried out by the private sector; fifthly, to promote actively the overseas marketing of Australian defence equipment to selected countries, especially those within the South-East Asian and Western Pacific regions, and by this means to foster commonality in equipment with friendly countries, to expand the market for Australian defence equipment and to establish Australia as a defence resource centre for friendly countries within our region; and sixthly, where feasible to set up projects for the joint development and manufacture of defence equipment with friendly countries in our region. Such projects could be set up when we do not have the capability to develop or to manufacture a specific item of equipment or when we could do so only at an unacceptably high cost. In such cases joint projects would enhance Australia's defence industry capacity. These are but some of the objectives, and I hope that these are the objectives which the Minister and all honourable members share. Success in achieving these kinds of objectives requires not just foresight-a capacity to plan ahead, determination and some originality in thinking-but that the Government should have a clear set of strategic priorities and one that will best serve Australia' s defence needs over the next 20 years, for it is over that kind of time span that we must plan. Unless defence policy is right, it is quite possible that our defence industry will develop along the wrong lines and resources will be misallocated for the simple and fundamental reason that the sole function of our defence industry is to service the needs of our defence forces. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(9.36) —Before I commence my remarks on the specific estimates for the Department of Defence and the Department of Defence Support I comment that it is a matter of some concern to me that on every occasion when the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) has spoken on defence in this House, he has operated a deliberate campaign and spoken deliberately to create anxiety and uncertainty amongst our defence services. He has attempted to diminish morale in the defence forces. I consider that his attitude is quite irresponsible. He ought to desist from doing that. There is certainly nothing in our estimates and appropriations which would lead to any diminution of morale in the defence services. I think that in the interests of an effective service the Deputy Leader of the National Party ought to offer something positive. However, I welcome this opportunity to comment on the 1983-84 Estimates. Expenditure on defence and defence support is certainly vital to my electorate of Bendigo. More than 3,000 personnel in my electorate are employed by the Department of Defence or the Department of Defence Support. Puckapunyal, near Seymour, is the base for Australia's major armoured and transport corps. The army base not only makes a substantial contribution to Australia's defence requirements but also makes a notable contribution to the economy and community of Seymour. More than 2,000 personnel are directly employed at Puckapunyal, with some 800 families living at or around the base in married quarters. Estimated appropriations to the Puckapunyal army base in 1983-84 put to rest the myth which, as I say, has been perpetrated by the Opposition that our Government is intent on destroying Australia's defence capabilities and service. More than $5m will be spent this year as part of a massive $14.7m redevelopment of the armoured centre. The project is expected to be completed by 1985 and involves the integration of existing buildings with new buildings and engineering services to form a permanent training centre for the Royal Australian Armoured Corps. The $14m project will provide direct and indirect employment for some 500 people, including a peak on-site work force of 175 during the first half of 1984. In another major project at Puckapunyal more than $700,000 will be spent on the first stage of a project to install airconditioning in the main instructional building of the School of Transport and Catering. That project is expected to be completed by September 1985 and involves a total cost of $2.3m. It is a project which I have strongly supported and on which I have spoken on a number of occasions. Present conditions for personnel training in the main instructional building are totally inadequate in warm and hot weather. Tests carried out in the building last summer showed that the temperature in the main kitchen was 43 degrees celsius when outside temperatures were 28 degrees celsius, and temperatures at the air inlet to the grease filters at ceiling level were measured at an amazing 68 degrees celsius. Severe disruption is obviously being caused by these excessive temperatures, and it is quite understandable that at times the students have been less than enthusiastic about training in those circumstances. When other appropriations to Puckapunyal are taken into account for items such as housing and minor works, more than $7m will be spent this year at Puckapunyal on projects which in total involve forward expenditures of some $20m. Bendigo itself is home to both the Army Survey Regiment Unit, based at the historic Fortuna site, and the Bendigo Ordnance Factory. Some 300 personnel are directly employed at Fortuna and when families are taken into account more than 500 people in Bendigo are directly or indirectly dependent on the unit for their livelihood. Contrary to the views of successive governments for more than 15 years, the people of Bendigo are united in their opposition to the proposed relocation of the Army Survey Regiment Unit to Bonegilla. I will quickly relate to honourable members some of the history of this important issue. In 1967 the Royal Australian Survey Review Committee was appointed to examine the role, organisation, training and accommodation of the Royal Australian Survey and to produce a master plan for a phased reorganisation to be implemented by 1975. In 1968 the Review Committee recommended the formation of an Army mapping and charting centre involving co-location in a suitable area of the five units of the Army Survey. Early in 1970 the then Minister for Defence, now the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), in reply to questions from the then Federal member for Bendigo, Mr Kennedy, and representations from Bendigo City Council stated: I must say that I am satisfied with the decision, and must confirm that the present plans to re-locate are entirely justified on administrative, technical and operational grounds . . . In the light of all the evidence I am unable to put aside the recommendations of the Review Committee that Bonegilla is preferable as the site for the Survey Regiment. Later in 1970 the Army Works Committee and the Chief of General Staff approved facilities for the co-location of the Army Survey Regiment, the map depot and the School of Military Survey at Bonegilla. Following further strong local and political pressure in the early 1970s aimed at retaining the centre in Bendigo the Defence Facilities Location Committee reconsidered the question of relocation in 1973. But it also recommended that the transfer go ahead. Finally, in June 1982 a facilities brief prepared by the Army confirmed the relocation decision and listed detailed justification in support of the relocation to Bonegilla. Despite the recommendations of those reports and the views of successive Ministers over almost 15 years which support the relocation to Bonegilla, I take this opportunity to state very clearly the total and unequivocal opposition of the Bendigo community to this proposal. Our community is determined to fight to retain the Survey Unit at Fortuna. Honourable members will well remember the insensitive and foolish decision taken by the previous Government to attempt to sell off the Bendigo Ordnance Factory. The fact that the Ordnance Factory stands alive and well today is in no small part due to the concerted and unified compaign by the Bendigo community to keep the Ordnance Factory. Mr Spender —And by the former member. Mr BRUMBY —The former member first proposed to sell it in 1974. Mr Spender —He fought very hard to keep it. Mr BRUMBY —He proposed to sell it in 1974. He reiterated that promise until 1981 . The Government can expect a campaign of similar strength and persistence in relation to the Army Survey Regiment Unit. I conclude my remarks this evening by making some observations concerning defence support appropriations and the Bendigo Ordnance Factory. The Ordnance Factory, which provides the defence services, government authorities and commercial customers with a broad and high quality engineering capability, directly employs some 650 people and generates at least-I emphasise the words ' at least'-$10m of income in the Bendigo economy annually. As I have already said , the Factory stands alive and well today because of the efforts of the local community and the strong support of the Australian Labor Party for a defence industry capacity in Bendigo and throughout Australia. Defence support estimates for 1983-84 will ensure a higher work load at the Factory than for 1982-83. The Budget also allocated some $239,000 for the provision of a new machining centre which will provide significant benefits when machining complex items in small numbers. Additional defence contracts for the Ordnance Factory over the coming years are vital if industrial capacity and employment levels are to be increased . Apprenticeship intakes and the age structure of personnel presently employed at the Ordnance Factory ensure a natural increase in employment of between 70 and 80 people by 1986. The factory itself has been highly effective in gaining private commercial contracts but clearly requires additional defence work in the future. Of particular significance in relation to future defence contracts for the Factory is the $2m allocated from this year's Budget for management and other reforms at the Williamstown Naval Dockyards. Federal Cabinet is to decide in the very near future on the placement of contracts for two follow-up destroyers at a cost of somewhere near $800m. Should those contracts be awarded to the Williamstown Dockyards some 250 man years of work will be generated for the Bendigo Ordnance Factory. Having taken a very close interest in the Williamstown Dockyards and having attended a conference at the Dockyards on 17 June this year I strongly advocate the awarding of those contracts to the Williamstown Dockyards. Over the past 12 months absenteeism at the Dockyards has fallen dramatically and time lost because of industrial action is only one-tenth of that at its peak in 1979-80. To my mind the Dockyards are well placed to accept these contracts and recommence the task of restoring a viable defence shipbuilding facility in this nation with its associated benefits for other defence establishments such as the Bendigo Ordnance Factory. The task facing our Government in the area of defence industrial capacity is a massive one. During the 1970s under the policies of the Liberal-National Country Party Government overseas purchases of capital equipment for the Australian Defence Force increased rapidly, representing a massive 70 per cent of total capital expenditure in 1982-83. At the same time, Australian industry's involvement in repairs and maintenance declined. Existing contractual arrangements for defence purchases such as the new fighter and others make it extremely difficult in the short term to increase substantially local Australian participation. Despite these difficulties, I am confident that our Government can and will provide our defence industry with the support it so obviously deserves. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired . Mr KATTER(Kennedy)(9.47) —When one looks at the Estimates, particularly in the realm of defence, they are never near enough. I do not think there has been a defence Minister who has not done everything humanly possible to work through his committees to try to bring pressure on the Government to get additional funding. So much for the Estimates and the contribution they have made to the defence spectrum in this Budget. Anyone who has had a continuing interest in defence and who has appreciated and watched the contribution that the Citizen Military Forces and citizen forces generally have made would have been saddened by the decision of the Hawke Government to withdraw from the CMF members the taxation benefits they had previously enjoyed. I can well imagine the present Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) sitting at the Cabinet table and being extremely distressed over this decision, knowing his thinking and attitude. The Minister for Defence Support (Mr Howe) may have been equally disappointed. However, that decision is now written into the legislation and we cannot do very much about it, at least for the time being. I wish to speak for a moment on the aircraft carrier and the general argument which seems to be continuing. As the Committee will be aware, the committee which I chaired until recently was given the term of reference from the Senate to go into the proposed purchase of an aircraft carrier profoundly and with a good deal of serious responsibility. This was done over a period of about six months. The evidence came from all quarters, but it was rather remarkable to observe that people like myself who went into the inquiry convinced that we should have an aircraft carrier came out of it equally convinced that it would have been irresponsible to decide on the purchase of the aircraft carrier. Let me explain that statement to honourable members. When the inquiry began we were all very content with the thought that we would get the aircraft carrier Invincible for $400m. That was not a purchase, it was a steal. I have on record a comment by a very senior American admiral who said that the Invincible in its own category was possibly the finest ship afloat. We were unable to purchase the Invincible; it was withdrawn from sale. We considered the purchase of another ship of its class. A ship of its class built only some months after the offer of the Invincible, fully equipped with the type of Harrier we would have wanted, would have cost about $2,000m. Why did we decide, after taking evidence from all quarters, that this would have been irresponsible? I have nothing but the greatest respect for retired senior defence personnel. They still have the experience of having seen our equipment in action. Some honourable members may refer to them as members of Dad 's Army but that is nonsense. One particular rear admiral having only very limited knowledge, conducted a campaign against me, my Committee and the decisions we made, confined to a traditional and almost unreasonable loyalty to the Royal Australian Navy. We could have said: 'Okay, we will recommend buying an aircraft carrier. But do not worry about the Harpoons or the new generation weapons and equipment that this nation must have which is vital to our future'. I mention that the Committee's decision was unanimous. It was based on very impressive evidence. Let us look for a moment at the present world situation. I wish to refer first of all to the conflict in the Lebanon. It is all very well to say that Lebanon is a long way away. Anyone who has examined even remotely the history of the Middle East will inevitably come to the conclusion that the small area known as the Lebanon is a strategic area which is critical to our interests in respect of the East and the West. It is the gateway to the Middle East. The present conflict in the Lebanon is of extreme importance to the strategy of that area generally. I will not go through a long rigmarole about things that are being said every day of the week but I wonder what the future holds. Let us look at the alternatives. Will the Syrians and the other occupying forces remain there? Would one be foolish enough to suggest that the various countries involved have some sort of incentive based on some traditional claim that they think they have to that area? Or could it be that, once more, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, using the insidious techniques of infiltration which it used in Afghanistan, will actually occupy the Lebanon through the Syrians? In South East Asia it fought to the last Vietnamese. Maybe in the Middle East it will fight to the last Syrian or the last Palestinian. I do not know. I do know that this represents a terrible dilemma for the Western world. I suppose the United States of America has sufficient forces to blast these people out of existence. What will happen if it does that? Will the Soviet Union pour in arms to the Syrians and retaliate? It is a very difficult and very serious situation. But we should note one thing: While this is continuing genocide is occurring in its most vicious form. I have the utmost sympathy over the killing of the Leader of the Opposition in the Philippines but he was just one person. Every day of each week thousands of people are being slaughtered in the Lebanon. We cannot turn away from this situation. The three parties in this chamber have not turned away from this; members of each party have given recognition to this terrible problem. I would like now to talk about Norforce. I hope that the Minister for Defence will continue with his present policy of developing Norforce into something that is really worth while. What is Norforce? I live where Norforce is situated. It is a small unit-almost a sub-unit-which has tremendous enthusiasm for fighting for this country, or if not doing that, carrying out patrol operations and observations which are indeed critical in that northern part of the nation. I am delighted that another unit or sub-unit-I am not sure yet as we have not been supplied with the actual details-could be provided somewhere in the vicinity of the Townsville-Cairns area; perhaps based in Townsville itself. Mr Lindsay —The nor-east force. Mr KATTER —I am sure that this is something all honourable members would accept. If this idea is accepted it will have to be the same sort of mobile force that we have seen in operation. We do not have much relativity with confined areas such as Israel and the surrounding countries, or Vietnam. It is unfortunate that I have to quote the operations of the Vietnamese. But when it comes to mobility, the capacity to move fast, to hit hard and get away again, we would have to go a long way before finding more efficient operations than those carried out, firstly, by the Israelis and, secondly, I regret to say, the Vietnamese. Mr McGauran —They were murderers. Mr KATTER —They continue to be murderers. We know that. For Norforce to be effective an awful lot more money will have to be provided to expand it to the sort of mobile force that we all wish it to be. It must be provided with equipment that is highly efficient-killer type equipment, new generation type equipment-because there will not be much of it. The force has an awfully big area to cover and has to be provided with radar equipment. If we were to look at a map we would say that it is totally impossible to protect the coastline of Australia. That is absolute nonsense. It would be totally impossible if there were some sort of invasion coming from all directions. But, with the limited resources we have, we are doing a pretty good job. The point I wish to make is that we should develop Norforce. We should bring in elements of the Citizen Military Forces. Many CMF personnel will now be totally discouraged by the new legislation cutting out taxation benefits. We could bring in Aborigines who know their areas intimately. They can detect changes in the natural scene of things. I would say that Norforce is the force of the future. It is pretty silly to try to talk about defence in 10 minutes. Finally, I earnestly request, as one who has been closely associated with the CMF, that the Government review its legislation as far as the CMF is concerned. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired . Mr GAYLER(Leichhardt)(9.57) —The Opposition is seeking short term political advantage when we should be considering the long term planning of our defence forces. The Opposition's tactics are affecting the morale of the Defence Force. I draw to the attention of honourable members the former Government's record on defence and the cutbacks it made in this area over a long period. The former Government talked up defence and then subsequently cut back spending. In 1976 it announced a major re-equipment program in its White Paper. In 1978 that program was abandoned. Training time was cut and equipment programs were delayed or quietly abolished. I would like to quote what was said by Dr Robert O'Neill of the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre of the Australian National University. In 1978 he said that every time there is a Budget crisis the Government looks around for some way of saving money and the only way in which it can do it is by reducing equipment procurement for defence. In 1980 the then Prime Minister announced a new defence program. It was presented in detail by the then Minister for Defence in August of that year. That presentation was in response to the invasion of Afghanistan. Major announcements in that program included the following: A second underway replenishment ship and-I say this with some parochialism-10 more patrol boats; structural refurbishment of the Mirage aircraft; increased funds for maintenance and personnel for increased life of equipment; increased field stock holdings; more training time; more flying hours; steaming time and more track kilometres. That program was introduced by the former Government but it left those matters unattended. Mr Braithwaite —Who provided the patrol boats? Mr GAYLER —I do not want to go into the question of patrol boats now. I will speak about that matter at some future time. We got a Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation boat. There was quite a bit of pork- barrelling in the electorate of Leichhardt when it was decided not to go ahead with the 10 patrol boats. Progress reported. Victorian State Budget-New Parliament House: Traffic Flow Problems-Immigration- Rural Production Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 10 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(10.00) —Last night the Victorian Cain Labor Government brought down its second Budget. As a Victorian, I have to admit that I have grave concern about this Budget. The Victorian Treasurer, Mr Jolly, stated as required by law that the Consolidated Fund would be balanced in 1983-84. In other words, the Budget will be balanced, something we should be pleased to note . In his Budget the Victorian Treasurer has increased State taxes by over $200m. Included in this rise is yet another increase in the price of petrol. Already Victorians have faced two increases in the price of petrol from the Federal Government in less than six months. Now the State Labor Government is hopping in for its cut too. This is one area on which the Federal and State Labor governments agree. By the reckless pushing up of petrol prices, country people are to be disadvantaged by a Labor government yet again. It is very clear that Labor cares nothing for rural Australia. Not only do country people have to pay more for travel under Labor, but the freight on everything country people buy and sell will rise too. It is no wonder the State political reporter for the Age said today: The Government has now so comprehensively broken its election pledges to hold down taxes and charges, that few people would have been surprised by the new slugs announced in the Budget yesterday. In its first 18 months the State Government has raised State taxes by over $20 a week for every Victorian household. Added to the $15 a week extra all householders have to pay after the Federal Budget, that makes over $35 a week extra expenditure for every Victorian household since Labor took over in Victoria. Let us look a bit further at the Victorian Labor Budget. It has to be a balanced Budget, but when we look closely we begin to see the extraordinary juggling that the State Treasurer has done to achieve this balance. We find that the State has started using its instrumentalities as tax collectors. Since the Cain Government came to power last year electricity charges have gone up by 30 per cent and gas prices have gone up even more. This is what is called taxing through the back door. The only trouble is that it all comes out of the same front door pay packet. Then we find that the Treasurer has indulged in what is known as creative accounting. 'Creative' is the right word because, just as in the Cain Government's first Budget, State expenditure in fact exceeds revenue raised by the normal methods by several hundred million dollars. In order to balance the books the Government has started selling off the State's assests. In some cases we have seen the extraordinary situation of an asset being sold and then leased back. When one considers that some of these assets being hocked belong to State monopolies such as the railways, one wonders who puts the value on the assets. As reported in today's Age, without the so-called creative accounting the State Budget deficit is estimated to be over $800m. When that is added to last year's similar real deficit, the Victorian Labor Government has run up a bill approaching $1,500m. Yet it claims to have balanced the books. With the aid of creative accounting, it seems to be a case of having a deficit when one does not have a deficit. Mr Tuckey —A Clayton's deficit. Mr HAWKER —That is right, a Clayton's deficit. All Victorians-with respect, Mr Speaker, I include you-must view with grave concern this State Budget announced last night. Since gaining office 18 months ago the State Labor Government not only raised State taxes by 28 per cent but also run up a real deficit of $1,500m . Victoria is now seeing a double dose of Labor, with higher taxes and higher deficits. This will prove to be remarkably shortsighted, for the trouble is that all Victorians will have to pay for the State Labor Government's shortsightedness. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(10.05) —Today the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Australian Capital Territory tabled its report on the seventy- eighth series of variations. In that report the Committee has endorsed proposals for ramps leading into the new Parliament House and the State Circle intersections, but it has reserved its judgment on the further issue of traffic flow through surrounding suburbs. In the course of public hearings many submissions were received from residents and it became clear that there are major problems of traffic flow from the suburb of Deakin, especially along Melbourne Avenue. These objections must be looked at thoroughly. Further public hearings now have to be held to allow much greater public consultation. Recently the National Capital Development Commission published in the Canberra Times an outline of traffic proposals for the suburb of Deakin. However, there is still major dissatisfaction, and I believe that unless action is taken there will be a large build up of traffic flow in the suburb of Deakin when the new Parliament House is completed. The major issues that should be addressed include the need to inhibit through traffic in the residential areas, especially in the light of increased traffic densities when the new Parliament House opens and particularly in the feeder streets into Melbourne Avenue, Deakin, and the need to ensure that Melbourne Avenue, Stonehaven Crescent and Strickland Crescent do not become the main arterial roads through the suburbs of Forrest and Deakin. It is also important to ensure that the residential streets of Forrest and Deakin do not become a funnel for traffic from north to south and vice versa. There is a need to devise appropriate measures to ensure that the large volume of traffic to and from the new Parliament House is not channelled into the surrounding suburbs. It is also critical that we look at the traffic flow along Kent Street, Deakin, to ensure that residents in that street do not continue to be disadvantaged by the large traffic flow. I also believe that the NCDC should apply itself to looking at traffic flow throughout the whole of the Forrest area and should stop looking in a piecemeal fashion at the traffic flow in this area which will result from the building of the new Parliament House. Rather, it should take on board the comments and criticisms of the residents and try to come up with a constructive policy which will restrict the traffic flow on the major arterials leading into Melbourne Avenue, so providing the sort of environment that the people of these areas have come to expect. Mr BURR(Wilmot)(10.08) —On Tuesday evening I started to explain to the House the situation of a constituent of mine, Mr John Griffin, who has faced a most embarrassing and demeaning situation with regard to this application for permanent residence in Australia. I pointed out to the House that Mr Griffin, after joining the Army Reserve, was taken by police in Tasmania and put into gaol because he had not conformed with certain provisions required by immigration officials in Australia. That action was taken on the authority of Mr Thompson of the Hobart office of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Mr Griffin has great emotional ties with his family here in Australia, all of whom are now permanent residents. I believe there are very sound reasons why this man should be admitted to Australia as a permanent resident. On 13 September 1982 I wrote to the then Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr Hodges, and in that letter I said: I am deeply concerned by having to advise you that, since accepting this case on behalf of Mr Griffin, and assisting him in lodging an application form for permanent status, he has been subjected to extreme pressures by officers of your department through threats of prosecution on two counts, a guaranteed term of imprisonment and/or a heavy fine unless he withdrew the application form which I am now presenting to you. These actions, particularly those taken by Mr Peter Thompson of your Hobart office, resulted in the collapse of Mrs Rossiter in her home at 33 Main Road, Cressy, on the afternoon of September 10. On that occasion Mr Griffin, having taken the options available to him to fill out an application form for permanent entry into this country, was put under extreme pressure by Mr Thompson to withdraw the application form. He was threatened with gaol and in fact on one occasion was imprisoned as an illegal immigrant. His surrogate parents, Mr and Mrs Rossiter, were also threatened with imprisonment for harbouring an illegal immigrant. This resulted in the extreme nervous condition of Mrs Rossiter, who collapsed under that nervous condition. This pressure was put on those people by Mr Peter Thompson of the Hobart office of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I believe he acted most improperly and immorally in the actions that he took. Subsequently this man made further applications to the Immigration Review Tribunal so that his case could be properly considered. He was again put under extreme pressure by the Department to withdraw his application to the Tribunal, but he decided to continue with it. He was then approached by Mr Thompson of the Department and told that if he married a female Australian resident he would be automatically granted permanent status in this country. Under that duress, he then made a proposal of marriage to a young lady in Tasmania, although that had not been the couple's intention at that stage. The rumour spread around Tasmania that these two people were living together. As a result, the young lady was put under such extreme pressure in her employment that she was forced to resign. All of this was done on the instruction and at the insistence of Mr Peter Thompson of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. This is only part of the story. There is a lot more yet to come that I will explain about Mr Thompson. Mr Griffin finally decided that he and the young lady were not emotionally suited and that it would be stupid for them to marry. Finally, the engagement was broken off and they decided quite wisely not to continue with plans for the marriage. Mr Thompson then approached Mr Griffin and said: 'You must now leave the country immediately because you are not going to marry this lady'. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(10.13) —I raise tonight a problem concerning an Australian lady who went to Canada with her husband, settled there and subsequently took out Canadian citizenship. I have two similar cases in my office at present. The first concerns the mother of an Australian lady. The mother lives in Five Dock in my electorate and she has now become ill. She had had both of her knees replaced in operations and she needs her daughter to look after her. The problem is, of course, that the daughter unfortunately has become a Canadian and she receives no consideration at all in relation to returning with her husband to settle in Australia. The mother is extremely distressed and has seen me on a number of occasions. She has been told by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs: 'Your daughter can come back if you can get her husband a job'. An elderly lady walking on a stick with infirm knees cannot go from one firm to another trying to get a job for her son-in-law. In addition, there are no jobs in big cities. It is really a very futile exercise. This elderly lady in my electorate is totally frustrated as to what to do about her daughter who for no reason at all took on Canadian citizenship, believing that for the rest of her life she would live in Canada and that she would be able to vote in Canada and have the same nationality as her husband. Indeed, if this lady had come to Australia she would be able to enrol and vote in Australia because Canadians are deemed to be still eligible to get on the Australian electoral roll and vote in elections. But when it comes to migration, even though she was born and bred in the electorate of Lowe, this woman is debarred from returning and again taking up her Australian citizenship. Quite extraordinarily, I had a second case with almost the same facts referred to my office last Saturday when I was interviewing in the electorate. I raise this matter tonight because these situations where Australian women have abandoned their citizenship, having married a British or a Canadian national, are very difficult. They fall between two departments. They are somewhere between the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Neither Department wishes to become too involved or extend more than the usual limited amount of sympathy. But I have to face this elderly lady who is in desperate need of care, whose only daughter is living in Canada and cannot return to Australia. Women who go overseas and change their citizenship never really appreciate that that stops them from coming back. They were born here and they regard themselves as Australians who just happen to be living overseas and who, by filling out a form, have changed their citizenship. The lady in Five Dock found that her daughter was taken totally by surprise. She could not return to Australia whenever she wanted to care for her mother. I raise this case tonight. The lady in Canada is Mrs Murphy. She writes to me regularly from Canada. She does not know what course of action to follow. She realises her mother cannot get her a job here and that she cannot return. The Department of Foreign Affairs says that she can become an Australian again when she returns and waits the necessary time. But she cannot return because she cannot migrate without employment for her husband. That is why I am raising these cases tonight. I hope that the two Ministers concerned will sympathetically consider these matters and use the discretion that they have under the legislation to allow these cases to be dealt with in a more sympathetic manner than at present. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(10.17) —It is my intention tonight to draw to the attention of members of the House the most important aspect of rural production in Australia. Of course, last year rural production reached a record level of $ 12.5 billion. This value, of course, was well up on the value of a decade ago when it was only $4 billion. So honourable members can see the tremendous role that rural Australia is playing in the recovery of the Australian economic scene . The estimates issued yesterday by the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that the value of crop production in 1981-82 was $6,311m, while livestock slaughterings were worth $3,295m. Livestock products were worth another $3 billion. I emphasise those figures. I know that the Government is not keen on farmers. It hates farmers. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his crew hate farmers. I emphasise these figures because of the tremendous role played by the farming sector. Wheat was the major crop with a value of $2,599m, followed by sugar cane -the great sugar crop of Queensland; where would Australia be without Queensland -which was worth $590m. Vegetables were worth $500m and the barley crop $463m. In the great cattle industry, which again is based in Queensland, livestock worth $1,890m were killed for consumption. Wool was easily the highest source of revenue after livestock. Its production was worth $1,788m. It was followed by milk and eggs. I highlight the fact that the unions in Western Australia in the wheat ports are on strike. Australia has one of the worst waterfront industrial records of any country. Mr Hollis —That is not so. Mr IAN CAMERON —It is true. The shippers and the farmers have to pay the extra freight involved. There is no doubt about it. Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. Mr IAN CAMERON —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I point out to you, Mr Speaker, that Australia is looking at a record wheat crop worth $5,000m. Yet the waterside workers in Western Australia are not prepared to get off their backsides and help us export that wheat and get this country moving. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I invite the honourable member for Maranoa to address the Chair and not provoke other members. Mr IAN CAMERON —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will certainly do that. What else do we see? A record wheat crop is coming in yet it has stripe rust throughout it because of the excessive rains. What are the unions doing to the Bayer chemical company? They are on strike again. They will not help this great industry. The electorate of Maranoa and the very rich rolling plains of the Darling Downs have a record crop of waving wheat which is about to be harvested, yet what do we see ? The unions are not prepared to do anything to help the farmers. Thank you very much for your indulgence, Mr Speaker. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(10.21) —Some monments ago we listened with some interest to the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) who attacked the Budget recently introduced by Premier John Cain's Victorian Labor Government. Amongst the fantasy of claims made by the honourable member for Wannon was the claim that the deficit of that Budget exceeds some $800m-despite the honourable member's admission that the books did balance-and his preposterous claim that the effect of that Budget was to add somewhere in excess of $25 per head, per family or household in Victoria. If we are going to talk about households and effects of Budgets and economic policy we should consider the policies of the previous Fraser Government, and indeed the Hamer Government in Victoria. We might consider the fact that in the years of the Fraser Government in one out of every five households someone lost a job. We now have more than 10 per cent unemployment. The Victorian Budget was framed in these difficult economic times, times of depressed employment levels, with low taxation returns and with a need for a dramatic improvement in capital works. One can see that the Victorian Labor Government already has proved to be the most successful Government in Victoria in addressing the problems of economic recovery and employment growth. Victoria is leading the States in the housing recovery. More than 50 per cent of total new housing improvements in Australia-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. Mr BRUMBY —Members opposite would learn if they listened. It is all there. More than 50 per cent of new housing improvements in Australia have been generated in Victoria. It is because of our policies, the policies of the Victorian Labor Government. We have not only proved successful in the area of housing but we are also the State in Australia with the lowest level of unemployment. When Mr Cain won government in 1982 we did not have the lowest level of unemployment but we do now after only 18 months of government. I think that puts to rest completely the idiotic claims of the honourable member for Wannon that our Budget has somehow been irresponsible and not addressed the problems facing Victoria. It is an outstanding record. We are leading in housing and we are leading in employment generation. Let us look at what the Budget did. The Budget was predicated around a 44 per cent boost to capital works and will create 25,000 new jobs. The Government has also provided a $250 rebate to support our ailing Australian motor industries. It is more than the Liberal-National Party Government did when it was in office at either a State or Federal level. Finally, the honourable member for Wannon made certain references to comments in the Age about the Budget. For the benefit of the honourable member for Wannon I will read the Age editorial: In its overall objectives and economic impact, the second Jolly Budget is reasonable and responsible. It is more adventurous than the recent Federal Budget in expanding spending on capital works and employment schemes, but it balances these massive outlays by more stringent economies on departmental expenditures and selective tax increases. The spending priorities are right, and the higher taxes and charges are not excessive in their inflationary impact ( adding a net 0.5 per cent to the cost of living) and are socially equitable. That is what the Age said about the Victorian Budget. It also stated: If the long-awaited economic recovery is indeed on the way, this Budget should do more to encourage than to hinder it. That is considerably more than we can say about the previous Budgets of the Hamer Government in Victoria or, more importantly, about the Budgets of the previous Federal Government. The Cain Government has led the way. The Victorian Treasurer is the most adventurous and at the same time responsible Treasurer of any State. Victoria is leading the way in new housing approvals; it is leading the way in investment and it now has the lowest rate of unemployment of any State in Australia. All honourable members opposite would do well to learn something from the Victorian Treasurer so that if they ever do win government again they will not botch it up as much. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(10.26) —I join this discussion regarding the recent Labor State Budget. It is of great interest to me and to my collegues that the economic sickness which affects the Federal Australian Labor Party also affects its State colleagues. I refer specifically to the twin evils of high taxation and high deficits. For the information of honourable members, the Age, which the previous speaker, the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) sought to use as some sort of authority, has stated that 11 per cent of the Budget expenditures comprises the deficit. In other words, overall the State Budget totals $7,860m and the real deficit is something like $863m. That deficit is funded by unfair, unjust and discriminatory high taxation just as the Federal Budget was. It appears that the State Labor Party has no more economic sense, no more economic experience and no more knowledge than its Federal counterparts. Dr Theophanous —Look at the results. Mr McGAURAN —The result will be that Victorians will tire of the high taxation just as quickly as other people around Australia. There is no question at all that State taxes have increased by some 28 per cent since Mr Cain- Mr Burr —How much? Mr McGAURAN —They have increased by 28 per cent since Mr Cain came to government . Can you really live with that? You pretend that you act for the working man, for the battler, for the underprivileged and for the poor? You do not act for those people because you tax them to fund your pie in the sky schemes and the economic madness of your Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and that of Mr Cain. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I invite the honourable member to address the Chair. Mr McGAURAN —Certainly, Mr Speaker. I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, being a Victorian and a person whose pocket is being hit as much as that of anyone else, would be very aware of the high taxation. Mr Goodluck —What about alternative lifestyles? Mr McGAURAN —The very distinguished member for Franklin has mentioned alternative lifestyles. There are all these pie in the sky schemes. In conclusion, I point out that it is with a great deal of sadness and regret that I for one see a government in Canberra as well as a government in Melbourne which have no empathy for, no understanding of, the small businessman, the battler or the working class man. There is no question that these people will realise that and turn to those who properly protect their interests, and they are the members on this side of the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until Tuesday, 4 October 1983, at 2 p.m., in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day. The following notices were given: Mr Lionel Bowen to move- That this House- (1) notes that Ministers have provided statements of their private interests, and those of their families of which they are aware, and that copies of those returns have been presented to the Parliament as a matter of public record; (2) is of the opinion that all Members should provide similar statements of their private interests, including those of their families of which they are aware, covering the following matters: (a) shareholdings in public and private companies (including holding companies) indicating the name of the company or companies; (b) family and business trusts and nominee companies- (i) in which a beneficial interest is held, indicating the name of the trust, the nature of its operation and beneficial interest; and (ii) in which the person or immediate family is a trustee, indicating the name of the trust, the nature of its operation and the beneficiary of the trust; (c) real estate, indicating the location (suburb or area only) and the purpose for which it is owned; (d) directorships in private companies, indicating the name of the company, its activities and the total amounts of its assets and liabilities; (e) partnerships, indicating the nature of the interest, the activities of the partnership and the total amounts of its assets and liabilities; (f) liabilities (excluding short-term credit arrangements) indicating the nature of the liability and the creditor concerned; (g) the nature of any bonds, debentures and like investments; (h) saving or investment accounts, indicating their nature and the name of the bank or other institutions concerned; (i) the nature of any other assets (including collections, but excluding household and personal effects) each valued at over $5,000; (j) the nature of any other substantial sources of income; (k) gifts valued at more than $250 received from official sources, or at more than $100 where received from other than official sources; (l) any sponsored travel or hospitality received; and (m) any other interests, such as membership of organisations, where a conflict of interest with a Member's public duties could foreseeably arise or be seen to arise; (3) agrees that a public register of Members' statements of their private interests referred to in paragraph (2) should be established; (4) agrees that Members should provide such statements on an annual basis and that amended statements should be provided if alterations in circumstances occur ; (5) agrees that notwithstanding the lodgement of statements by Members and their incorporation in a public register individual Members should declare any relevant interest if they participate in a debate in the House or vote in a division in the House; and (6) requests the Standing Orders Committee to consider and report upon- (a) what changes to the standing orders may be required to give effect to the matters contained in paragraphs (2) and (5) of this resolution; and (b) the desirability of adopting other provisions relating to Senators and Members contained in the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Public Duty and Private Interest (except constitutional matters, but including, in particular, a Code of Conduct). Mr Shipton to move- That this House- (1) notes that the Australian Government proposes to launch a national tourism policy, (2) welcomes the proposed appointment of Mr Paul Hogan to help sell Australia to Australians, and (3) urges the Government to include, in such a program, the introduction of inbound duty free shopping facilities and the lowering of domestic air fares. The following paper was deemed to have been presented on 22 September 1983: Australian National University Act-Statute-No. 168-Convocation Amendment No. 10 . The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 23 Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: What sum is being spent annually by the tobacco industry in sponsorship of Australian culture. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I am advised by the Australia Council and the Australian Film Commission that neither organisation collects data on sponsorship of activities by the tobacco industry. The issue is considered to be the responsibility of any particular company itself. I am further advised that the International Cultural Corporation of Australia Ltd received sponsorship from the Peter Stuyvesant Cultural Foundation to the extent of $22,150 in arranging for the exhibition in Australia of the Kandinsky Exhibition. The exhibition toured Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth and Melbourne in the period 14 May 1982 to 12 December 1982. The Australian National Gallery has advised that on 11 October 1982, the then Prime Minister, accepted on behalf of the citizens of Australia a collection of contemporary works of art, put together under the auspices of Philip Morris Australia Ltd. The Collection of contemporary Australiana was bought with funds provided since 1973 by the Philip Morris Arts Grant. The aim of the grant was to purchase and exhibit works of art by 'young bold and innovative' artists. An initial sum of $ 150,000 was provided to cover the years 1973-1978. In 1978 the program was extended for another five years and increased funds were provided. The grant has averaged upwards of $50,000 a year so that by the time of the handover of the Collection in October 1982 approximately $500,000 has been expended. Question No. 451 Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 6 September 1983: Is the Minister able to provide an analysis of claims for compensation resulting from repetitive strain injury in the Minister's Department for each of the years 1978 to 1983. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: For the years 1978 to 1983 details of claims for compensation resulting from repetitive strain injury are set out in the table below: No. of claims Sex of claimant Type of work Outstand- Clerical Keyboard Year Settled ing Male Female duties duties Total 1978 nil nil nil nil nil nil nil 1979 nil nil nil nil nil nil nil 1980 nil nil nil nil nil nil nil 1981 nil nil nil nil nil nil nil 1982 4 4 2 6 2 6 8 1983 2 3 0 5 2 3 5 Total 6 7 2 11 4 9 13 Question No. 472 Mr Blanchard asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice , on 8 September 1983: (1) Is it a fact that the occupational demand schedule, which is used as a guideline in assessing the occupational demand for potential migrants to Australia, is published at 6 monthly intervals. (2) Is he satisfied that this schedule accurately reflects the changing nature of employment in Australia; if not, will he consider a monthly updating of this publication. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) In my statement to the House on 18 May I announced that the Ministers for Employment and Industrial Relations, Education and Youth Affairs, the Treasurer and I would look for alternatives to the recruitment of skilled workers overseas based on manpower planning and emphasising the training and retraining of Australians. The review, which is examining alternatives to the occupational demand schedule about which dissatisfaction has been previously expressed, is nearing completion and I expect that the Government will be examining its findings shortly.