Tuesday, 4 October 1983 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —by leave-I move: That this House- (1) congratulates all members of the Australia II team on its magnificent achievement in winning the America's Cup, recognised as the most prestigious of international yachting events; (2) highly commends the sportsmanship, competitive spirit and technical proficiency of the Australian team who with skill and determination won world acclaim and brought great credit to this nation; (3) recognises the contribution particularly of Alan Bond, Warren Jones, John Bertrand and Ben Lexcen to the success of this venture; (4) acknowledges with appreciation the sportsmanship and sterling performance of Dennis Conner and the crew of Liberty who together, in true American tradition, put up such a great contest, and (5) requests the Speaker to convey the terms of this resolution to those concerned. A week ago today all Australians joined together in spontaneous celebration of the victory of Australia II. Winning the America's Cup was a tremendous feat breaking as it did the longest winning sequence in sporting history. All odds had seemed to be against us. On its way to breaking the United States' 132- year grip on the America's Cup- the most prestigious of international yachting events-Australia II not only beat worthy challengers from Britain, Canada, Italy and France; it also established a new raft of records for the event. It became, I remind the House: the only 12-metre class yacht to win two races against a United States defender; the first challenger in 49 years to win two races-the only others had been Shamrock 4 in 1920 and Endeavour in 1934; the only challenger to have won a race by leading a United States defender around every mark of the course-fifth race; the only challenger to have led an American defender to the weather mark in more than one race; the first 12-metre challenger to take an American defender to a sixth race; the only challenger to force the event to seven races; the first challenger to win three races; the challenger which, in the sixth race, recorded the greatest margin of victory over a defender-3 minutes 25 seconds-in the 25 challenges since 1870. And, on top of all this, Australia II brought the America's Cup to Australia. This achievement must rank as among the greatest in Australia's sporting history. It is a victory which has renewed Australia's sense of pride in our abilities and achievements, in our skill and in our determination as a people. Australia II has captured the imagination of men and women the world over and drawn attention to what we Australians are capable of. As Australians we are all deeply appreciative of the achievement. We pay particular tribute to the contributions of Alan Bond, Warren Jones, John Bertrand and Ben Lexcen to this brilliant success: To Ben Lexcen, whose unique design work not only had the yachting world guessing, but proved to be the difference in the series. The winged keel and the quality and design of sails used not only guaranteed us the better boat; they demonstrated the imagination and technological flair with which we Australians can match anything the rest of the world can produce. To Alan Bond whose foresight, energy, enthusiasm and support over so many years made Australia II's victory possible. As President Reagan has observed, Alan Bond represents the kind of tenacity with which Americans and Australians can identify. To John Bertrand and his crew whose sailing skills and determination were put to the severest of tests and not found wanting. To Warren Jones and the Royal Perth Yacht Club of Western Australia whose organisational support was an integral part of the success achieved. To all these men, and to those many others such as the Advance and Challenge teams who assisted in the elimination and final series, we all owe a debt of gratitude. The skill, professionalism and dedication of all involved are inspirations. Mr Speaker, I was particular heartened by a message I received from President Reagan immediately following the final race. I should like to share this message with the House. The President wrote: Dear Bob, If the America's Cup had to leave the United States, I am delighted that its home will be Australia-at least until the next race. All Australians must be justifiably proud of the extraordinary team effort, skill and sportsmanship that brought of this magnificent victory. I hope you will share with all those who had anything to do with Australia II's success my congratulations and those of the American people. One major consolation for us- The President concluded- is that the next race will provide a large number of Americans the opportunity to enjoy the beauty and hospitality of Perth as they seek to bring home the Cup. I can only agree and endorse this expectation. Indeed with this victory Australia has been projected into American minds in unprecedented fashion. Coming on top of the success of Australian films in the United States we are now firmly registered with Americans as a country worthy of attention. The economic benefit to Australia-both directly and indirectly, through tourism and other investments-will be very substantial. I should be remiss, however, if I did not record Australia's appreciation of the sportsmanship and sterling performance of Dennis Conner and the crew of Liberty. They were worthy opponents who to the very last, in true American tradition, put up a great fight. This, coupled with the courtesy and generosity of the Americans, exemplified by President Reagan's hospitality to members of Australia II, struck a responsive chord in the hearts of all Australians. I know that the people of Australia will want to share their satisfaction and appreciation with the whole Australian contingent on its return from Newport. A number of State and local governments are already planning welcoming celebrations for the victorious team. The Federal Government is also finalising its plans for appropriate recognition. I hope shortly to be able to announce details. In the meantime we look forward to the twenty-sixth challenge in 1987 off Perth when Australia will be defending the Cup in our home waters. I have every confidence that Australia will then consolidate this year's achievement and demonstrate to the world we intend establishing a new record winning sequence. All associated with this venture have won world-wide acclaim for Australia. They have written a memorable chapter in Australia's sporting history. Accordingly, Mr Speaker, I commend the motion to the House. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(2.09) —The Opposition wholeheartly supports the motion congratulating Alan Bond, John Bertrand and his crew, Ben Lexcen, Warren Jones, the Royal Perth Yacht Club of Western Australia and all associated with the Australia II team. It was, as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has said, a magnificent victory which was the culmination of months, indeed years, of sustained effort and determination. Few Australians would have missed, and none of us will forget, the final thrilling stages of the seventh race. It was all that a sporting contest should be-highly skilled, ruthlessly competitive and clearly, though narrowly, won. If the seventh race was the highlight of the series, it was also characteristic of the overall contest and a tribute to the brilliance, professionalism, skill, dedication, courage and sheer doggedness-if one likes-of those involved. Australia II's win has brought accolades from around the world-from Her Majesty the Queen, and, in the message read to the House, from President Reagan. They are justified. All Australians felt a surge of national pride in their achievement, a feat which no other national team has achieved in 132 years and which many regarded as an impossible dream. Australia II achieved that impossible dream and has provided inspiration to us all. Every aspect of the Australian team's effort is deserving of praise. First and foremost, it was a team effort with absolute dedication and discipline over the long months of preparation and it was a very long haul. For Alan Bond, it was his fourth challenge for the America's Cup. Preparation for the 1983 challenge took three long years of boat design and testing, trials in Australia against the other Australian contenders, Challenge 12 and Advance, and a long and testing elimination round against competitors from Britian, France, Italy and Canada. Clearly it was well planned and skilfully executed and is a model of persistence and determination. The Australian victory was also a triumph of yachting skill and innovation in boat design and technology, sail making and sail handling and sheer sailing ability. It also demonstrated what we can achieve if we put our minds to it. Not only did Australia II start as the underdog, challenging America's previously unquestioned yachting supremacy but it also came from behind in the series, 3-1 down, and from behind in the final race to win. The team never lost heart and never lost hope. It never gave up. Although it was a team effort, special tribute is due to Alan Bond, whose leadership, imagination, financial backing and boundless energy were undoubtedly the driving force behind the challenge; to John Bertrand and his crew, who demonstrated consummate sailing skills; to Ben Lexcen, whose ability to think the unthinkable produced the marvel that is Australia II which rendered existing 12-metre yachts obsolete; to Warren Jones and the Royal Perth Yacht Club for their management of the challenge; and to Dennis Connor and the Liberty crew, who put up a magnificent fight and gave it everything they had. I should also mention the teams of Challenge 12 and Advance , who of course threw their support and resources behind Australia II after the elimination round. The Prime Minister has reminded us of the records Australia II has broken in winning the America's Cup. But it has done more than that. It has taught us some valuable lessons as well. Australia II's success vividly illustrates just what can be achieved by private initiative and endeavour, unshackled by government direction and regulation. It shows how qualities in individual Australians of vision, daring and determination can win throught against a powerful competitor when spurred on by incentives. Australia II's success would not have occurred if some highly competent Australians had not been filled with a burning desire to win that Cup. They may well receive considerable financial rewards too, but this was never assured. It was a very risky business. Fortunately, the Government can tax only the last of these incentives. But we must recognise that, unless entrepreneurs can reap financial reward for risk taking, many challenges will be passed up. Australia II's great victory shows too how the benefits of individual enterprise and risk taking can spread to the whole community. While Alan Bond will doubtless ultimately profit from the Australia II challenge, there will be enormous financial spin-offs to other people. Already there is a rash of products capitalising on the Australian victory. The benefits to the tourist industry in Western Australia and the rest of Australia are obvious. And for our exports generally, the America's Cup is perhaps the best single piece of advertising in years. But the important point is that these benefits will not all stay with Mr Bond- nor would he wish them to. Nor will they stay with a few big businessmen. They will be widely spread throughout the community, perhaps even to some people who will gain jobs that they otherwise would not have had. Australia II's victory is , therefore, an inspiring example for us all. It should strengthen our faith in the ability of Australians to win through in a harshly competitive world. If future Australian defences of the Cup embodies those qualities displayed by the Australia II team, I have no doubt that the America's Cup will remain in Australia for a very long time indeed. The Opposition takes pleasure in supporting the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr SPEAKER —I advise the House that last Tuesday, on behalf of the House, I conveyed a message of congratulations to the Australia II team. However, as requested by the House, I will convey the terms of this resolution to those concerned. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I inform the House that the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) left Australia on 23 September to attend the Commonwealth Health Ministers meeting in Canada and to visit Europe for ministerial discussions. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) is Acting Minister for Health and the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) is representing the Acting Minister for Health in this chamber until Dr Blewett returns. I also inform the House that the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) left Australia on 26 September for discussions in the United States of America and the United Kingdom concerning environmental issues and to address the Third World Wilderness Congress in Edinburgh, Scotland. The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) is Acting Minister for Home Affairs and Environment until Mr Cohen returns. The Acting 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 Chynoweth,Mr Cohen,Mr Connolly,Mr Cowan,Mrs Darling,Mr Gayler,Mr Hurford,Mr Jacobi,Mr Millar,Mr Peter Morris,Mr O'Neil,Mr Porter and Mr Wilson. 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 R.A.A.F. Base Richmond would make operations impractical. 4. It would destroy the historic village of Pitt Town, environmentally important wetlands, and their unique adherent wildlife. 5. Your petitioners reject these proposals and call for endorsement of the MANS Committee findings. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman and Mr Connolly. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows: That at present, certain infertility treatments, including hormonal drugs, procedures and laboratory services, are not covered by any health insurance due to non-itemisation on the Commonwealth rebate list. The psychological and emotional stress of infertility is therefore increased by the added financial stress. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Parliament will view our plight to create life with sympathy, by recognising our needs, and taking action to include the abovementioned items on the Commonwealth rebate list. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ronald Edwards and Ms Fatin. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectively showeth their desire to stop the commercial exploitation of the kangaroo. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House re-apply the ban on the export of kangaroo products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Charles. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled the petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the majority of Australian pensioners are denied the human right to share fully in one of the foremost scientific advancement in communication of our time , namely, telephone communication. For 20 years the telephone rental per cent rebate has remained frozen. Successive Governments have exhibited a 'deaf ear' and/or a 'stoney-heart' to all appeals that this resource be more readily available at a time when it is most needed to maintain health and well-being. It is regretable that the Government in announcing the pending increased charges in telephone rental and installation has not shown humane understanding in absolving pensioners from such increases, as indeed, in giving attention in maintaining the service as a vital necessity for daily living-for many, their only contact with the outside world. These facts of life impel your petitioners to call on the Federal Government as a matter of urgency to: Absolve pensioners from increased telephone charges. Adopt a policy that pensioners enjoy the benefits of scientific advancement, only calls be a charge. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Charles. 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 provisions 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 maritial status, (ii) eliminating discrimination on the ground of sex and maritial status and (iii) promoting affirmative action for women in employment; Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Parliament pass the Sex and Maritial Status Discrimination Bill 1981. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth : That Family Radio Ltd represents the largest single interest group in the community-i.e. Christians-who do not have a voice in public broadcasting commensurate with their representation. That prime time access to existing broadcasts by christian groups is virtually non-existent, and access at other times is fast disappearing. That, by comparison with other capitals, Brisbane is entitled to at least one more category 'S' FM broadcast licence. That there appears to be no prospect of the release of further category 'S' FM licences in the near future for Brisbane. That satisfactory fulfilment of the aims of family radio and its expansion can only be achieved by broadcasting in its own right under licence. That Family Radio has a responsibility to the large support groups which have contributed substantially to its development, to achieve the aims in broadcasting and community work for which it was established. That there is an urgent need for the kind of service and support that Family Radio can provide to other community groups through the particular type of integrated programming proposed by the company under a full-time licence. And that pruned government resources are obviously insufficient to advance the development of public broadcasting as originally intended. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will support Family Radio's application for a broadcasting licence and will enable more category 'S' FM licences to be made available in Brisbane. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: Holders of the Health Care Card and Pensioner Health Benefits Card cannot receive any level of free dental care from private dentists, as they can medical care from private doctors. The existing network of private dental practices will need to be the principle mode of dental care delivery. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that holders of the Health Care Card and Pensioner Health Care Benefits Card should be provided with free dental care through private dentists, immediately. Dental care be included in the formulation of Medicare. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows: That your petitioners are deeply concerned that the proposed amendments to the taxing formula applied to lump sum superannuation payments will be detrimental to their plans to provide reasonable financial stability in their retirement. That your petitioners are of the opinion that incentive during their years of earning to make financial provision for their retirement will be removed with consequent heavier burdens on social welfare. Your petitioners therefore pray that the proposed amendments to the taxing formula on lump sum superannuation payments be withdrawn. by Mr Keating. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament 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 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 US 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 US 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. The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms the principle of the inadmissibility of discrimination and proclaims that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind including distinction based on sex. However extensive discrimination against women continues to exist. It is an obstacle to the participation of women on equal terms with men, in the political , social, economic and cultural life of this country. It hampers the growth of the prosperity of society and the family and makes more difficult the full development of the potentialities of women in the service of this country and of humanity. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will act to ratify the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth: last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; alcohol is a factor in 50 per cent 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 Dr Blewett,Mr Jacobi,Mr O'Neil and Mr Wilson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Queensland respectfully show: last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; alcohol is a factor in 50 per cent 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 Mrs Darling. 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 objective 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. by Mr Scott. Petitions received. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the front page of the Canberra Times of Monday, 3 October 1983, and (2) congratulates Mr Peter Brock for his unique sporting achievement to overcome the efforts of the most determined competitor in the field to gain pole position in a Press photo ahead of the Prime Minister. Mr STAPLES(Diamond Valley) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) congratulates all concerned with the making of a truly great Australian film, Allies, which clearly displays the intrusion of the United States of America into the affairs of Australian governments and other governments in the region; (2) acknowledges that this film provides a vital national service to our national security and sovereignty; and (3) treats as rubbish the assertion of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to the Hope Royal Commission that the film was funded by Moscow and a KGB disinformation operation. The motion will be seconded by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell ). Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Minister for Aviation for again postponing a decision on Sydney's second airport by appointing yet another expert committee; (2) is critical of the Minister for going back on his announcement to make a decision by Christmas 1983; (3) castigates the Government for causing disruption across half of the Sydney metropolitan area which will result in increased unemployment, low levels of building approvals and lack of investment; (4) expresses its belief that the decision will not be made until December 1985 ; and (5) urges the Government to announce the details of the forthcoming inquiry and make a decision early in 1984. The motion will be seconded by the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards). Mr MAHER(Lowe) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses its belief that Lebanon should remain a free, democratic nation; and (2) congratulates the Australian Government for joining with the world community in pressing for the withdrawal of all illegal foreign forces from Lebanon. The motion will be seconded by the honourable member for Banks (Mr Mountford). Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison has indicated that he wishes to make a brief statement to the House at this stage. For the reasons he has given me, I am granting him that indulgence. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —Mr Speaker, I wish to apologise to the Parliament and to the Prime Minister for the remarks I made about the Prime Minister in this House on 21 September. Mr PEACOCK —My question is addressed to the Special Minister of State. Did the Australian Federal Police recently detect, by use of telephone taps, the payment of moneys to people in authority in New South Wales to ensure the early release of prisoners? When this was reported, did the New South Wales Government ask the Federal Government to stop the telephone tapping? Did the Federal Government accede to that request and did the telephone tapping cease? Was action subsequently taken to reinstate the telephone taps, but not at the specific request of the Federal Government or the New South Wales Government? As a result , was further evidence obtained regarding moneys paid to officials, including a Minister, in the New South Wales Government? Does the Minister's Department hold records on file from the Federal Police of reports relating to these matters? Is it correct that it was not until the Federal Police obtained evidence for a further time that the Federal Government advised the New South Wales Government of its knowledge of this alleged corruption? Finally, why did the Federal Government accede to the earlier request by the New South Wales Government for the telephone tapping to be stopped and why did the Federal Government delay in advising the New South Wales Government of what it knew? Mr BEAZLEY —The Leader of the Opposition has raised a series of very detailed questions, some of which go to matters that are under investigation by the Federal Police. I will look at those questions in detail and provide him with an answer to them when I have an opportunity to do so. Ms MAYER —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Would greater reliance on indirect taxation assist the Government in its fight against tax avoidance? Mr HAWKE —The proposition involved in the question from the honourable member for Chisholm is, in fact, the wrong way round. To the extent that the fight against tax avoidance is successful, there is obviously a lesser need to tax the average income by any means whatever. I remind the House, as I have done on a number of other occasions, that this Government has taken several steps against tax avoidance and evasion. I remind the House very quickly that they are the tax recoupment legislation, the prescribed payments system and the proposed amendments to section 26 (a) of the Income Tax Assessment Act. I am amazed that the Leader of the Opposition, both prior to and at his weekend Party conference, had the temerity to try to beat up the tax issue again. He might have a short memory in this matter but members of the Australian public know better. They know that what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition is coming from a coalition that protected in the past and continues to protect tax dodgers and the rip-off merchants in the tax avoidance industry. It comes from a leader of the opposition and an opposition which oppose the withholding tax legislation which they introduced when they were in government, giving credence to what the Leader of the Australian Democrats in the other place has called their mindless opposition to any government policies whatsoever. It also, most importantly, comes from an opposition which would have had a Budget deficit of at least $10.5 billion in 1983-84 and which could have got to the figure of $ 7 billion suggested by the Shadow Treasurer only if the Leader of the Opposition had given a clearance to impose the most massive tax slugs in the history of this country. But I suppose, after the events of the last weekend, that he would not even have had to ask the Leader of the Opposition for that permission; he would have done it and got him to sign on the dotted line afterwards. What happened in respect of taxation in the budgetary procedure is that we went right through the process in the months leading up to the Budget. We know all the alternatives that are available. The only alternatives that would have been available to the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition would have been to impose massive taxes in areas that they looked at before, such as books and service items that are important elements in the average earner's normal consumption of goods and services. The simple fact which is becoming increasingly clear with each passing week is that, if the Opposition were in a position to have its way, the honest taxpayers in this society would have been inevitably faced with a battery of new taxes such as the ones to which I have referred because by its action as well as by its deeds the Opposition is still the Party which is the protector of the tax dodger and the rip-off merchant. If what we have seen this last weekend in regard to tax policy is the best the Opposition can do, it had better go back to the drawing board because the Australian public simply will not buy it. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Prime Minister and is supplementary to the question I asked the Special Minister of State. Has his Government contacted the New South Wales Government regarding the substance of my previous question to the Special Minister of State? What was the form of that advice? Mr HAWKE —I took careful note of the question which the Leader of the Opposition directed to the Special Minister of State. I concur with the answer given by the Special Minister of State. The first part of the question which the Leader of the Opposition addressed to me raised serious issues. I appreciate the way in which he asked the question and I, together with the Special Minister of State, will address myself to the issues. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that a full answer in respect of the questions to the Special Minister of State and to me will be provided at the earliest opportunity, and, if possible, today. Mr BALDWIN —Has the Prime Minister had any discussions with the Premier of Tasmania since their last meeting on 31 August concerning the signing of the interim financial agreement between the Commonwealth and the State following the cessation of work on the Gordon below Franklin dam? Has there been any indication from the State as to when the agreement might be concluded? Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, I wonder whether you will allow me a little latitude in answering the question because it goes to the point whether I have been having any discussions with anyone. I had some discussions with a person who was recently mentioned in this House by the honourable member for O'Connor. The House will recall the notice of motion which he gave. When I was at that great event on Sunday, I stood next to the man who performed the magnificent achievement of beating me to the pole position. As I was standing next to him, the great assembled crowd below started to boo and boo and boo Mr Moffat. I think it was very unfortunate. I said to Mr Brock: 'Why are they booing?' and Mr Brock said: 'They must think he is a Liberal politician'. Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —I think that is probably enough latitude. Mr HAWKE —I think it is enough latitude, Mr Speaker. It is the case that I had very amicable telephone discussions with the Premier of Tasmania on Friday. It is very interesting to note that the Premier said to me that he had no major problems with the interim agreement and expected formally to communicate with me in respect of that interim agreement by the end of this week. In that conversation he informed me that the major cause of the delay had been the need for his legal advisers to examine the agreement in detail. That was the conversation I had with the Premier on Friday, but I note that he has also had something to say publicly about this matter. Of course, the Federal Government is pleased that the State appears now to be moving towards endorsing the proposals that I put to the State of Tasmania about a month ago. It is very significant in these circumstances that the Premier has been saying these things. It is a matter of pleasure to the Government that what has been said by the Premier puts down the miserable attempts at political point scoring by Tasmanian members of this House in recent times. To make quite clear the way in which the Premier of Tasmania has put down this miserable point scoring by Tasmanian members opposite I will share with the House the comments of the Premier on 29 September. He was told on that day on an Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio program that the lack of funds going to Tasmania had prompted criticism of the Federal Government. I ask every Opposition member from Tasmania to listen very clearly to what the Premier of Tasmania had to say. When told that there had been criticism of the Federal Government, he said: Oh, look, I don't know about that. I haven't been critical at all of the Federal Government about that because I have known exactly what's gone on. The interviewer then said to the Premier: Well, your Liberal colleagues in the House of Representatives, particularly Mr Hodgman, have been very critical. The Premier of Tasmania replied in these terms: Oh, you know, as I said before, back benchers and private members sometimes have to do things to get publicity. It could not be much clearer, could it? After gutting the honourable member for Denison in that way the Premier then said: I am quite happy with the progress that has been made. I always understood that we would not get the $25.8m until that agreement was signed. The Premier was also reported in the Launceston Examiner the next day to the effect: . . . that he was totally satisfied with the overall progress of the negotiations but they were complex matters which would not be resolved quickly. I hope that has put to bed once and for all the sham and hypocrisy which have been coming from the Tasmanian representatives on the other side. The Premier of Tasmania, out of his own mouth, has condemned these people, who have no interest in the real concerns of the people of Tasmania but who are trying to score miserable political points when the Premier of Tasmania is co-operating with this Government to look after what he recognises as the interests of the people of Tasmania. It is about time Tasmanian members opposite really understood the interests of Tasmania and brought an end to this nonsense. Mr ANTHONY —Does the Prime Minister recall saying on radio 6PR in Perth last Tuesday that the clear and unequivocal policy of the South Australian Labor Party is for the development of Roxby Downs and that, of course, is totally consistent with Federal policy? When was the decision taken that the development of the Roxby uranium deposit was consistent with Federal policy, in view of the statement by the Minister for Resources and Energy on 12 September that the Roxby question was part of the comprehensive policy review decision of the Government? Mr HAWKE —The answer to the first part of the right honourable member's question is yes, I remember saying that. I did put it that my clear understanding was that the South Australian branch of the Labor Party and the Government were totally committed to the development of Roxby. I have said that I believe that position is consistent with the policy of the Labor Party at a federal level. That is an issue, of course, as I have explained before in this House, which will be a subject of discussion within the Party. Submissions will be going to the Cabinet on it and, from the Cabinet, submissions will be going to the Caucus . I repeat my belief as to what the outcome will be. Mr REEVES —My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Aviation, relates to the current strike by Australia's domestic airline pilots. Is the Minister aware of claims by the Australian Federation of Air Pilots that the Government has not adequately addressed the pilots' concern with the Government's new arrangement for the taxation of lump sum superannuation payments? Will the Minister advise the House of the Government's response to the current pilots' strike and of the response that the Government will take if the pilots embark on further industrial action to disrupt Australia's airline services? Mr BEAZLEY —I am aware of the statements reported in the Press that have been referred to by the honourable gentleman. The first point I make about that is that the pilots have had a series of meetings with the Government at which aspects of the superannuation scheme as it relates to them have been gone into in very considerable detail. We have in fact had seven meetings with the pilots involving, at different points of time, the Treasurer, the Prime Minister, myself, the Minister Assisting the Treasurer and officials from the Treasury and the Australian Taxation Office. As a result of discussions we have held with them and with other members of the trade union movement and the Australian Council of Trade Unions, very substantial alterations have been made to the superannuation scheme. A matter of particular concern to the pilots which they raised with us and which, in the early meetings at least, they emphasised with us consistently was the question of the upper bands that were originally proposed in the May statement whereby at a particular point for a particular lump sum payment tax went from 30c to 46c and ultimately to 60c. Those bands were removed. They were removed, at least in part, because of the representations made to us by the pilots. The pilots have had a very fair crack of the whip from the Government in terms of their ability to get through to us the points that are of most concern to them. In addition to that, we have said to the pilots throughout the period leading up to this strike, and still say to them, that we are fully prepared to discuss with them the detail of the scheme as it affects them and matters related to the generality of a retirement package, annuities and indexed bonds, if they wish to address us on them. But the position we adopt is that the fundamentals of the scheme are in place and have been agreed to, at least substantially, by all sections of the trade union movement and by those who have been looking at this question. We will implement that scheme. We will not be moved on that question by threats of industrial action or by industrial action itself. The pilots address us as though they are confronted with a situation of great urgency. As a result of the decisions that we have already taken, I submit that that is not the case. They have plenty of time to address with us the development of appropriate annuity schemes because the impact on their very substantial superannuation payouts will be minimal for a considerable period. I will table figures to that effect, but first I draw the attention of honourable members to a number of facts. Under our proposals an Airbus captain of 30 years standing retiring in 1985 will receive a lump sum payout of $413,000, of which about $14,000 will be removed in tax. Mr Porter —You would pick on an Airbus captain. Mr BEAZLEY —Even by the year 2005, if that captain takes absolutely no means to protect himself in any way, he will be paying 16.4 per cent on a lump sum payout of $614,000. There is no urgency there. An honourable gentleman opposite has queried my using an Airbus captain as an example and asked implicitly why I do not address myself to some of the others. The fact is that most Trans Australia Airlines pilots are retiring at Airbus level. But, since the question has been raised, let us suppose that a captain retires at 727 level. In 1985, after 30 years service, that person will receive a payout of $367,000, of which $13,000 or 3.5 per cent will be removed in tax. The same person retiring in 2005 will have 16 per cent removed from a payout of $545,000. We are talking in present day dollars. What is quite evident from all that is the very slow pace in the real effect of the Government's superannuation scheme. It is not a pace which would justify in any shape or form the degree of urgency that strike action implies. I table those charts. As a result of that action the travelling public is being dramatically inconvenienced. In addition, the airlines are being severely damaged. As I have said before in this place and elsewhere, publicly, there has been upwards of a 10 per cent downturn in airline traffic at this time over the equivalent period last year. Traffic is now substantially below levels in 1977 and 1978 when the current fleets of the two major airlines were put in place. They were put in place on an assumption of an increase in traffic of at least 5 per cent per annum. That puts the airlines that are already experiencing serious financial difficulties at even further risk. A two-day strike amounts to a loss to those airlines of some $4m. What cannot be calculated is the loss of confidence on the part of members of the travelling public that they will receive the services they pay for at the time that they are booked. The effect of that, of course, is incalculable; nevertheless, it is substantial. There is a growing feeling in the country as a result of this action that if one books ahead for a trip it is uncertain whether that trip can be taken. This Government and previous governments have been very generous to the two airlines and the airline employees who operate the system. They have implemented a highly protected industry which has guaranteed employment for the people within it at a standard which is absolutely unprecedented anywhere else in the world. That is what is being placed at risk by the action of the pilots. I hope very much that the pilots will acknowledge our preparedness to discuss with them matters of technical detail which are related to them in the scheme; that they will acknowledge our preparedness to discuss with them the question of a general retirement package; and that they will abandon this industrial course of action and assume, as would any other members of the community, that when they have a degree of disagreement with the Government, any campaign is undertaken on a sensible political basis and not by industrial action. That is the position that this Government adopts and will continue to adopt. It is essential that the pilots adopt it also if the airlines are to survive this period of economic crisis and members of the travelling public are to be properly served. Mr CADMAN —Can the Acting Treasurer inform the House of the accuracy of an article in the Age of 23 September that 200,000 people will move into a higher tax bracket as a result of the 4.3 per cent wage increase? Can he tell the House how many Australians on average male weekly earnings will move into the 46c tax bracket in 1983-84? Can he also tell the House when the Government will correct the shameful situation that Australians on this wage level should be paying 46c on each extra dollar earned? Mr HURFORD —I do not carry around with me the latest statistics on how many people will move from one tax bracket to another. I have not seen that particular article in the Age. I can say to the House that I was very interested to read over the weekend, following from a report known as the Valder report, that the Liberal Party of this country will go through a metamorphosis and follow principle instead of expediency. The change, when we talk about tax, that will have to come about will have to be led by the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and shadow Treasurer, and the honourable member for Mitchell, because they have told us that instead of applying the direct tax rates which the honourable member referred to in his question, they will slug this country with consumption taxes. That is their answer to this problem. I will look for the first time at the article in the Age and see whether it is accurate. If I find that it is not accurate I will be in touch with the honourable member. Mr SHIPTON —My question is directed to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. In light of the Minister's recent description of the 6 per cent increase in air fares as very damaging for tourism, will he please inform the House: Firstly, what proportion of the increase in air fares is due to the 4.3 per cent wage increase which was fully endorsed by the Government; secondly, what proportion of the air fares increase is due to the increase in fuel excise in the Budget; thirdly, how many jobs will the increase in air fares cost the tourist industry; and fourthly and finally, what will be the impact on tourism in areas such as Queensland, Northern Territory, South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia? Mr JOHN BROWN —The honourable member flatters me by suggesting that I have all that information at my fingertips. Of course I do not have it, and I doubt that anybody has. I will discuss the matter with the Minister for Aviation who, no doubt, can offer some very accurate advice for the honourable member. This Government is very concerned about the impact of air fares on the proliferation of tourism within Australia. Mr Beazley —Ask him how he voted on the two-airlines agreement. Mr JOHN BROWN —I would not ask the honourable member how he voted on the two- airlines agreement. We are very worried about the impact that air fares have on the proliferation of tourism within Australia. It is a fact that in the last 12 months the airlines have suffered a 10 per cent decrease in market; they suffered a 10 per cent decrease in market in the previous 12 months. In that period they increased air fares by 27 1/2 per cent. It appears to me to be sound commercial sense for anybody who is running a business and wants to improve his financial situation to reduce prices and try to fill some of the three and a half million empty seats per year rather than put up fares and reduce even more the number of people who show a propensity to fly. However, I am interested to note that the honourable member for Higgins is showing at least some scant interest in tourism; it is an interest that was not displayed by his Government in its seven years of operating the treasury bench. Hopefully, at the end of the very long period that honourable members opposite will have in opposition, they will have learnt something about the value of tourism to the Australian economy and its potential to employ people. They might then appreciate the great efforts that have been made by this Government to do something about tourism. Mr SNOW —I ask the Prime Minister: Is the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission's national wage case decision consistent with the Government's strategy for national economic recovery? Mr HAWKE —I am glad to see the eagerness with which the Opposition awaits this answer. The answer to the honourable member's question, of course, is yes; the decision is totally consistent. Indeed the judgment of the Commission endorsed key elements of the submissions made by the Government to the Commission. The Commission's assessment of the state of the Australian economy, which was based upon evidence from all parties and interveners, supports our assessment of the Australian economy that there are signs of improvement which are to be nurtured by all of us. The central feature of the Commission's decision to return to a system of centralised wage fixation, with a prima facie concept of indexation every 12 months, was totally in line with a submission made to it by the Commonwealth Government. It is very important that the House should notice that the Commission said in its judgment that a return to a centralised wage based system, based upon prima facie indexation, was 'in the public interest'. The independent Conciliation and Arbitration Commission said that a return to the centralised system would be in the public interest. It also said that it took this decision 'in the expectation that it would lead to a more stable industrial environment and that it would provide the basis for a more rapid economic recovery than would occur in any alternative system.' That is the clear judgment of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It is very important and we are glad that the Commission said that there was no scope for further wage rises except in the most special and extraordinary circumstances. The Government welcomes that statement because it is totally in line with the submission of the Commonwealth Government. It said that the unions involved should not get that national wage increase unless there was a public and unequivocal commitment not to make extra claims. That is the way it ought to be. The trade unions will need to sign on the dotted line to get the increase. There is no other way in which they should get it. We take comfort and indeed pride in the fact that we as a Government clearly thought through this wages policy. We addressed a lot of attention to it. We came up with a clear, comprehensive policy, clearly understood and integrated into our total economic policy. It is a matter of pride and comfort to this Government that that policy was endorsed in the judgment of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. One cannot help but contrast and compare the position of the Government in regard to wages policy endorsed by the highest relevant tribunal in the land with the chaos which still exists on the other side of the House. It is nothing short of a disgrace that, after the Liberal Party's Council meeting last week, it still does not know what its policy is in this regard. But, even worse that that, the Opposition is trying to have it both ways. It is trying to have a little bit of a centralised wage system on the one hand but on the other hand to say: No, we will have this libertarian free play of market forces. The Opposition simply does not understand the nature, the history and the character of the Australian economy in the Australian industrial relations system. One cannot wish the concepts of comparative wage justice out the window. It ought to know-if it begins to know anything about this economy and about industrial relations-that if one goes back to the system of having a libertarian free play of market forces, in a recovering economic situation there will be significant wage increases in the more profitable areas of the economy. If one had the mish- mash that is the Opposition's position, those wage increases in the more profitable areas would start to percolate into the sectors of the economy which do not have the same capacity. On the other hand, if one is to have a centralised wage system one must have a level of wage increase which is sustainable and acceptable across the board. The crowd on the other side of the House know nothing. They have learnt nothing from the disastrous situation of 1981-82. What happened in 1981-82 was a wages explosion, simply because of the Government's libertarian approach. What would happen in Australia in 1983 and 1984 if we had a repetition of this system would be the worst of all possible worlds. One would have the more profitable sectors of the economy under the free market approach giving significant wage increases which would flow through to the rest of the economy. One would get what we had in 1981-82-an unsustainable wages explosion. I repeat: It is a matter of pride to this Government that its carefully thought through wages policy has been endorsed, as I say, by the highest relevant and independent tribunal in the land . It stands in stark contrast to the chaos on the other side of the House. Mr HAND —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy aware that workers at the Ranger uranium plant in the Northern Territory have been on strike for a week over a health and safety issue? Are Press reports correct that the drinking water at the uranium mine was contaminated by a radioactive substance? Does the Minister have any information about the circumstances which led to this strike? Are reports that the strike has ended correct? Mr BARRY JONES —I have seen the report in today's Australian Financial Review on the matter raised by the honourable member for Melbourne. Workers at the Ranger mine had been on strike for about a week but returned to work today. The background of the strike is as follows: On 21 July 1983, a workman made an improper hose connection between the potable water supply and the plant circuit used to flush out pipes in the plant. Modifications were also being made to the potable water piping. When pressure was reduced for this purpose there was some flow-back from the plant circuit to the isolated section of the drinking water pipes. The problem was immediately recognised, and the potable system was flushed out and tested chemically before being restored to use. Recent modification work revealed that small amounts of ammonium diuranate had apparently been lodged in short blind ends of pipework and had not been thoroughly flushed out in the July incident. Ammonium diuranate is a yellow insoluble precipitate which is dried and calcined at high temperature to make the final product uranium oxide or, as we generally call it, yellowcake. Regular analysis of the drinking water and testing of the workers who could have used the water from that section of the potable water supply show that there has been some contamination, but not significant contamination, within what are generally regarded as safe limits. The company is, however, completely replacing the potable water pipework in that section of the plant. My colleague the Minister for Resources and Energy has suggested that the Supervising Scientist in the Alligator Rivers Region be invited to visit the site to discuss these matters with management and workers. As Acting Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, I would be very glad to endorse that suggestion. Mr SPENDER —Has the Deputy Prime Minister noted the warning as reported in yesterday's Age given by the Premier of Western Australia, Mr Burke, when delivering the Sir Norman Cowper oration in Sydney last Saturday, that the Federation was under severe threat after the High Court decision in the Franklin Dam case and that the federal system is shaping up for a showdown? Now that the Labor Premier of Western Australia has joined forces with other State leaders in delivering this message to the Federal Government, will the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledge, firstly, that steps need to be taken to redress the balance of power between the Commonwealth and the States in view of the wide interpretation given to the external affairs power; and, secondly, that the Commonwealth Government should refrain from further use of the external affairs power while the question of a suitable amendment to the Constitution is being considered at the Australian Constitutional Convention? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is a known fact that the Australian Labor Party stands for the Constitution as it applies in a democratic society, but it also stands for federation which requires a balance between what is called the interests of a State vis-a-vis the interests of the nation. If one looks at the Tasmanian case, was it not the interests of the nation that were preserved? We are talking about a matter that belongs to the world and is part of the world heritage. Surely the honourable gentleman, who is a member of the legal profession, would not disagree with the judgment given by the High Court of Australia. In those cirumstances, having in mind the international obligation of this nation to preserve the world heritage, the High Court could make only the one decision, which it made. It is incumbent upon State governments to preserve the world heritage aspects of this nation as well as the environment. One of the great difficulties in the federal structure is that the Constitution , of course, was drawn up in or about the year 1900. I think the honourable gentleman might even agree that some progress has been made since that time as to what we ought to be doing about environment and other matters that belong to this nation. Obviously there is always some sensitivity about State governments and whether their rights will be overcome, but I think the balance is in the judicial interpretation of the Constitution. It is not a rigid document; it is a document that has to be interpreted in accordance with the claims of society. That varies from civilisation to civilisation. The honourable member well knows that High Court decisions from time to time are reversed. I would say that in every case public opinion supports the judicial interpretation. With that in mind, we have to discount at times some of the enthusiasm of State Premiers who always think they are best able to interpret what is best for the nation. I think the case has led to an interesting discussion as to what would be the effective balance between States' rights and the national interest. Certainly in some areas there are often difficulties for the nation because States' rights can be pulling in about five or six different directions. So the world recognised that there had to be international covenants on human, political and environmental issues. If the nations of the world can get together and formulate covenants which clearly indicate in circumstances such as this that they can apply to the Federation, why would the honourable gentleman disagree with the proposition that we should be able to support the principles of such international covenants? For example, in the area of political rights and electoral reform I think it is elementary that there ought to be equal suffrage rights. Yet in Australia we find governments quite adamant that they will not have one vote one value principles, despite the fact that this is in the international covenant. There are many matters about which we can argue in a political context in considering what is the most effective way to govern this country. We recognise the rights of the States. But on balance I see nothing wrong with the High Court's interpretation of the Constitution in relation to the competing interests between national and State instrumentalities. I think the Premier was perhaps a little concerned about matters that he felt could be discussed in a political context, and was concerned that too much power might be exercised from Canberra. That has never been, nor will it ever be, the case. The uniform taxation decision of 1942 certainly gave us the right to control the national economy. Why not? There is only one economy in Australia, not six or seven different little economies. If that is the position, as I believe it is-I think the High Court will continue to uphold that-it is important that we develop this nation for all Australians and not for any sectional interests. Mr HOLLIS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Is it a fact that the Government has made a very commendable effort in preserving the steel industry of Australia by providing to the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd bounties for the production of steel? Is it a fact that this action of the Government will guarantee a worthwhile steel industry in Australia? Has the Minister noticed that Mr Holmes a Court is now bidding for shares in BHP and, on previous track records, will speculate in these shares for his personal gain, usually on a tax free basis, without any real interest as to whether or not Australia has a steel industry? Is the Minister further aware that, if Mr Holmes a Court is successful in obtaining control of BHP, he may well decide to abandon the steel industry? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member should bring his question to a conclusion. Mr HOLLIS —Will the Government now seriously consider using its bounty support to obtain equity in BHP, thereby guaranteeing that that equity will not be the subject of speculation and that the Government will have some say in the future of the industry with the guarantee that it will remain in Australia? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member should look at the Standing Orders with regard to questions. However, certain portions of his question were in order so I will call the Minister. Mr JOHN BROWN —This Government has made a great effort to revitalise the steel industry which had descended into a torpor of despair under the previous Administration. The announcement made by my colleague Senator Button on 11 August has breathed new life into a steel industry that was a decaying carcass. I think this Government should be highly praised by honourable members opposite as well as all the political pundits and economists around Australia for doing just that. In fact that plan involved co-operation between government, industry and unions which is rather unique in industry in Australia. It is clear that this Government has a very firm commitment to the preservation of the steel industry. One of the Government's plans in revitalising that steel industry was to keep the area which the honourable member represents a viable one. That applies not only to Wollongong but also to Newcastle and Whyalla. The formulation of this plan will enable that to happen. Sections of the honourable member's question related to Mr Holmes a Court's attempts to obtain control of BHP through Wigmores Ltd. I think it is significant that the directors of BHP have encouraged these shareholders not to sell to Wigmores. As I understand it, Wigmores has been able to obtain very few shares. In those circumstances, therefore, the question of Wigmores taking control of BHP is purely hypothetical. I would like to make it clear that the Minister agrees and the Government supports the contention that, if it ever got beyond the hypothetical stage and Wigmores through Mr Holmes a Court, or Mr Holmes a Court through Wigmores, looked like taking control of BHP and the steel industry was then under threat, the Government would do something effectively to halt that position and make sure that a viable steel industry remained in Australia. Mr COWAN —Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware of statements made recently by the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory with regard to the inadequate surveillance of Australia's northern coastline? Is this concern also being expressed by the Premier of Queensland at this time? In view of the reported outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Java, can the Minister say what efforts the Government is taking to protect the $2 billion Australian beef industry? Furthermore, would an outbreak mean the virtual end of the lucrative meat export to America? Mr KERIN —Claims are made all the time-I think it is a rather easy claim to make- that there is always insufficient coastal surveillance. This function resides with my companion the Minister for Transport. He is in charge of coastal surveillance. I do not think the other general propositions put forward by the honourable member necessarily follow. If I can get a copy of the honourable member's detailed question I will follow up the two or three threads in it and get an answer to him within 24 hours. But the question of coastal surveillance resides with the Minister for Transport. Such claims as referred to by the honourable member are made all the time. I was not specifically aware of the claim by the Minister in the Northern Territory. I never cease to be amazed by the claims of the Premier of Queensland and treat them accordingly. Mr SPEAKER —Before calling for presentation of papers, I believe I should indicate to the House that on behalf of the House I today conveyed a message of condolence to the former Prime Minister, Sir John Gorton, following the death of his wife. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Acting Treasurer) -Pursuant to section 10 of the Primary Industry Bank Act 1977, I present the annual report of the Primary Industry Bank of Australia Ltd for 1982-83. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce) —For the information of honourable members I present reports from the Industries Assistance Commission on certain thick plywood; heavy commercial motor vehicles and accessories-an interim report; tableware and certain other goods of pottery-developing country preferences; and stranded wire cables, cordage ropes etcetera-Developing country preferences. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Assent to the following Bills reported: Loan Bill (No. 2) 1983 Income Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy) Bill 1983 Medicare Levy Bill 1983 States (Tax Sharing and Health Grants) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1983 Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Balaclava ( Mr Macphee) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure of the Government to fulfil its promises to formulate policies to create jobs. 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 MACPHEE(Balaclava)(3.09) —When the previous Government was in office the then shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), took opportunities almost week in and week out under this part of our procedures to censure the then Government for its apparent indifference towards the unemployed and its apparent failure to create jobs for those who wished to have then. At that time the shadow Minister quoted extensively from editorial opinion, newspaper comments generally and some academic publications to indicate that it was not just the Opposition's view but also the view of others that the state of the labour market was in disarray. In the course of some of his matters of public importance he promised on behalf of the Australian Labor Party that when it came to power it would rectify that situation. On that basis we in the Opposition waited until the new Government had a chance to present its Budget and to fulfil the expectations it had created during the election campaign and at the National Economic Summit Conference. But we find now, as a result of the implementation of the Government's policy towards the employed, as evidenced by the national wage case-a position of which the Prime Minister says his Government is proud-that the unemployed remain even more in the cold than they were when the present Government was in opposition and was berating the former Government for ignoring the unemployed. I remind the House that the present Government made a promise that it would, in its first three years in office, create at least 500,000 additional jobs. That was the essence of the policy speech commitment. At the time the accord was made public-which, strangely enough, was after the policy speech was made-a number of very sensible analytical comments were made by independent commentators, quite apart from the criticisms which I and others made on behalf of the then Government regarding the accord. In the spirit in which these discussions have been held before I quote extensively from an article in the Age of 25 February by Mr Terry McCrann, the Business Editor. I believe that this is the background against which one has to examine the actions of this Government regarding the unemployed. Mr McCrann says: There is one damning ommission from the Labor-ACTU prices and incomes accord which, on the kindest interpretation, shows it would be useless in solving any of our economic ills; while it would lead a less sympathetic analysis to conclude the accord was a callous fraud on the unemployed. Not once in the entire 37-page document is there even the hint of acceptance that a permanent cut in real wages was a fundamental precondition to any signifcant reduction in the numbers of the unemployed. At best there is a single, grudging and somewhat oblique, reference to a recognition that some temporary reduction in real wages was inevitable at the moment. But not, I might add, in order to specifically help the unemployed get jobs. Mr McCrann goes on to say: Implicit in this comment is that the Labor Party has conceded that maintenance of real incomes (read real wages) is necessary for avoiding deeper recession and greater unemployment. Mr McCrann moves on to what he calls the obverse of the real wages question which is, of course, profits. He states: If wages take a bigger share of the national cake-or rather of what is left after Governments take their slices off the top-there will be less for profits. The argument that real wages have to come down is really more an argument that profits have to go up in order to generate jobs. . . . . But . . . what does the great accord say about profits? Given Mr Hawke's passionate concern for the welfare of the unemployed-'the first and foremost ( issue of the election) is the right of all Australians to a job' he said in his policy speech; one would presume he will be at great pains in the accord to stress the need for profits to create them. Oddly, the word profit appears only three times in the entire 37 pages. The first is in relation to the revived Prices Justification Tribunal where the accord says it will ensure that enterprises 'do not earn profits beyond levels necessary for the maintenance and expansion of the enterprise'. That ought to have put a great shiver down the spine of industry. Mr McCrann continues: The second reference is to the prevention of 'excessive profitability' of non- bank financial institutions . . . And the final reference is to the 'encouragement' of companies to give their employees and relevant unions 'substantial details of their financial position, of future profitability and their investment and employment plans'. Mr McCrann concludes the analysis by saying: There are two other specific, albeit indirect, references to profit in the accord. Both of them-'ensure that companies pay their fair share of tax' and ' elimination of the substantial tax incentives now available to Australian industries to relocate in low tax countries' leave little doubt that the accord, if it is about anything at all, is certainly not about boosting corporate profitability. Indeed the whole document smacks of a concerted attack on corporate profits. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have read extensively from that article because it is written by a neutral, credible, objective commentator. It happens to coincide with statements which the then Government made on the campaign trail about the accord. I hope, for Australia's sake, in respect of many of the points we have, that we cannot say: 'I told you so'. I fear-many reports now being issued, including those made from the Westpac Banking Corporation and the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd indicate this-that we might well be in a position to make that claim. If that happens the situation will be made even worse for the unemployed in Australia. The accord, the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions are not prepared to acknowledge the need for profit. Yet if the Prime Minister and his Government had listened not only to commentators such as Mr McCrann but also to speakers at the Summit they would have understood the relationship between profits and job creation. It is essential that costs be curbed and that, amongst them, government charges and wages be restrained to the maximum degree possible. At the Summit, three scenarios were presented which indicated the likely wages outcomes. In a ministerial statement to the House after the Summit, the Prime Minister as reported in Hansard said: I must stress that never at any stage did we of the Government regard the Conference and its outcome as some means of shirking, or shedding the responsibilities of governments, and particularly the national government, to take decisions. We recognise and reaffirm that we, as the elected representatives of the people of Australia, have the primary and fundamental responsibility for the economic and social policies of this nation . . . We are now all better equipped, and all have a clearer perception of the prospects, possibilities and plain hard work that lies ahead. A little further on in that same ministerial statement, the Prime Minister said: . . . the Summit marks the beginning of consensus, not the end, recognition of the enormous amount of work that still remains to be done and commitment to that task. So we must ask: 'What has the Government done since then?' Does the Australian Labor Party now recognise that when it was in Opposition it had the luxury of claiming a mortgage on social conscience and concern for the unemployed without any responsibility for curing the situation? Does it now recognise the complexities of our economy and the difficulties of government? What is it doing ? The Government-the Prime Minister proudly boasted about this today-has returned to what is, even in the terms of the accord, a premature indexation of wages in accordance with the consumer price index. In terms of the Opposition's position and in terms of any sound economic analysis, there ought not to be in any circumstances indexation of wages on the basis of the consumer price index. But even on the basis of the relationship between the Government and the unions through the accord, indexation for the March and June quarters at a time of continued recession and continued unemployment was premature. We now find, in addition, that the Prime Minister is talking in very loose terms about other ways in which we might not reduce unemployment but reduce the demand for jobs. Before I turn to the famous Curtin Memorial Lecture speech of a few days ago, let me also remind the Prime Minister that one of the scholastic journals from which he often quotes, the Australian Bulletin of Labour, at page 164 of its June 1983 issue, stated: The industrial relations difficulties alleged to make Scenario C 'unfeasible' provide an agenda for Government to overcome, not an apologia for impotence. That is an extremely important point because the basic industrial reality which led the Government to tackle not scenario C but scenario A as presented at the Summit really lies in the attitudes of a number of trade union leaders as distinct from the overwhelming number of their rank and file. It is a sad fact that during the Depression those two-thirds of Australians who had jobs improved their real living standards. The other one-third, of course, suffered quite the reverse. It seems sad that even though the quarterly adjustment of wages by the consumer price index was abandoned in 1953 a return to that situation mentality persists in the case of some trade union leaders. A gallup poll published in the Bulletin just before the national wage case showed that overwhelmingly Australians and, therefore, a great many rank and file union members, supported either partial indexation or a continuation of the wages pause. The Prime Minister, in his Curtin lecture, has now said: . . . we cannot reasonably expect in the forseable future, to return to the experience of the post-war generation where the conventional economy provided full employment, in the historical sense, for everybody who sought work. What efforts did the Government make to change these historical attitudes to wages and patterns of work? When will we have a statement before this House to foster public debate on what the Prime Minister called the creation of alternative opportunities for the constructive development of the great human potential existing amongst this generation of Australians? When will we have a chance to enable that generation of young Australians to look in detail at the proposition that the Prime Minister says involves reducing the length of the working life of the average Australian, encouraging young people to remain in the education system longer and offering them a comprehensive youth policy which offers the alternative of education or a range of employment outside the conventional labour force providing opportunities for constructive community work, training and experience? That statement may be responsible. It depends on what detail is being put to the young people concerned. It is certainly radical and a great departure from what the Government said in opposition when it attacked the Government of the day for an unemployment record which it now is prepared not to tackle but rather to say, as the Sydney Morning Herald editorial has interpreted it, that 5 per cent unemployment now apparently equals full employment. In the light of this statement what will the Government say to meet the challenge which it acknowledged at the Summit is presented by the state of the economy? What will it do to persuade those who have jobs that they have to take a further reduction in their real incomes? There is no doubt that the wages pause brought about that situation, but there needs to be next year a further reduction in real income if the share of gross domestic product occupied by profits is to increase to enable investment to take place and jobs to be created . The impoverished have been further neglected and the unemployed have been further forgotten. The Conciliation and Arbitration Commission had no choice but to do what the Government wanted. The aftermath of that decision is solely the responsibility of the Government. When one looks at all the Press releases issued by previous shadow Ministers, including the Prime Minister, one can feel only despair at the hypocrisy demonstrated by the expectations created by them then and their failure now to grapple with the real issues but rather to run away from those challenges. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(3.25) — It is interesting that this matter of public importance has been brought forward by the Opposition parties relatively soon-six or seven months-after they moved into opposition. Doubtless they would like us all to forget what happened during their period of office. Of course, we will not forget, and nor will the people of Australia, that in their period of office they presided over a very large increase in unemployment and, in their last year of office, a substantial reduction in employment. When we came to office the economy was in chaos with an enormous amount of job loss occurring. In the very short period we have been in office we have been able at least to stabilise that situation and to provide the basis on which strong employment growth can occur. Let me just quickly go over what happened during the previous Government's period of office. It came into office with an unemployment rate of 4.6 per cent and went out of office with an unemployment rate of 10.7 per cent. Quite clearly , it was totally unable to create enough jobs to reduce the level of unemployment. Indeed, unemployment more than doubled in its period of office. Not only did unemployment double but there was also a massive increase in the impact of unemployment on those who became unemployed in that the average duration of unemployment increased from 13 weeks in 1975 to 42 weeks at the end of its period of government. Quite clearly, there was an enormous increase in the severity of unemployment, not only in the total numbers involved but also in the amount of time those unemployed had to spend in that condition. Of course, those increases are enormous and frightening. When in opposition we were concerned to develop policies which would arrest that situation, which would prevent the Australian Labor Party, when it came to office, from pursuing policies which would create more unemployment and which would enable it to do the reverse-to start to bring down the unemployment rate. Finally on this matter of what happened when the previous Government was in office, let us look at what happened in its last year. In its last year there was an increase in the level of unemployment in the 12 months to March of this year of 263,000. In that period the total numbers in employment in this country fell by 159,000. Yet the Opposition parties today give us lectures in this House on the state of the employment and unemployment and demand that we pursue policies other than those we are pursuing to try to rectify the situation. The last thing we would do if we wanted to improve the employment situation, which we most certainly want to do, would be to pursue the policies they pursued when they were in office. Those policies had a quite disastrous impact on employment and meant simply that we slid further and further into recession and that Australia, apart from the blip of the resources boom, had a recessed economy with rising unemployment and, in the end, rapidly increasing unemployment and substantially falling levels of employment. Of course, the reality which we face and which the previous Government faced is that if the increase in unemployment is to be arrested we must not only create jobs to bring unemployment down but also create enough jobs for new entrants to the labour market. The work force participation rate varies from year to year, but roughly speaking we need to provide 110,000 to 120,000 jobs a year just to stop the unemployment situation getting worse. If there is a decline of 159,000 in the level of employment such as we had in the last 12 months of the previous Government and on top of that is placed another 100,000 or more people who come on to the labour market, we can see what happens to the level of unemployment. The figures bear out that we had a decline in employment of 160,000 and an increase in unemployment of over 260,000. Clearly, we are concerned to pursue policies different from those pursued by the previous Government. Indeed, in the period that we have been in office we have been bending every endeavour to ensure that we create a situation in which we can start to improve greatly the employment situation in this country. I believe we have made substantial steps in that direction. Let me say at once that the figures in regard to employment levels for August are certainly, on a seasonally adjusted basis, no higher than they were in March of this year. But the figure for last month showed a substantial drop. The previous three months had shown a continuing upward movement, and it may well be that last month's figure is somewhat of an aberration. I certainly hope that it is, but we will have to wait for subsequent figures to find out whether that is the case. Certainly, all the indications we have at present are that we can expect a substantial upturn in employment in the course of this financial year. The Budget forecast a growth in employment of 90,000, roughly 1.5 per cent. Of course, that is a tremendous turnaround on what happened in the previous financial year. In the course of the previous financial year, 1982-83, there was a reduction of 124,000 in the level of employment. This year the Budget forecast is for a growth of 90,000 in the level of employment. That will not be quite enough, on our forecast, to prevent some further slight increase in the level of unemployment. That is certainly a cause of concern to us. But we must look at that situation in light of what this Government inherited. It inherited an economy which was in a state of enormous recession, with jobs disappearing at an enormous rate. We have stabilised that situation. There are not now-although there are still a few isolated cases-the massive retrenchments which occurred in the first month or two of this Government's period of office which were doubtless, at least in some cases, held over until the election had taken place as a favour to the previous Government. I believe that that situation has now stabilised and that we can expect strong employment growth for the rest of this year. As I said, there are some indications in regard to growth. The employment advertisements series of the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd shows that for the last four months there has been an improvement in that situation. It is certainly nothing spectacular, but at least it shows that there is an underlying movement in the number of job advertisements which are appearing, and some improvement in the employment situation. The situation in regard to registered vacancies is one of some slight improvement. There are various forecasts of a pickup in the economy apart from the Government's own forecasts. Those forecasts of an improvement in the level of consumer confidence are certainly encouraging in terms of expecting some improvement in retail sales and a flow on to economic activity in the course of this year. Manufacturing production has begun to pick up. The ANZ series has shown a 2 1/2 per cent increase in the last three months. Certainly, these are small indications. But we must remember that we are picking up from the absolute base of the recession. We cannot expect spectacular movement from that recession, rather a gradual turnaround which will become more and more obvious as the year wears on. It is absurd to say: 'Look, we can't see any great signs of recovery'. We are confident that that recovery will occur and with it employment growth. I say also in that regard that we believe the growth of 5 per cent in non-farm output in the course of this year will be achieved. In fact, it may even be above 5 per cent. Unfortunately, it will not bring with it anything like the same level of employment growth because during the early stages of recovery it is easy for employers to expand production without expanding employment. They can do so because they have people working short time. People who previously worked five-day weeks are now working four-day weeks. There are many such people in the community at present as a result of the previous Government's policies. Those people can now work five days a week. That will not show up as increased employment in terms of extra people at work, although there will be more employment input by people in the work force. The same applies for people working part time. They can work longer hours. People in full time employment can work more overtime. I believe that all of those factors will occur. Some people are being kept on by employers in the hope of recovery. When that recovery is realised, employers can work them a little harder. So there will be some increase in their productivity and we will have increased output without increased employment. For all of those reasons we must expect in the initial stages that there will not be tremendously strong employment growth, but certainly a continuance of output growth of the kind we are looking at through the course of this year-that is, 5 per cent. A continuance of that growth next year and the year after will certainly mean much stronger employment growth in 1984-85 and 1985-86. This will have some impact on the level of unemployment. I concede, however, at this stage that it will certainly be a long haul to return to unemployment levels of the kind which occurred before the previous Government came into office. We acknowledge that it will be a very difficult task. We must create 100,000 to 120 ,000 jobs a year before any impact is made on the level of unemployment. We realise that in the course of this year we are unlikely to make any such impact. We hope to do so in the course of the following two years. We also say that that will not result in a marked level of reduction in unemployment, but if continued it will certainly provide a continuing downward movement in the level of unemployment. If we are to achieve that continuance of economic and employment growth we must certainly have policies applied by the national Government which will give an underlying impetus to recovery, and ensure that there is stimulus to the economy , and an increase in production and employment. But we must also have policies to tackle inflation which do not impede that recovery process. Of course, that is what the prices and incomes accord is all about. The prices and incomes accord is designed to enable us to have an impact on the inflation rate, to ensure that stimulus to the economy becomes a stimulus to production and employment and not a stimulus to inflation. The previous Government-the present Opposition-obviously has no policies at all in this regard. It has nothing to put forward which can ensure that any economic recovery would not be soon curtailed by the outbreak of inflation. We have that policy in the form of the prices and incomes accord. That accord, as the House is very much aware, is now fully in place with regard to its central component- that is, the wages element-after the recent national wage decision which provides a basis on which we can have not only the maintenance of real wage levels, but also a substantial decline in the level of inflation, an increase in our international competitiveness and an assurance that increased stimulus to the economy will not lead to inflation, rather to increased production and employment. The prices and incomes accord has allowed us to achieve a wage increase this year of about 4 1/2 per cent in award rates. Next year the wage increase will be about 5 1/2 per cent, with full indexation applying. That is made possible particularly by the impact of Medicare on the consumer price index . It will knock 2 1/2 per cent to 3 per cent from that index. So the increase in wages next year will be only about 5 1/2 per cent, which will be sufficient to maintain the real purchasing power of wages and certainly also to ensure that we will have a substantial downward movement in our inflation rate. I strongly argue that we have applied an economic policy which is directed towards ensuring employment growth. That is certainly the case at the macroeconomic level. In order to ensure employment growth, my Department in particular has also initiated various actions to bring about employment opportunities. In the Budget a strong emphasis was placed on capital works which will provide strong employment growth. Through my Department the community employment program will provide 40,000 jobs of an average duration this year of six months. At the end of this year it will be run at a rate to provide 70,000 jobs. We have implemented in my Department an increase of 19 per cent in employment and training programs this year and we have other programs which will also have some impact on the employment front. I believe that the Government has adopted those policies which are most likely to have the maximum impact on the level of unemployment. That is our primary concern. The Government's main concern is to bring down the unemployment level. We realise that that cannot be achieved overnight. But the policies we are pursuing are best designed to bring that about. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BURR(Wilmot)(3.38) —We have just heard a most disappointing contribution from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). During his contribution to this debate he did absolutely nothing to answer the comments that were made by the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee). He did absolutely nothing to clarify the statements that were made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) during a speech he made in Perth. He did absolutely nothing to give any hope to the young unemployed people and he did absolutely nothing whatever to clarify the points that were made during the election campaign and the National Economic Summit Conference that gave some expectation to our young people. I have always had great respect for the Minister, but I am disappointed about the contribution that he has made in this debate. Unemployment, the matter which we are talking about, is a most serious social and economic scourge on this country. I am sure that all members on both sides of the House would accept the extent of that social and economic scourge. Certainly, that point was made by the Prime Minister and other spokesmen for the Australian Labor Party during the election campaign. During the election campaign they gave hope and promise to many young unemployed people. I will remind the House and the Minister of some of the promises that were made during the election campaign and some of the expectations that were built up in the community about what a future Labor government could do for this country. I remind the Minister that on 11 February this year the Age stated: A Federal Labor Government would cut income tax for middle and lower income earners in the Budget, create 500,000 jobs in three years, and boost the deficit by $1500 million under a national recovery and reconstruction plan unveiled yesterday by the Opposition Leader, Mr Hawke. What has happened as a result? I will look individually at each one of those promises. What has happened to income tax? The Labor Party promised that it would reduce income tax, but rather than reducing income tax it said, even before it came to office and immediately after, that it had made a mistake and that it could not honour that promise. So it welshed on that promise even before it got into office. Certainly, the Labor Party has done nothing to reduce income tax; in fact it has pushed it up even higher. I refer to the promise to boost the deficit by $1,500m in order to support national recovery. The Budget deficit has been pushed up by $4,000m. That is another election campaign promise that the Government dishonoured; it knew right from the outset that it could not honour it. I believe that the most cynical, deceptive campaign of all was waged about the unemployment problem. The Prime Minister and many of his spokesmen went into the election campaign and into the Economic Summit promising, without question of doubt, that they would create 500,000 jobs. It was the major thrust of the Government's campaign, and the Australian people believed them. However, what are we hearing from them now? What has been the result of the Labor Party's promises? We have heard from the Minister, in his very timid defence here today, that the fact that unemployment has got worse is the fault of the previous Government; it is not the Government's fault. How long is the Government to continue to make that sort of timid defence? The people of Australia are looking to the Minister and the Government to give some hope and some promise for the future. What is happening? I remind honourable members that it is up to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) to tell the people of Australia the true position about unemployment. In a statement of 8 September this year the Leader of the Opposition pointed out: . . . only 100 jobs in seasonally adjusted terms have been created since the Labor Government came to power. This is the fact. I wish that the Minister would pass it on to the Australian people. Mr Cunningham —When did he say that? Mr BURR —This statement is dated 8 September 1983. The Leader of the Opposition, in his statement, went on to say: Between July and August- of this year- 52,000 jobs have been lost. Indeed since March the unadjusted figures show unemployment has fallen by an enourmous 68,300 jobs. I remind Government members of the Government's promise during the election campaign of February to create 500,000 new jobs. That was the great expectation of the people of this country. The Government has been grossly deceptive, dishonest and used political expediency just to gain power for the most cynical of purposes. I believe that deservedly it will be condemned by the Australian people. We have also heard from the Minister, in his contribution, that the Government is basing all of its economic recovery and an improvement in unemployment around the prices and incomes accord with the unions. That was the thrust of the Economic Summit where the Government managed to bring together employers and unions to get their approval for the prices and incomes accord. However where is that prices and incomes accord going now and where is it leading this country? The Government was forced, in order to try to preserve that prices and incomes accord, to support the union thrust for a 4.3 per cent rise in wages before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. But that is not the key to it, as well the Government knows. The whole key to its prices and incomes accord has been waged around the push by the building industry in its endeavour for a $ 19.80 over-award payment. That is now the whole thrust of the union movement's campaign. Despite what might be said by the Government and by some of the union' s spokesmen we recall that at the conference of the Australian Council of Trade Unions two weeks ago the ACTU gave full endorsement for the union movement to pursue wage increases. We now find that the building industry is still pursuing the $19.80 over-award payment that, I believe, will wreck not only the prices and incomes accord but also the economy of this country. The Government may well say that it has the unions in hand. But we were reminded only today of the seriousness with which the building industry unions are pursuing their campaign. The Builders Labourers Federation would not provide concrete for the Prime Minister to cement the foundation stone for the new Parliament House. It even boycotted that ceremony. That is the seriousness with which it is pursuing its campaign. Honourable members on both sides of the House agree that if there is to be economic recovery in this country, if there is to be an improvement in the job situation, it must also be coupled with constraint on the wage push that is being pursued by the unions and therefore allow for the expansion of private industry. I remind honourable members of the wording of our matter of public importance that we are debating today: The failure of the Government to fulfil its promises to formulate policies to create jobs. The Government gave promises in clear and unequivocal terms that it would formulate these policies. I believe that the best that the Government has been able to come up with so far is a very defensive, insignificant job program. It created the community employment program which, on the Government's estimation, will cost $300m to create temporary employment that will last for up to 12 weeks . Mr Chynoweth —Twelve months. Mr BURR —Twelve months, good Lord; and the Government still thinks that that is a permanent job. How would the honourable member like to be offered a job for 12 months and then be told that he is back on the dole queues? That is what the Government is doing. It is not only committing these people to now go back on the dole queues, it is committing a great many other workers who work in private industries to the dole queues. The promise of the Labor Party was to create policies to reduce unemployment. To date it has failed miserably. It has deceived the Australian people. It has shown the duplicity of its policies and the extent to which this Prime Minister will go in order to gain and hold power. I believe that the Government should be roundly condemned by the Australian people because of the deception that it has thrust on this country. I have no doubt that when the next election comes it will receive the just condemnation of the Australian people. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(3.48) —I have listened very carefully to the previous two Opposition speakers and was interested to see at what point they would get around to discussing the matter of public importance which they brought before the House. It is: The failure of the Government to fulfil its promises to formulate policies to create jobs. It was in the very last moments of the speech of the previous speaker, the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr), that he finally got around to addressing himself, in some way, to the matter but he did not put forward any arguments to support his case. To say that this Government has not formulated policies is an extreme position for anybody to take. Before detailing what the Government has done in the formulation of policies I will spend a few minutes covering the remarks of the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee), the shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. During his speech I was really struggling to find any basis for what he was trying to put forward in argument in relation to the matter before the House. He seemed to be basing his argument on the fact that this Government made a promise to produce 500,000 extra jobs over a three-year period and was saying after seven months that nothing had been done about it. That is about the extent of what I could get out of what he had to say other than that he was quoting a few remarks by other people in relation to the accord. The honourable member for Wilmot, of course, bored in regardless. He talked about how the present Government had made certain promises prior to the election in relation to cutting taxes and boosting the deficit by $1,500m and said that it had deceived the people. He has conveniently forgotten, although I am sure the public has not, that in the four days before the election when it became quite clear that the previous Government-and they are the people who now constitute the Opposition-had deceived the Australian public by its estimates of what the Budget deficit was to be. Had we been fully aware three weeks before the election of that situation-in fact, had the public been fully aware-the campaign waged prior to the election would have been totally different. But we did become aware just prior to the election that things were not right and that we would not be able to implement all of our policies immediately. The Prime Minister-to-be at that time, the honourable member for Wills (Mr Hawke), was aware of that and made it quite clear. So some of the things that we promised in the run up to the election had to be forfeited for a period simply because of the mess that we had inherited in the economic field. Nobody coming into power at that stage could have responsibly continued down the path the previous Government was sending this country. I commend our Cabinet for the measures it took when it realised what the situation was and acted to put our policies into operation. Otherwise if we had continued on the basis of action by the previous Government more and more people would have been thrown out of jobs. Let me get back quickly to the matter before the House which is the discussion of the matter of public importance concerning whether the Government has formulated policies to create jobs. The first matter that was taken up by the Government immediately after the election, of course, was the setting up of a situation whereby the Government could make more current information available to the community so that decisions taken right across the board could be made on the basis of genuine information. That was done, of course, at the National Economic Summit Conference. The Government set out to establish an Economic Planning Advisory Council. We established an advisory committee on prices and incomes. We worked towards the return to a centralised wage fixing system. These are only just some of the policies. I will go through a few of them. In regard to the improvement in the current information base, the first step in this direction was taken immediately after this Government came to office. The Government convened the National Economic Summit Conference. All sections of the Australian community were present at that Conference, as everybody knows. The Conference created a climate of common understanding, something that this country had not seen for many, many years under the previous Government. That information base was put forward so that we could explore policy options. Even though prior to the election we had fairly clear indications of what we would have liked to have done on coming to office, when the information was put before the Government, it had to announce this clearly to the Australian public so that it would we well aware of the directions and policies that the Government would have to take. It was agreed by all parties at the Summit that the frank exchange of information and views at the Conference had greatly enhanced mutual understanding of Australia's economic problems. To say that we have not formulated any policies is absurd. The National Economic Summit Conference was the first step-the major one as far as the economy was concerned-to let everybody know just what the situation was. The Government will not create jobs by going down the path of ignorance. We can create jobs only by looking at some of the facts in the community and using those facts for the betterment of the nation through the development of proper policies. The next step was the establishment of an Economic Planning Advisory Council. This Council will continue the process of consultation and information exchange started at the National Economic Summit Conference. If we are to put the economy into the correct shape to create jobs it must be an ongoing process because, as the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) said, we have to create 120,000 jobs to preserve the status quo before we can even make inroads into the unemployment problems that have developed. It is intended that the Economic Planning Advisory Council Act 1983 be amended in the Budget sitting to provide for representation from the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, another important section of our economy. This country has gone downhill as far as employment in small business is concerned. Our small manufacturing industries have really suffered in the economic recession. Unless we have policies designed to bring them back into operation, we certainly will not create the jobs that we want to create. We have established an advisory committee on prices and incomes to monitor and to advise on the implementation of various elements of the prices and incomes policy, to advise on the co-ordination and consistency of the policy at Federal and State levels between income groups and to review and to report at regular intervals on the effectiveness of the policy. All these measures have been taken . Yet the Opposition comes into this House today and, without any basis of argument, tries to tell the Australian public that the Government has not fulfilled its promises to formulate policies. One could go on and on in relation to the number of things that have been done. Let me go on to a few more. As the Minister has clearly said, we have worked towards a centralised wage fixing system. The Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has just brought down a judgment in relation to this. We have been through the period of the emergency wage pause which was brought in by the previous Government virtually as a panic measure because it never had any policies. We are now back to a centralised wage fixing system, a system which will allow industry in this country to know just where it is going in relation to wages over a lengthy period, so it will be able to plan for the future. Without that proper planning, one certainly cannot create jobs. We have developed other areas of policy to create employment. In regard to the industrial development area, we have implemented a comprehensive industry development policy. We have given infrastructure support to the steel industry in different regions. We have heard plenty about that in this Parliament. We have introduced our job creation programs. The honourable member for Wilmot set out to denigrate these programs. The Government has never said that its job creation program was the be all and end all as far as job opportunities are concerned. It was a measure that had to be taken simply because of the situation at the moment, where we have so many people out of work. We need short term measures to put people back to work and give to the Government time to re-adjust the economy and to get it going again. We also have many training and retraining programs. The Government is looking forward to putting people into the proper training programs that will mean something to Australia as we come out of this recession. The policies of this Government will regenerate the economy to such a point that we will need more trained people. In the last couple of days, the Government has announced its new housing package which, if the indication from my office in McMillan is any indication at all, will really generate a lot of employment very quickly in the community. I expect that right across Australia today in this very first week many young people will be in the position of being able to say: 'This is for me. I can at last look forward to getting my family a home'. They are the sorts of policies about which Opposition members have come into this House today and said that we have failed in our promises. They have not put forward one iota of evidence to justify what they have had to say. After seven months in office, this Government has possibly done more thay any other government to turn this economy around to the position where we can look forward to taking up the slack in employment and gradually moving in to counter unemployment. I have many other facts and figures here, Mr Deputy Speaker. However, we do not have the time to go through them. The figures clearly show that there has been an enormous structural change in employment in Australia. If we had the time to go through them, we could. One of our real problem areas concerns our young people, and our young female unemployment problem and the change which has taken place in this area over the last 10 to 20 years. This problem is one which this Government will be able to address when it has the economy in its right order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce (3.59) —I move: Customs Tariff Proposals No. 14 (1983). The customs tariff proposals I have just tabled relate to proposed alterations to the Customs Tariff Act 1982. The proposals contain changes resulting from the Government's decisions on recommendations made by the Industries Assistance Commission in its reports on tableware and certain other goods of pottery- developing country preferences-and stranded wire, cables, cordage, ropes, et cetera, of iron or steel wire-developing country preferences. In respect of tableware and certain other goods of pottery, the Government has decided to exclude the Republic of Korea and Taiwan province from developing country preferences for goods of tariff items 69.12. In accordance with the IAC' s recommendation, and as a result of the Government's decision, tableware and certain other goods of pottery of Republic of Korea or Taiwan province origin will be subject to the 20 per cent general rate of duty. The Government has, however, decided not to accept the IAC's recommendation that imports of tableware and certain other goods of pottery from the People's Republic of China should also be excluded from preference. The Government notes that imports from the People's Republic of China have declined in recent months. Imports from preferential sources will continue to be closely monitored and prompt action taken to prevent any further threat of injury to the Australian industry. In respect of stranded wire, cables, cordage, ropes, et cetera, of iron or steel wire, the Government has accepted the IAC's findings that certain imports from the Republic of Korea are causing injury to Australian industry. The Government has therefore decided that goods of tariff sub-item 73.25.9 will be dutiable at a rate of 20 per cent when of Republic of Korea origin. This rate of duty will still afford the Republic of Korea a 10 percentage points margin over imports of the same goods from general tariff sources. In making this decision, the Government noted that imports of stranded wire, cables, et cetera, from the Republic of Korea had rapidly gained a substantial share of total imports and had sizable price advantages over locally produced goods. For these reasons the Government decided to add a further 10 percentage points to the 10 per cent increase in duty recommended by the IAC. The proposals also contain an alteration inserting a new paragraph in item 39. 01 for goods described as polyurethane systems. This alteration will restore levels of assistance which have been lost because of the application of a provision in the Customs tariff relating to goods put up in sets. This 'sets' provision had to be inserted in the Australian Customs tariff to keep it in line with the Customs Co-operation Council nomenclature. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 14 (1983) will operate on and from tomorrow. A detailed summary of alterations contained in the proposals has been prepared and is being circulated for the information of honourable members. I commend the proposals to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Consideration resumed from 22 September. Schedule 2. Department of Defence Proposed expenditure, $4,585,935,000. Department of Defence Support Proposed expenditure, $385,220,000. Mr GAYLER(Leichhardt)(4.04) —We are only now entering a new era of technological innovation. I believe that this will affect Australia's defence needs as much as any other sector of our community. It is, therefore, vitally necessary for Australia to keep abreast of technological innovation and particularly to maintain our highly experienced core force. It is estimated that , given present technologies, it takes 10 years to train a middle ranking or non -commissioned officer. In the light of this training period I classify the maintenance of the core force as Australia's number one defence priority, even at the expense of further capital acquirements. Our nation's armed forces must always be ready to expand quickly and efficiently in such a manner that we are the masters, not the servants, of the latest technologies. The way to achieve this, if we are faced with future hostilities, is to maintain our core force in a high state of readiness, with high morale and at least a skeletal acquirement of state-of-the-art technology. I would like to add a couple of observations on this point. Firstly, the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) has recently been engaged in attempts to awaken the nation to the need for sunshine industries. His commendable efforts have reminded us that we must keep abreast of the new technologies that are overtaking our lives. This revolution is affecting the technology of armed conflict no less than it is affecting our daily lives. Therefore, I commend to the Committee the example of Sweden, a nation to a great extent responsible wholly for its own defence and a net exporter of military equipment, certainly not an importer. It is a sad fact-and a fact with which all honourable members I hope will agree-that the world's arms trade is huge, but we should not let this stop us from curbing the massive outflow of revenue to overseas arms manufacturers. Instead, it is our duty to create more innovations, as we have in the past, in a long term drive to reach parity between our outlays and income in military equipment. Secondly, I note with satisfaction that the Kangaroo 83 exercises are being conducted in the north-west of the country. Hopefully they will, in the near future, be held in the far north-east. At this stage I welcome the Army's plans to establish a unit similar to Norforce in the north of Queensland. The proposed unit, made up of reserve troops based around a regular core force, is considered most welcome by north Queenslanders. We have, of late, all been made aware of one of the few projected defence threats to our nation, that of the limited establishment of a beachhead in our north-west, this of course being part of the Kangaroo 83 exercise. Any such incursion would be fraught with difficulties. The logistical problems alone of a north-west landing are daunting. Most probably the invading force would be stranded on the beachhead unable to mobilise because of the vast deserts that would confront it if it dared move towards the south of the country. There is, however, one area of Australia from where an enemy could threaten the very existence of our nation. That area is far north Queensland. With its relatively sparse population, its relatively hospitable country and its access to the lush interior of the State, it remains Australia's Achilles heel under present defence arrangements. I am sure honourable members will all remember that the Japanese favoured the eastern flank in their final and heart stopping approaches on Australia during the last war. Their aim was not only the capture of Port Moresby but also access to the far north of Australia. For here could be mounted a Malayan-type campaign of continuing encirclement by land and sea, probing weaknesses and leapfrogging salients, until they reached the rich interior of Queensland where they could operate in a mobile and flexible theatre that encompassed great distances. Our response, under the leadership of MacArthur, was to abandon two-thirds of our land mass to the enemy in a projected attempt to hold the Brisbane line. One wonders how different our response would be now, given the appalling state of unpreparedness of our defences in the region. North Queenslanders said then, and I shall say it for them now, that any Brisbane line philosophy is totally unacceptable. The answer to the defence needs of our region is more troops, more facilities, more awareness of our vulnerability and a higher defence profile in that region. Recently in response to a question on notice to the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) I was informed that, of overall activities, the Royal Australian Navy spent 35 per cent, the Army 25 per cent and the Royal Australian Air Force 25 per cent of their total resources north of the Tropic of Capricorn. Given that the north of the country is the area considered most vulnerable, I consider this a shocking neglect that is not only reminiscent of the Brisbane line philosophy but also an indication of how conservative governments have for so many years considered the defence of the nation as a whole and of the north in particular. I am confident that the present Government will redress this situation in its first few terms of office. In conclusion, I commend the Government for its defence Budget this year. In the difficult economic times we have inherited from our predecessors, the defence estimates contained in the Budget are sensible, sound and demonstrate an awareness of the importance of defence by the Australian Labor Party Government. We are committed to the maintenance and the preparedness of defence forces within the current world climate, we are committed to the morale and well-being of Australia's forces and we are committed to the continued defence of our nation. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(4.11) —On 4 August, a mere two weeks before the last Budget, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) sent the following telegram to the President of the Citizen Military Forces Association, Major-General Maitland: Dear Major-General Maitland, On the occasion of your Association's Annual General Meeting and National Conference I would like to reaffirm the Government's support for the Australian Army Reserve as a most important element in the country's defence effort. No defence effort can be truly successful without the broad support of the citizenry. Your Association renders a vital contribution as a source of experience and knowledge in matters pertaining to the defence force reserves and as a contribution to the broader national discussion of defence issues. In the light of what happened two weeks later when the Budget was brought down, for the Prime Minister to send that telegram to the representative of the Army Reserve was simply an act of sheer gall. Throughout the period leading up to the preparation of the Budget it was quite clear that the Government through the Budget, intended to undermine and emasculate, if possible, the Army reserves. We were told by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his Budget Speech that the intention to reduce the size of the Army Reserve, to change the method of payment, to cut back the number of man days and so forth, would result in an estimated saving of some $5m during 1983-84 and $20m in a full financial year. If Reserve forces are to be maintained at current levels, it is quite clear that no reduction in funds should have been tolerated in the context of the last Budget. But, of course, that is not what was intended. Reserve manpower is to be cut by 1,572. While this will not affect the Royal Australian Navy Reserve or the Royal Australian Air Force Reserve, in the context of the Army it will represent a reduction of over 2,000 men and a real cut of some 6.13 per cent. The reduced provision of permanent force cadres to Reserve units and cadet units in turn must result in further pressure being applied to Reserve officers and non-commissioned officers who have to make up the difference-yet man days have also been reduced in the context of the Budget. I ask the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes), who is present in the chamber, whether he can confirm or deny, that the Government also intends to phase out the school cadet units. Obviously, in the context of this Budget, the Government was not prepared to take that on at this stage. The major problems, therefore, facing the Army Reserve are that the average number of training days for members of the Army Reserve is to be reduced from 38 .25 to 36, while tax exemptions for persons serving in the reserves are to be phased out in two steps, the first starting on 1 December 1983 and the second starting on 1 December 1984. These measures fundamentally attack both those serving in the reserves now and those who might have been potential volunteers for the reserves in the future. Clearly, the abolition of the tax concessions will act as a disincentive for members of the public to enlist in the Army Reserve. I point out that, back in 1975, the Whitlam Government referred the question of Defence Force pay to an inquiry. The report of the inquiry stated: Talking to reservists the removal of tax exemption would remove incentive and therefore Reserve pay should remain tax exempt. Furthermore, in the same report in chapter 8 headed 'Tax Rates for Members of the ARES' it is stated: If the tax exemption is retained the proposed rates will therefore contain an intrinsic retention and attraction incentive. It is only in the event that the exemption is withdrawn that the question arises as to the nature of the incentive which should be recommended as a substitute. No alteration to tax exemption is a better course. That was the conclusion of that report. This advice is borne out by two simple analyses. I am indebted to the honourable member for Bruce (Mr Aldred) for this information. A Reserve member with civilian earnings in excess of $19,500, earning in addition $6,000 Reserve pay currently tax exempt, would keep only $3, 240, while a Reserve member with civilian earnings in excess of $35,788, earning the same Reserve pay, would keep only $2,400. The simple fact of the matter is this: If we hope to retain in the Army Reserve people who represent all walks of life in Australia and if we expect to attract to the officer cadres of the Army Reserve people who, in their civilian occupations are successful and have something to offer the defence forces, it is quite clear that to expect them to give so much time for virtually nothing is an absurdity. The Minister is probably not aware that the average lieutenant-colonel commanding a battalion, most of his staff officers and many of his senior NCOs are currently serving 100 days or more to meet the commitments of their units. Yet we have been told in this Budget that ancillary defence support staff is to be reduced and that the number of days being provided for Reserve pay are also being reduced. Out of this we can only conclude that the Government has decided as a matter of policy that it wants to phase out the Army Reserve in its present form. If the strength of the Army Reserve is to be reduced, let it be on the Government's head. But let there be no doubt about the fact that there is not one battalion in the Army today, with the possible exception of the ready reaction force, which is up to strength. Let no person in this country be under any misapprehension that, should a threat develop in the short term, this country's defence would ultimately depend on our capacity to bring into front line service in a very short time the very same men and women of the Army Reserve which this Government is now doing its best to emasculate. I put it simply that we cannot have it both ways. I am very conscious of the fact-here I declare my own interest; I am an officer in the active Army Reserve-that we cannot sell off the Army Reserve in the hope of maintaining the Regular Army core force indefinitely. The evidence in this Budget again demonstrates that this Government has based its defence spending on a rate of inflation of some 6 per cent a year. Who is this Government trying to kid? Treasury Statement No. 2 shows and the Treasurer himself, on television on the night of the Budget, emphasised the fact that, this year, the Government expects the rate of inflation to be around 10 per cent. But the Minister has come into this chamber and he has suggested that, for the defence forces, by some miracle or, more likely, some statistician's sleight of hand, this Government will be able to contain its cost increases to a mere 6 per cent. The Government can achieve that . It has done so by cutting back the Army Reserve to the bone. It has done it by cutting back steaming time, flying time, cavalry-unit mileage and so forth. The Government can achieve all that. But the Minister should not then come into this chamber and try to tell this Parliament and the Australian people that, at the end of the day, the Government will still have maintained an efficient defence capability for the Australian armed forces. It is simply indisputable that the reserves will run down in strength as a result of the measures this Government has taken. It is by no means certain that the rundown will cease at the level planned by the Government. In terms of the units, for which I have a particular interest, may I go on record as saying that the Prime Minister of this country back in 1980, when he was President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, went on television and called to the youth of Australia: 'Join the Army Reserve. Do your bit for Australia'. A mere three years later those same people who joined those units- there are many thousands of young people trying to do the same thing to this day -are now being told that recruitment and training by their units in terms of the number of training days which will be provided under this Budget are such that, in many cases, it will not be possible to maintain the basic efficiency rate, which is 26 days a year. The Minister may not be aware of these things; he should look into the activities of some of his command structures. But the fact of the matter is that one cannot maintain the Army Reserve on a man days formula based on averages when units have officers and NCOs doing up to 100 days and the minimum number for 'efficiency' is meant to be 26 days. Therefore, he will simply find that his Reserve structure will deteriorate and the Regular Army cannot defend Australia alone. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable gentleman's time has expired. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Defence Support)(4.21) —I want to comment on some of the remarks of the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) and the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). Before doing so I say that since I have been the Minister for Defence Support I have had the opportunity to visit each of, I think, 13 establishments within the Department of Defence Support and probably twice that many establishments in the private sector as well as to take a brief trip overseas when I looked at defence industry in Scandinavia and the Netherlands. So I think I have some knowledge of the establishments in the Department and the private sector defence industry and some basis for comparison internationally. I would have to say that my first impression was extremely negative. I think it is clear that defence industry in this country, particularly in the public sector, has suffered considerable neglect over the post-war period-over a very long period. I think it is a rather surprising but, nevertheless, sad reflection on conservative governments in this country that they have not put the resources into defence industry which are so important an element in terms of national security. I would refer to several remarks of the right honourable member for New England . He referred to the Utz Defence Review Committee. Let me say that I think the Utz Committee's report was extremely important and very useful. Indeed, I think the Department of Defence Support was a good idea in the sense that it did create a basis for the planning of defence industry in the country and management of establishments in a way that perhaps had not been possible under the many previous arrangements that existed. In terms of the recommendations that affect the Department of Defence Support I think the principal unfulfilled recommendations are those concerning the establishment of boards of management. That has been the subject of discussions with the Public Service Board, which seems to have some difficulties with the concept. I think it is a good idea. I hope that the boards of management will be established by the end of the year. But people will understand that they may need to be established progressively and we will certainly need to finalise agreement with the Public Service Board. The right honourable member for New England expressed the hope that the FFG frigates will be constructed at the Williamstown Naval Dockyard. The Government has yet to make a decision on that matter. However, I would like to say that considerable progress-I think some credit has to be given to the previous Government-has been made at the Williamstown Naval Dockyard. We have recently appointed a new general manager and a new production manager. A number of senior management positions have been advertised which is very much in line, I think, with the recommendations of the first Hawke report. The industrial relations atmosphere at the dockyard has changed dramatically and in a very positive way. There has been something like a 90 per cent reduction in the number of industrial disputes in the last year. But if one looks at the trend over the past three years one sees that there has been a progressive improvement in industrial relations. We are placing considerable emphasis, as I think everybody would agree ought to be placed, on occupational safety and health. The Williamstown Naval Dockyard was the scene for an agreement between the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Department in relation to occupational safety and health matters. I think that agreement provides useful procedures for the settlement of disputes and a framework for taking occupational safety and health matters out of the arena of industrial conflict. I think that is important. A commercial accounting system-the honourable member for North Sydney will be delighted to hear me say this-is currently being introduced. We have private consultants assisting in terms of the installation of that accounting system. I believe the hardware will go in and that system will be fully operational by the time I make this report next year. I think that accounting system is extremely important not only to the dockyard. It is also important that we get a model. People have talked about commercial accounting systems in government establishments for a long time. I think very often the concept just has not been followed through and a proper model has not been established. We are very hopeful of Williamstown in that regard. New improved material storage and handling systems are being introduced. There have been a lot of problems in the past in those areas. Industrial engineering studies are being carried out. I believe that productivity is progressively being improved. I think the Williamstown Naval Dockyard is being established as a very advanced facility which will add considerably to the country's defence industry capability. I think it is very often surprising that we do not recognise how good facilities can be in Australia. When the modernisation program at the Naval Dockyard is completed we will have one of the finest dockyards not only in Australia but also internationally. The honourable member for North Sydney made a number of references to financial management. Such references were contained in recent reports of the Auditor- General. I do not think the honourable member for North Sydney could have been more appalled than I was to read those reports. I think it is quite unacceptable that we have accounting systems which do not operate on a commercial basis. I have no difficulty with that notion. I think we have to run our defence factories on what I would described as more commercial lines. Fundamental to that is the need for us to have proper accounting systems. Nevertheless, I suppose that is, in some respects, more of a reflection on previous governments than it could possibly be a reflection on this Government. We are determined that a proper accounting system will be established at the Williamstown Naval Dockyard and that all of the points made by the honourable member for North Sydney will be taken into account in terms of financial reporting in relation to the Williamstown Naval Dockyard. I believe the Government Aircraft Factories warrant similar consideration. I am hopeful that we will make major progress this year to deal with the problems referred to in the Auditor-General's report in relation to the Government Aircraft Factories. I think it will be necessary to give priority to some establishments and I guess, in terms of guarantees, I am guaranteeing that at Williamstown and the Government Aircraft Factories we will see commercial accounting systems fully in place in the next 12 months. Accounting systems at other establishments are at various stages of progess and we will see what we can achieve within the next year. I think too little attention has been given to such accounting systems in relation to production. One of the things about the factories that strikes me is that they tend to place insufficient emphasis not simply on accounting as something that is important to the Parliament and the public in general but also, as an extremely important tool of management. If we are to develop corporate planning strategies for the production establishments as a whole and for particular establishments, proper commercial accounting is a fundamental tool that needs to be put in place. I will certainly be working towards that end. The honourable member for North Sydney enunciated a number of principles which he felt ought to guide defence industry in policy and approaches. I might say that I have very little difficulty with most of the principles he espoused. I think self-reliance is an important objective of this Government. It is certainly important that we get more development. We spend a great deal of money in the research area in Australia and we have, in terms of the countries I have recently visited, probably a larger commitment of resources to research and more expertise. I think we can do a lot better on the development front and I fully agree with the honourable member's emphasis in that area. I think we certainly need a national and rational plan for the development of defence industry in Australia. I think we certainly need to be thinking in terms not merely of offsets and industry participation but also of co-production agreements with friendly nations. I think that is important and not merely in relation to our region. My one point of reservation is that the honourable member for North Sydney was perhaps prematurely negative about the public sector. I think the fact that we have a defence industry of any standing in this country is due very largely to the fact that most of what was there in the Second World War happened to be in the public sector. I think the public sector has taken something of a mauling in the post-war period from successive governments. I have considerable confidence in the management of our various establishments and particularly in the people who work in them. I believe that given support, enthusiasm and opportunity, new programs in safety and health, better emphasis on training, a greater degree of industrial democracy, commercial accounting approaches and perhaps the introduction of a new emphasis on corporate management, those enterprises will compete with any private enterprises in this country. Of course, one has to recognise that a great deal of their capability is and always will be maintained strictly for defence purposes. That constraint will always be operating in terms of government establishments. I thank the right honourable member for New England and the honourable member for North Sydney for their contributions to this debate. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(4.31) —The great Sir Winston Churchill once said that no parliamentarian had a higher duty than to ensure the defence of the nation. I wish to speak in this debate as a former member of the Royal Australian Naval Reserves and as one who unashamedly has a commitment to the defence of Australia . I support the remarks made by the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), in his capacity as shadow Minister for Defence and the remarks made this afternoon by my colleague the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) in relation to what will happen to the reserves in Australia following the decisions taken in the Budget by the Hawke socialist Government. Before dealing with the reserves I publicly confess one bias; that is, I am very much biased in favour of the Royal Australian Navy. It is not just because of my own association with the Royal Australian Naval Reserves, the fact that my father served in the war in the Royal Australian Navy or the fact that I have a brother currently serving in the Royal Australian Navy, but because I have a fundamental belief that the world's largest island continent can properly defend itself only if it has proper and adequate naval forces and equipment with which to do so. I therefore deeply regret the decision by the Hawke Government that Australia will not be acquiring an aircraft carrier. I further deeply regret the decision by the Hawke Government by which the Fleet Air Arm, with 50 years experience, has been disbanded and the fixed-wing aircraft component of the Royal Australian Navy will no longer exist. I now turn specifically to what the Hawke socialist Government has done in the Budget in relation to the capacity of men and women in this country to defend this nation. Effectively, as a result of the Government's decisions announced in the Budget, Australia's regular forces will be reduced by some 732 members, the reserve forces will be reduced by 1,572 members and civilian employment will be reduced by 340 members. That gives us a grand total reduction of 2,644 people as a result of the decisions taken by the Government and announced in the Budget. This represents a cut of one per cent in the regular forces, a cut of 4.3 per cent in the reserves, mainly the Army reserves, and a cut of 1.4 per cent in civilian employment numbers. Earlier this year the right honourable member for New England wrote to the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) in relation to the question of training days. The Minister for Defence replied in a letter dated 15 September. I wish to quote from that letter because I believe the people of Australia are entitled to know the thinking of the Minister and the Hawke socialist Government on the question of reserve training. The Minister says: In relation to the Army Reserve, a significant resource demand is generated by training days. The annual allocation of 38.25 training days per Reserve member was introduced in 1980 to provide for increased activity in relation to the expansion program. It was agreed that this allocation should continue for two years to permit consolidation of the increase. I specifically refer to what now follows: Judgments have now been made that sufficient levels of readiness can be achieved by allocation of resources based on an overall national average of thirty-six days per member . . . A little further on in the letter the Minister says: . . . it has been determined that the minimum annual training requirement for Reserve members to be declared 'efficient' is twenty-six days. A miserable 26 days! If we take the current standing of the reserve forces-the Army Reserve, the Navy Reserve and the Air Force Reserve-we see that the Government has cut over 80,000 training days per annum. I believe that that is a scandalous situation. My mind, like that of the honourable member for Bradfield, goes back to 1980 when the then Prime Minister, along with such people as Mr Kerry Packer, went on television to appeal to the men and women of Australia to join the reserves and to participate in the defence of this country. I cannot line up that approach in 1980 with the approach of the Hawke socialist Government in 1983. But, as if that was not enough, the tax exemption in relation to reserves pay is to be withdrawn for the sake of a miserable $5m this year and $20m in a full year. The worst thing about that is that the remuneration for reservists has been fixed on the basis that it will be tax free . So we already have a level of remuneration which is lower than it would have been had tax been imposed. The men and women of Australia who have accepted the invitation to join the reserves find that a remuneration, which was determined on the basis of being tax free, now becomes taxable. The honourable member for Bradfield is quite correct when he says that what this is doing to morale in the reserve forces is unbelievable. It is not a question of the money; it is a question of the principle. Is it the intention of the Hawke Government now to wipe out the school cadet corps? Is there truth in the persistent rumours that the people who wish their children to engage in the school cadet corps will have to pay for it out of their own pockets? If that is the Minister's intention, I urge and beseech him to reconsider his position. I simply say that for him to come out publicly against the school cadets following his action in relation to the reserves is the greatest incitement that I can think of for people not to become involved in the defence of this nation. I would have thought that, across party lines, the Minister's commitment would have been to encourage as many men and women, including the young and all others who can serve, to participate in the most noble aspiration of all-the defence of the nation. I appeal to the Minister, because I genuinely believe that his heart is not in some of the decisions which have been announced by the Government following the Budget. I commend the Minister in his efforts to ensure that justice will be done in relation to the iniquitous proposals of the Hawke socialist Government with respect to superannuation and Defence Force retirement benefits and the impact they will have on the defence forces of Australia. I believe that honourable members on both sides of this House will support the Minister and hope that his submissions will at least strike oil and that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) will recognise what will happen if they proceed with the proposed intention to tax those presently serving in the forces, crucifying them with the superannuation and DFRB tax impost which is quite unjust. I will support the Minister, and I hope that he will receive support from both sides of the House. I hope that the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) will support the Minister for Defence in putting the case to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer and getting justice. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(4.39) —I wish to say just a few words in this debate, principally because of my concern about defence and the fact that the Williamtown Royal Australian Air Force base is within my electorate of Lyne but also because I am terribly concerned about the defence and defence preparedness of Australia. I believe that the average Australian, and I am sure that the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes), would like to see a greater allocation for defence expenditure. Being the representative of between 2,000 and 3,000 members of the Services within my electorate, I wish to back up what has been said by other Opposition speakers today in our grave concern about matters relating to superannuation and other things affecting the Services family generally. Over the years the average serviceman joined the defence service because he wanted to be in the service of Australia. He knew that he would gain a certain amount of security. At present the security which he gained when he joined the service is to be eroded because of the Government's policy to impose a 30 per cent tax on lump sum superannuation payments. This is very serious because the average serviceman retires at 40 to 45 years of age. He relies on his superannuation benefits to purchase a home, a business or a farm of some kind. His life and that of his family are centred on that prospect. He knows that, when he reaches a certain age, a certain amount of money will be available to him. I am very concerned that as time goes on-I am sure that the Minister would admit this privately although he might not admit it in the House-there will be an increase, as the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) mentioned before, in the number of people wanting to leave the Services. They will take this course because of the insecurity that they face. I am concerned not only about the people whom I represent but also all of the people involved in the Services of Australia. As mentioned by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) a while ago, the pay of voluntary servicemen will in future be taxed. If we want to build the defence resource of this country, we must encourage young men to become involved in the three arms of the Services. This policy does not encourage them; in fact it makes one wonder whether the Government is really honest in its approach to the problems of the defence of this nation. I now refer to the school cadets system. We must support the school cadets system. Within my electorate and elsewhere, there are numerous secondary schools which have very strong cadet corps in operation. I mention as an example the Marist Brothers school in East Maitland. The honourable member for Paterson (Mr O'Keefe), I am sure, will agree with me. Within a fortnight, we will view the passing out parade at that school. There is a wonderful group of young men within the cadet corps at the school who want to play their part. We have to encourage these people to go on to do their job; we must not discourage them. As I said, the average Australian is concerned about defence. We all wish that we could spend more. We must look at Australia's geographical situation. If we want to emerge in the Asian scene, we have to be prepared in defence matters. Other countries that are smaller than ours-I am talking about Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea and others around us-look at the great natural resources that we have. They see that we are in a state of actual preparedness to defend not only ourselves but also those who do not have the resources, either monetary or otherwise, to be able to look after themselves. So Australia has a great responsibility in the emerging trade field. This afternoon we will talk about trade with countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations. It is important that we spend a reasonable amount of our funds not only on trade but also on building our defences. It has always been Australian policy-I know that in this respect we talk about aircraft carriers-to meet the aggressor where we can a long way from our shores. We want to continue to do this. An aircraft carrier has a role in the protection of our shipping lanes. This country is terribly dependent on trade. We are dependent also on imports. We are particularly dependent upon our export trade and we want to protect it. Therefore, we must have a navy. That brings me back to the Williamtown air base. I am delighted to see the expenditure that is allocated-approximately $100m-to accommodate the FA18 fighter. I was disappointed to see that the paratroop training school is moving from Williamtown to Nowra. When the Joint Committee on Public Works approved the expenditure to update the Williamtown base, it understood that the paratroop training school was included in that expenditure-approximately $5m to $6m. Suddenly, with the abolition of the Fleet Air Arm-and, I am sure, partially to compensate the Nowra area-the Government moved the paratroop training section from Williamtown. I do not condemn that move completely. Naturally, one would like to know the extent of the loss suffered not only by the Williamtown base but also by the community, in terms of income, finance, people and schools within that area. The joint warfare establishment is located at Williamtown. I pay a tribute to all the servicemen at the base but particularly to the joint warfare establishment simply because of the fact that it joins the three armed services within Australia. As was said at the time of the Falkland Islands campaign, the British won that battle because it could actually co-ordinate the three arms of the Services. I would like to see greater expenditure on defence. The Australian people require increased defence expenditure. For the sake of Australia, we must accept the fact that we have to protect ourselves over the years to come. We have to be friendly with other people within the neighbourhood who are reliant on us. We must have, under the ANZUS agreement, a very steady and meaningful arrangement with the United States of America because we are dependent on it. I heard the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) say in the House a few months ago that , while we sit here, the Soviet Union has nuclear armed submarines operating within the Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean regions. The Soviet navy is operating around our shores. We must recognise that it is there and that it is not there for fun. The Soviet naval vessels are there to protect their shipping routes. They will be the aggressors if the need arises. I strongly support the allocation within the Budget; I am sorry that it is not greater. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Defence)(4.47) —A number of matters have been raised during the discussion of these estimates. Clearly, as the time for discussion of this appropriation has already expired I will not be able to answer all of those matters. However, there are one or two matters which require an answer because to leave them on the record unanswered would be to leave on the record misleading and, in some cases, ill-informed comment. I first deal with the comments made by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) relating to the size of the defence vote and inflation. I am rather surprised that a senior member of the Opposition is not aware that the consequences of price increases during the current year are not taken into account in framing the year's Budget but are in fact taken into account during Supplementary Estimates later in the year. His argument does not conform to either existing or past practices. I should point out also that, whilst the honourable member talked about the effects of inflation on the defence budget, the actual growth factor, after inflation, in the last Budget presented by his Government was half a per cent greater than the inflation rate for that year. There has been a great deal of comment on the size and structure of the Army Reserve. A continuing theme in the Opposition's argument has been a reduction in the size of the Army Reserve. The size of the Army Reserve, as set out in the Budget Papers and as approved for this year, is exactly the same size as the Army Reserve which was approved by the previous Government at the time of the 1982-83 Budget, that is, 30,000 people, which was the figure the previous Government agreed to, following the Afghanistan crisis in 1980. It is true that the additional 2 1/4 training days allocated at that time has now been removed. If we are to believe the then Minister for Defence the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) it was allocated in order to enable reserve units to cater for the rapid influx of additional recruits in order to meet the target of increasing the reserves to 30,000 over a very short period. Obviously, duties well in excess of those covered by normal training would have been and were required in order to cater for that increase. I think it is also important to point out that at 30 June this year the strength of the reserves was some 1,600 above the authorised strength. The strength of the regular forces was also about 400 above the authorised level. This year the authorised strength of the permanent forces is some 300 below that which was authorised the previous year but not achieved under the former Minister. The former Minister, the right honourable member for New England, in his remarks criticised the lack of reductions in the civilian work force of the Department of Defence as compared with reductions made in the numbers of defence force personnel. I suggest that he look at the Budget Papers, see the number of civilian positions which it is proposed to do away with this year, and compare that with the defence budget which he presented the year before when the total number of civilian positions to be declared redundant was 15. That is hardly a significant reduction in anyone's language. There have been a number of comments about changes in tax structures. I reiterate what I said before. Changes in tax structures are not changes in the Government's specific programs. Such changes affect all citizens in the same manner unless particular provisions are made for exemptions or in other ways to cover the tax considerations involved. With regard to the proposal to increase the tax on lump sum payments made under the Defence Force retirement and death benefits scheme, the question of exemptions or other arrangements is still under active consideration. I do not believe that members of the defence forces will be significantly disadvantaged by the decision which the Government will make. A number of proposals have been put forward, one of which has come from the right honourable member for New England, while another, which suggested that the DFRDB lump sum payment be treated as compensation for services rendered, appeared in an editorial in the Canberra Times. Neither the honourable member nor the editorialist is aware that that type of payment is taxable in the year of receipt at the full income level. I suggest that they stop advocating that solution because it will cost members of the defence forces their socks. It is also irresponsible. Mr Sinclair —It is not when treated the way we would have treated it. Mr SCHOLES —The law is as the right honourable member passed it, implemented it and carried it out. He also provided for long service leave and annual leave to be taxed in the current year of receipt; so I suggest that he mind his ps and qs . Another matter raised at some length was the tax on the pay of members of the reserves and the effect that this tax might have. The honourable member for Bradfield, in making his case, suggested that the tax free pay was the only reason-that is what he implied-that people joined the reserves. He also made the point that senior members of the reserves served up to 100 days a year. I point out to the Committee that a substantial proportion of senior officers in the reserves are in fact retired service personnel who are in receipt of a government pension. If they are working 100 days at a tax free rate and if they have other income, they are probably receiving take home pay which is higher than that of a person in a similar position in the regular Army. Half of the Government's decision was ignored in the remarks made, including those of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). The Governments decision was that the tax free status of reserve pay should be phased out and, concurrently, the salaries of members of the reserves be adjusted to reflect their true worth in monetary terms. The present system favours those who have the highest private incomes and severely penalises those who have the lower private incomes. If the comments of Mr Justice Coldham on an earlier occasion are to be taken into account, those people in the reserves who are on the lowest incomes-those who do not pay tax because of their low incomes-are currently receiving salaries which are some 40 per cent below those which they would have received had they been paid at the appropriate rate on a normal salary basis. They are the people who are suffering most by the existing system and they will benefit most because they will receive a full reward for their contributions. Mr Sinclair —Is the change going back to the date of the introduction of the tax in the Budget? Mr SCHOLES —I also point out to the Committee as it is obvious that the right honourable member does not understand-I think from reading his remarks that he does not want to understand-that on 24 August, the day after the Budget, a reference was made to Mr Justice Coldham's Committee of Reference for Defence Force Pay asking him to review the remuneration of members of the reserves to take into account the Government's decision. The recommendations from Mr Justice Coldham will include the appropriate scales of remuneration and the times at which these new scales will take effect. I expect that he will recommend that they take effect at the same time as the Government's removal of the tax concession, but I do not pre-empt Mr Justice Coldham's report; that is for him to make. Unlike the former Government, this Government will accept the recommendations of an independent tribunal. It will not say that it will not accept the recommendations because people in the armed services are getting paid too much. That is what people on the other side of the chamber have to live with . In November last year they refused to make a reference to the Committee of Reference for Defence Force Pay because they thought that members of the armed services of this country were being paid too much. That is on the public record. Mr Sinclair —Because of the pay pause; that is all it was. Mr SCHOLES —The pay pause started in December. The recommendation to the Minister was made in August. It was to apply from November, a month before the pay pause was even introduced. The Minister refused the reference. He knows it and has to live with it. Mr Sinclair —It was because of the pay pause; be honest. Mr SCHOLES —In opposition the right honourable member says he is a lion. In government he was a tame cat. A number of references have been made to the Fleet Air Arm. I recommend to members that they read the speech made by the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) who faced up to the issue in a realistic manner and in the interests of defence generally. He did not say one thing in opposition and another thing in government which is the case with most members on the other side who have spoken. Proposed expenditures agreed to. Department of Trade Proposed expenditure, $301,577,000. Department of Resources and Energy Proposed expenditure, $101,878,000. Mr ANTHONY(Richmond-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(4.58) —Everybody in this Parliament recognises the importance of trade. I think members on both sides of the chamber would express concern at the present drift of our trade figures. Last month in a speech at the opening of the office of the Department of Trade at the World Trade Centre, the Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) pointed out that our share of world exports had fallen from 1.7 per cent in 1970 to 1.3 per cent in 1982. He added that we had lost a share of the markets in prime areas such as Japan, the United States, the European Economic Community and the countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations. Those are facts that I also drew the nation's attention to whilst I was Minister for Trade and Resources. These figures are not the only reasons for concern. Our exports are paying for less and less in real terms. In the decade to 1980 the volume of our exports rose by about 36 per cent. Their real purchasing power rose by only 7.4 per cent. The position would have been much worse had it not been for our high self-sufficiency in energy. We should compare our performance with that of our near neighbour, New Zealand, whose purchasing power increased over the decade by 27.1 per cent; or with that of the Republic of Korea which registered an astounding 491 per cent growth in purchasing power. Our 7.4 per cent must be recognised as a matter of concern. Our very large $6.5 billion current account deficit last year coupled with the fact that we were informed by today's newspapers that our credit rating internationally has slipped from sixth to ninth highlights the need for concern with our export performance because all of those things are relative to our export capacity. Of course, part of our poor export performance hinges on the fact that we have exported mainly agricultural-type goods. Because they are our traditional exports, we must not for one minute underestimate the significance or importance for export earnings of our pastoral, agricultural and mining industries. Our smallest export sector, the manufacturing sector, was by far the largest export sector globally and our growth in that sector was well below world average. It has been calculated that about 60 per cent of the gap between our growth and the world's growth in exports resulted from the nature of our exports . It is clear that the major problem we had in trying to keep up with the world figure was the mix of our exports. These problems were recognised by the former Government and were acted upon. For many years I worked to increase the processing of Australian goods for export. Under the previous Government moves were set in train to boost substantially secondary processing of our minerals. For example, there was a significant increase in aluminium production. Detailed studies were under way into uranium enrichment. Changes in protection policy also helped manufacturers to have a more outward-looking approach. New markets were opened up in the Middle East in particular and the closer economic relations agreement with New Zealand was put into place. But the Government can do only so much directly. The fact is that imposed on our trade growth by customer countries are brakes which an Australian government cannot lift without their co-operation. However, there are areas that we can act on. We can increase our international competitiveness and decrease our industrial disruption. These are brakes that we have imposed upon ourselves, yet they are the sorts of problems that the Government has totally failed to face up to. The wage pause put in place by the previous Government was torpedoed recently by the 4.3 per cent wage increase which will come into effect this week and which will have the full backing of this Government. Our competitiveness will sink deeper and deeper with a return to wage indexation and the institutionalisation of inflation that indexation has been clearly shown to bring. The Government has stood idly by while industrial action has brought massive disruption to our iron ore mines in the Pilbara. Of course, having done nothing in that area, at the same time it has viciously berated the airline pilots for protesting against the massive boost in superannuantion taxes. Ministers jawbone about the need for greater competitiveness and about low levels of industrial disruption, but when it comes to action they shrug their shoulders and disclaim any responsibility. Not only has the Government failed to act where it should have since 5 March to increase the nation's export potential; it has also acted to reduce that potential even further. A shining example of this economic vandalism is the Government's sorry excuse for a uranium policy. While the Government dithers and delays its decisions month after month, export contracts are being lost and international confidence in Australia as a trading nation is being lost. The Government is totally ignoring the consequences of its indecisiveness on uranium on our most important trading partners. Our goodwill, which has been very high indeed with these major trading countries, is sadly now being eroded because of our attitude to uranium. Whatever decision is made on uranium mining, it seems that the historic opportunity to establish a uranium enrichment industry in this country has been lost. In the election campaign the Government promised to rebuild Australia and to put Australia back to work. It has shown, with uranium, what a farce these promises were. One thing that can put Australians back to work is to get the private sector going again. Private sector recovery, if it is to last, must be accompanied by a lift, a turn-around, in our export performance. But the Government's only significant response has been to saddle up a tired and embattled old war-horse-a state trading corporation. The last time it was brought out of the stable was by the Whitlam Government in 1975. It was put limping back to pasture under the weight of condemnation by virtually every person and organisation engaged in exports. Yet the Minister for Trade in the speech I referred to earlier announced that there would be a feasibility study into the establishment of such a corporation. The same old and weary arguments have been trotted out. The Minister says that many foreign governments prefer to deal on a government to government basis. He does not say that the communist countries, which in the main are the ones involved, in fact deal quite happily with the private concerns and have done so for many years. Nor does he point out that in areas where government to government deals are most preferred, such as agricultural commodities, we already have statutory authorities such as the Australian Wheat Board, the Australian Wool Corporation, the Australian Dairy Corporation and the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation. I certainly hope that we do not drift into a situation in which a State trading corporation will sell our exports by some sort of barter arrangement, which is what most centrally planned economies want to do, because such arrangements lead to exporters receiving the worst end of the deal. The Minister says that he does not want to hurt private enterprise but to help it by co-ordinating the efforts of small exporters and importers. He does not add that these groups do very well on their own or with the assistance of large trading houses, if necessary. Nor does he say that a government backed trading corporation must put private traders at a competitive disadvantage while chewing up taxpayers' money. These arguments were debated at length eight years ago. The only possible reason for establishing a State trading corporation is to implement the Government's socialist dogma. If the Minister is honest with himself-and I know that he is a very reasonable man-he must admit that. I urge the Minister, as do exporters- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mildren) —Order! The right honourable gentleman's time has expired. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(5.08) —The right honourable member for Richmond (Mr Anthony) mentioned Australia's world credit rating. I had noticed that it had slipped from sixth to ninth position. Of course, that was a judgment made by the world banking authorities on the performance of the previous Government. Enough time simply has not elapsed to change that situation. Australia's credit rating has been affected internationally by the deeds of the previous Government. Let there be no mistake about that. One way in which Australia must look to increase trade is through an improvement in our industrial sales overseas. This is one area in which it is sad to say the Department of Trade has performed lamentably. The reason it has performed lamentably is that for many years it has been a fiefdom of the National Party. It has been looking to sell agricultural products , which Australia does very well, but it has totally ignored the efforts of other Australian industries. There are areas of industry in which Australia is not only competitive but also a world leader. I cite hard rock drilling equipment. Australia is today the leading country in hard rock drilling equipment technology. We make the best and most versatile equipment. That should have been promoted overseas much more by the Department of Trade. The Department 's performance in that regard has been lamentable and I certainly hope that it will improve. Let us look at some of the other efforts of our manufacturing industry which the National Party is so quick to deride. I refer to National Springs Pty Ltd, which developed of its own accord, without help from the Department of Trade, industry and business in the Sudan. It supplied replacement springs to the Sudan , which was a very hard place with which to deal. Europe, because of its large number of ports and small ships had a very large advantage with regard to trading with the Sudan. But Australia went into that country and was able to carve out a section of that market. That market collapsed not through the inefficiency or the non-competitiveness of Australian industry, but simply because the Government of the Sudan ran into all sorts of foreign exchange problems. Certainly the previous Government could have addressed itself to that problem. It could have given some form of aid to the Sudan as it has given aid to many other countries. It did not do so. That market has been lost and it may not be there when the economy of the Sudan improves. We must realise when talking about the Sudan, that it is a country which has the economic potential to produce more food than Canada and Australia combined. When the waters of the Nile are properly harnessed in the Sudan there will be an increase in productivity in that area. Australia should certainly be looking at that area in terms of future trading. I turn to the situation which existed with regard to completely knocked-down vehicles under the previous Government. It allowed Mercedes-Benz vehicles to come into Australia without any attempt to out-source equipment. Many Australian suppliers can supply equipment for Mercedes-Benz trucks which are every bit as good as the equipment supplied by Mercedes-Benz and just as cheap. For instance, Volvo Australia Pty Ltd adopted a policy of out-sourcing in Australia. The Mercedes-Benz company, for its own reasons, has not done so. This issue was never taken up by the previous Government. I am hopeful that this issue will be looked at very closely by our Government. I will also make a few comments with regard to the Department of Resources and Energy. I noticed in the Budget that there is an allocation of $1.4m for synroc. Last year there was an allocation for $1m, of which a mere $300,000 was spent. One could ask how the former Government, which purported to be the great proponent of uranium, could have allowed such a state of affairs to exist. I believe synroc is one of the greatest developments of this century. It is a development that offers the potential to lock up safely for posterity the harmful high level waste that is engendered by the atomic process. It is an Australian invention, one on which the performance of the previous Government has been lamentable. In fact, it has been laughable, as can be seen by the fact that a mere $300,000 of the allocated of $1m had been spent. The allocation this year has been substantially increased. I am sure we will see some rapid development of the synroc technology. Synroc technology has ramifications for the entire world. It is absolutely essential-I do not think anyone would disagree that it is important-that toxic wastes be excluded from the biosphere. This Australian invention will do just that. I think it was Karl Marx who remarked that religion was the opium of the people . Whilst I would not disagree, in Australia it is more likely to be sport. The sporting achievements of Australian people have been applauded and given massive recognition. But we often do not see the results of our scientists and researchers receiving the same sort of acclaim. I want to put on record something about synroc, which is a process developed at the Australian National University by a team led by Professor Ringwood. Professor Ringwood was born in Melbourne in 1930 and attended Melbourne University, where he took his doctorate in philosophy in geochemistry. After a period as research fellow at Harvard he joined the Australian National University in 1958 and is now Director of the Research School of Earth Sciences at that university. This man is an earth scientist. Unlike many of the other so- called scientific people who speak on this subject, he is a man who is dealing intimately with it. He was elected to the Australian Academy of Science in 1966 and was Vice-President in 1971-72. He has also been elected Fellow of the Royal Society; Foreign Associate of the National Academy of Sciences; a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union; Commonwealth and Foreign Member of the Geological Society of London; and Honorary Member of the All-Union Mineralogical Society of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Among his many honours are the Matthew Flinders Lecture, Australian Academy of Science; the Bowie Medal, American Geophysical Union; the Britannica Australia Award for Science; the Arthur L. Day Medal, Geological Society of America; the Rosenstiel Award, American Association of Advanced Science; the William Smith Lecture, Geological Society of London; the Werner Medaille, German Mineralogical Society; the Vernadsky Lecture, USSR Academy of Sciences; Centenary Lecturer and Medallist, Chemical Society of London. He has received many other awards. I am talking about a man who has had published over 250 scientific papers dealing with his findings. He has dealt mainly with the composition and structure of the earth's interior, phase transformations at high pressures and temperatures, geochemistry and petrology. He is the author of a couple of books, Composition and Petrology of the Earth's Mantle and Origin of the Earth and Moon. This man who has chosen during the last few years to devote his immense talent to the problem of immobilising high level wastes has performed a function which is very valuable not only to Australia but to all nations of the world. I hope that this great Australian invention and the fruits of our scientists will not, as has happened to so many other great developments under the previous Government, be allowed to go to foreign countries. In the few remaining minutes left to me I will elaborate on a few of the great inventions from this country which the previous Government allowed to go overseas. In 1963 we were offered a joint venture to manufacture the TSR2 aircraft. We were offered that on the basis that Australia would make a great contribution to the techniques and development of that aircraft. It was rejected by the previous Government for the shoddiest of political reasons. It opted to buy the F111 and everyone knows the sorry history of that aircraft. We have seen time and again in this country great Australian developments being commercialised overseas simple because the mentality of members of the previous Government was very much the mentality of a colony. They were colonists for their term in government and they have the mentality of the colonist even today. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(5.18) —In speaking to the estimates for the Department of Trade and the Department of Resources and Energy, I will begin with the estimates for the Department of Trade, particularly with reference to the commitment of the Australian Government and the Queensland Government to the International Sugar Agreement, whereby certain loans are made from the International Monetary Fund to Australia and passed on to Queensland for stocking arrangements under the ISA. I mention this because it is particularly important that Australia has a commitment to the functioning of the International Sugar Agreement, an Agreement which at the moment is under a great deal of strain. The Commonwealth's part in the transfer of those funds is extremely important to the Agreement. It is important, as I say, to recognise the strains under which the sugar industry is now placed because of the collapse last week of the International Sugar Agreement. The conference to try to find an agreement in this regard has been unable even to reach a compromise and the 82 participating countries have adjourned the talks until February next year. The 10 main producers, particularly the four biggest-Cuba, the European Economic Community, Brazil and Australia-were unable to agree on ways of applying the regulatory mechanisms in adapting supply to demands on the world market to stabilise prices. These producers were seeking a formula to permit calculation, depending on exports in recent years, of the availability of reference exports by each country. The representatives from Cuba, Brazil and Australia in particular challenged what they described as a lack of flexibility by the EEC. In this area of trade, of course, Australia depends on the Federal Government to a large extent as to how negotiations will be completed. We have always recognised from one government to another the manner in which the EEC must be treated and dealt with in this area. I suggest that as this agreement has to be renegotiated within 12 months-the present one lasts until 31 December-the Government in conjunction with and with the assistance of the Queensland Government and the sugar industry, should do everything possible to come to terms with the EEC in this regard. I do not mean that a compromise should be based on EEC terms. I think it has to be one in which the Australian producer, the Australian industry, is allowed proper recognition for its contribution over the years to sugar production, so that it can enter into a meaningful agreement with which the EEC is a partricipant. It is a very involved industry and I believe that it would be well for this Government to realise that it is also an important contributor to trade. For instance, 80 per cent of sugar is exported and 20 per cent is sold on the domestic market. It is the 80 per cent which is affecting the price of returns to growers, millers, producers and refiners at this time. Prior to the last election the sugar industry was promised assistance by the Australian Labor Party by way of a commitment to an underwriting scheme and a commitment to rural adjustment. Seven months after those commitments were made there is still no underwriting scheme. The Industries Assistance Commission, which looked into the long term effects of sugar, has come down with a report. Both the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) implied that they would have no part in the IAC's recommendations, yet that has not brought forward a commitment to underwriting of stabilisation. It is very interesting to note in the present situation in Queensland a reference to a stabilisation scheme by the Australian Labor Party. However I believe that it has not looked at this matter as thoroughly as it might. For instance, I do not believe that the industry requires a stabilisation scheme; it wants a commitment to an underwriting scheme. The Government has denied this to the industry. It will not be given to it by the Labor Party in Queensland, and I think that we should be aware of this. Dr Theophanous —Do the Liberals agree with it? Mr BRAITHWAITE —I agree with the situation that there should not be a stabilisation scheme if the people do not want it. That is precisely the point. There was a commitment by the Labor Party, when it was in opposition, that there would be an underwriting scheme, but it has not been given in spite of the fact that it is now seven months since the election. It would be well for the honourable member for Burke (Dr Theophanous), who obviously comes from a capital city, to realise and appreciate the difficulties of the rural industries thoughout Australia. I am obliged to the honourable member for his interjection which indicates the way in which he regards the rural industries of Australia. The sugar industry is one of the greatest industries on which a lot of our trade depends. I also want to deny categorically-it is being floated in Queensland at the moment about the sugar industry-that I suggested to the Western Australians that they should apply for a sugar export licence. That is not the truth. Although it has been denied on many occasions in Queensland, the Leader of the Opposition in the Labor Party still persists in repeating it. It is obviously a figment of his imagination. In spite of the fact that I have denied the suggestion I cannot get it through his brain that that is the situation. I want to make that complete denial during this debate. I refer to the explanatory notes of the Department of Resources and Energy. The matter that interests me most is water. I notice from the explanatory notes that there has been no real ongoing commitment to water research throughout Australia although I do appreciate the fact that some comprehensive study has been done in this regard. A report will be printed as a result of funds made available through these estimates. What concerns me is that while there is a commitment this year to the normal water resources program which would be phased out at the end of this year, the bicentennial water resources program-a commitment of the previous Government-has not been picked up and carried forward by the present Government. Mr Fisher —Shameful! Mr BRAITHWAITE —In spite of what might be said I agree that it is shameful. The future of resources in this country will depend upon the reserves of water available in it. Sufficient evidence is not yet available on underground water in Australia, let alone the above ground supplies. Water in western Queensland, western New South Wales and the Centre is bound to be used in future for the resources that I was talking about. Of course one has to talk about only coal, other minerals and primary industries to realise that this is the case. The denial of continued research facilities and the denial of being able to conserve water in streams has been because there has been no commitment to the bicentennial program. I am happy to see in one of the items in the explanatory notes an ongoing commitment to the Burdekin Dam. I stress the ongoing commitment to that dam. The general comments in the explanatory notes state that in August 1980 the previous Government agreed to provide financial assistance for the construction of the Burdekin Falls Dam. This program was confirmed by the Prime Minister in July 1983. Judging from the way that this matter is being treated in the media one could think that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was the person responsible for it . I categorically deny that. This was an original ongoing commitment; work was being done. Last year, 1982, some $3.8m was allocated for expenditure on this scheme. What is being provided now, for the current year, is $13m. I approve of that expenditure but I stress that it is a very necessary part of northern Australia's development. There was a great deal of concern, because of the Prime Minister's reluctance to endorse it immediately, that it would not go ahead. The final part of the explanatory notes states that the program covers a 10 year period which commenced in 1982-83. Where does this put the undertaking, given in response to a question by the Prime Minister, that this is a bicentennial project that will be completed by 1988? I believe that this is another undertaking that the Prime Minister has made that will be valid to only 22 October, the date of the Queensland election. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke)(5.28) —I begin by thanking the Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) for the excellent work he is doing and the effort he is making to protect and preserve Australian industry. His record in relation to that is commendable; he is setting an example that ought to be followed by others. We have just heard from the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) about some of the contradictions within the coalition parties. The honourable member for Dawson spoke about how we ought to get tough with the European Economic Community. I do not know how one gets tough with the EEC without, at some stage, being prepared to carry out protection measures. Similarly, he talked about the need for more protection for the sugar industry. Obviously he has not read-- Mr Braithwaite —I didn't say protection. Dr THEOPHANOUS —The underwriting program is a form of assistance which involves protection. Mr McGauran —Rubbish! You don't know much at all. Dr THEOPHANOUS —The honourable member will get his chance to speak later. It is quite clear what is happening. When it comes to protecting the rural industries honourable members opposite are very protectionist, but they are prepared to let all the manufacturing industries go to the wall. This was a clear sign from the meeting of the Federal Council of the Liberal Party held last weekend. If honourable members opposite do not believe that they should read the details because it is quite clear that members of the National Party of Australia and members of the Liberal Party have different views. There is a huge gap between them. Let me talk in serious terms about the problems of protection. Unfortunately, of course, debate on protection, generally speaking, tends to be put in very simple terms such as: 'Well, it's a matter of ideology-free trade or protection. That is the end of the matter'. It is not like that at all. Obviously, there is a world which we would like and which we would all desire, that is, a world in which there is more freedom of trade and in which there is fair and balanced trade between countries. But the fact of the matter is that that world does not exist today. Because that world does not exist today, we have to look at Australia's national interest. We have to ask ourselves what are the appropriate measures that we must take to protect Australia's industries against unfair and iniquitous competition. Of course we have responsibilities in the international arena. The Minister for Trade, who is at the table, has a wonderful record in understanding those matters. But it is one thing to talk in terms of our international responsibilities as if they exist in an ideal world and another to talk about them in the real and concrete world. The fact of the matter is that, if one looks at the real and concrete world, if one looks at what is happening to world trade, one sees that, in fact, increasingly more and more countries are becoming more protectionist and are taking advantage of those countries which, for ideological or humane reasons, are prepared to open up their doors to other countries. That is clearly the case; it is one of the things that is happening. The other thing that is happening in relation to this matter-something that is rarely referred to but is extremely important-is the control which certain multinational and transnational corporations have in world trade. It appears that we have trade between nations but, in fact, we have trade between arms of the same or related corporations. In regard to that, let me quote no other authority than the United Nations itself in a study it did on the matter. The Secretariat of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development stated: The bulk of the international commodity trade, particularly in agricultural products, is in the hands of about 50 large trading conglomerates of developed market-economy countries . . . The major manufacturers of consumer durables and capital goods are often transnational corporations which are vertically integrated and which are also diversifying their activities. Increasingly, manufacturing TNCs are establishing separate trading entities controlled by the parent for the purpose of undertaking all international marketing activities; these affiliates are often responsible for international sales of all the corporation's product lines; The most significant impact on the structure of marketing and distribution channels in international trade during recent decades and on the operations of the main trading agents has been the 'relentless process towards concentration of economic power and the strengthening of dominant positions'-through mergers, takeovers, joint ventures, joint selling and buying arrangements, etc. Possibly 30-40 per cent of all international trade is on an intra-firm or related-party basis, 30 per cent is likely to constitute 'State trading', and ' further share' of international trade is captive in nature as a result of sub- contracting or long-term and medium-term contractual arrangements; Three-quarters of foreign investment by TNCs in the world manufacturing sector is in other DMECs; a significant proportion of their sales are made through and to subsidiaries; the bulk of technology transferred by manufacturing TNCs-in terms of equipment and knowledge-is channelled through subsidiaries, including transfers under licensing agreements or direct sale. That is the concrete situation. The concrete situation is that a pseudo scenario is presented where there appears to be either a conflict between nations or an agreement between nations, but in fact it is those huge multinational conglomerates that are benefiting through the world trading arrangements that are put forward at present. If there is to be a sensible policy on trade and protection, it has to take this extremely important point into account and make much of it. Without doing that, we will have pseudo debates about pseudo matters rather than a real debate about the real economics that exist. What are some of the sorts of things that we ought to be looking at? Obviously, we ought to be looking at overcoming arrangements such as transfer pricing and various sale arrangements that are made by these transnational corporations, by working directly with other nations and their governments. We need more organised arrangements. The honourable member for Dawson mentioned the EEC. One of the things that we need in relation to the EEC-and I would agree with any program that the Opposition wants to put up to increase the penetration of Australian primary products into the EEC-is an orderly and worked out arrangement between its member countries. The idea that one can leave it up to so-called free market forces-'so-called' because they do not exist-is nonsense. What really exists is a small set of corporations that has a tight grip on the trade situation. There also needs to be more planning at our end of the process. Various reports which have been produced clearly indicate that we are becoming increasingly dependent on foreign imported products in a wide range of areas and that we are not producing sufficiently, especially in new industries and in high technology industries, about which my colleague the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones), who is present in the chamber, has spoken a great deal. I might say that the Government is working through a regulated program to try to increase Australian production in such high technology industries. We have put forward proposals in that area. But these proposals can only get going with sufficient support in the area of protection. One cannot simply have a situation where high technology products produced in Australia can be expected to automatically compete with some of the vicious processes that are being used by some of our foreign trading partners at present. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) has mentioned on several occasions that Australia is a naive country in relation to protection in the way that we do not have the large number of non-tariff measures that many other countries have. Some countries go to the point of absolute absurdity in relation to their non-tariff protection measures. There are sensible, non-tariff measures that we ought to be thinking about and looking at in terms of what we can do for our industries. It is not a matter of protecting every enterprise, no matter how inefficient or no matter what its position. That is not the issue at all. The issue before us is to select; but, in selecting, we have to be careful that we establish efficient industries which will receive due protection until they mature so that they can compete with other countries. I think that is the sensible approach. I am sure that the Minister and his Department will continue with that approach. Let me say that the Caucus and the Caucus Industry Committee - The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr O'KEEFE(Paterson)(5.38) —Trade is the lifeblood of Australia's economy. Our great primary industries of wool, wheat, meat, livestock, coarse grains and sugar generate over 40 per cent more of Australia's export income than any other sector. Given this situation, it is ludicrous to think that the Minister for Primary Industry the honourable John Kerin, is not a member of the inner Cabinet . Primary industry being so valuable to the economy, surely the Prime Minister ( Mr Hawke) must put the Minister for Primary Industry into the inner Cabinet. If not, the Labor Government must lose all credibility in rural Australia. Primary producers across this nation are strongly requesting this action. The great mining industries of Australia are, of course, extremely important in the export field, involving as they do the export of coal, iron ore, copper, nickel, alumina, silver and lead. In respect to coal, when one visits overseas companies such as Nippon Mining Co. Ltd in Japan and Pohung Steel Co. in Korea, the first question they ask one in regard to our coal export is: 'Why can we not rely on your shipping? We cannot rely on Australia's shipping to keep our coking coal going for the manufacture of our steel products'. The Government must ensure that the shipping of this very important export item from our shores to export markets is maintained. One of our major industries, the beef industry, faces a crucial time in the years ahead. Market forces are changing rapidly and the industry remains divided . There is a lack of confidence in the cattle industry as a result. This is the reason, apart from drought, that Australian cattle numbers have been reduced by over one-third in seven years and producers are not rebuilding their herds. The first important matter for the industry is to restore producers' confidence. At present producers have little confidence in the future of the industry. In this situation instability exists in the export market. Export prices and access to export markets dominate the scene. Pressures on export markets dictate the prices we receive for our cattle and the future of this important Australian industry. The United States of America over many years has been our chief beef export market. This market-when one looks at the existing problems-could be seriously affected by American legislation with respect to the proposed liquidation of upwards of three million dairy cows which will bring down domestic prices and prices for manufactured beef. We are big suppliers of manufactured beef to the American market. We still have 36,000 tonnes to be shipped to this market to fulfil our contract. There is possible retaliatory action by Korea against Australian beef imports because of our restrictions on Korean manufactured goods . If this trade is not freed, problems will exist. I know that the Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) will be having a look at this very important market. Meat companies have also discounted heavily to secure the most recent Korean tender. The price of meat has dropped by 10c a pound. This could have a dampening effect on the Japanese market. It is a great pity when firms are ready to drop the price in a market to get a foot in. Every effort must be made to find new markets. This responsibility lies with the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade must give this important sector of Australian trade every support and must carry out an investigation. Federal Government policies determine the domestic economic climate in which we operate. It is essential that there be a constructive working relationship between the beef industry and the Government. The Middle East is an area to which Australian meat exporters must give great attention as there are no quotas and no voluntary restraints; so it is open to the world. This offers great opportunities for Australia. I visited this area with a parliamentary delegation some 18 months ago and was able to see this at first hand. There was a great imbalance of trade in favour of the Middle East, particularly Saudi Arablia. When we look at the trading figures we find that our exports to Saudi Arabia in 1982-83 were of the order of $344.5m. We imported from that country mainly petroleum products worth $978m. So there was an imbalance of trade. Our trade people should be looking at ways and means of increasing our trade with that market. We import 33 per cent of our petroleum requirements from this area and we have to compete in this market with the world 's best. We have to stand on our own feet. The live sheep market is a huge one. The Moslems like warm meat. They like it killed in the Muslim manner. Australia must extend its live meat trade in this area. The United Arab Emirates is one of Australia's largest export customers for chilled lamb, but this market can be expanded. Iran is a big sheep market, with 28,000 tonnes being supplied last year. We have a big competitor in these markets, our New Zealand neighbours who are great producers and marketers of all kinds of meat. A total of 98 per cent of Australia's live sheep exports goes to the Middle East. This is an established trade with a long term future. Most Middle East countries will have positive growth and Australia should maintain current levels of exports in both meat and livestock. Egypt is another market to which Australia must give attention, particularly in sheep meats and wheat. Egypt buys wheat from Australia. Our trade people should be looking to extend further the export of wheat to Egypt. When Great Britain entered the European Economic Community, Australia lost a most valuable market. In 1982, total sales of beef and veal amounted to only 7,459 tonnes. Last financial year, to 30 June, sales amounted to 5,642 tonnes. Prior to the establishment of a European economic market we sent into that market anything up to 200,000 tonnes to 300,000 tonnes of beef a year. What a great loss this has been to Australia. The same can be said with the marketing of our lamb. We are allowed to send only 20,000 tonnes of lamb to that market at present. This has seriously affected our exports of meat. However, Australia must monitor this market; Australia must not lose touch with it. Australia must have an active meat monitor in London to see whether we can get back some of the market that we enjoyed. London is a big purchaser of our wool. Wool is the largest commodity that the British have in the textile field and they have to buy it from us. It was very pleasing indeed that the Minister for Trade opened a special section for dealing with China. China has a population of over 1,000 million. It is a market that we cannot ignore. I am referring to mainland China. Australia sells it wheat. There is a big imbalance of trade here. We export to mainland China $611.9m worth of wheat. We buy back from it only $278.9m worth of goods. Having visited that country and talked trade with its trade people, the first thing they hit us with is: 'Why won't you buy more products from us? We have an imbalance of trade'. I am pleased that the Minister has set up a special section to deal with mainland China because it could be a very important market for us. The Chinese trade people are friendly. My Leader, the Rt Hon. Douglas Anthony, when he was Minister for Trade and Resources, certainly had a great rapport with them. He went on a trade mission. The first thing they wanted to know was when they were going to see him back in that country. Mr Braithwaite —A great leader. Mr O'KEEFE —Yes. It is very important that we should do all we possibly can to improve our trade. We have to look to Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Papua New Guinea, Singapore and Hong Kong. They are markets that are very close to us. Our trade people must do all they can to sell our goods there and get Australian industries moving in those areas. I have mentioned the industrial situation, particularly the coal industry. We have a bad record with shipping, but it has improved. Let us hope that it remains that way. There is nothing worse for Australian trade overseas than to be told that importers cannot rely on our shipping. This causes lack of confidence in our buyers. I hope that the situation is maintained. I know that the Minister will be doing his utmost to see that it is. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(5.48) —Mr Chairman, I understand that time is against us, so I will make my comments short. My comments tonight are prompted by the answer to a question I asked today regarding industrial health and safety at the Ranger plant in the Northern Territory. I think the question of industrial health and safety in the uranium area is an issue that we ought to give consideration to as a parliament. We had an incident at Ranger in recent times where workers on this job were forced to drink water which was affected by substances which were very harmful. It was interesting that when the Minister for Science and Technology ( Mr Barry Jones) gave his answer there was loud laughter in the chamber. I am astounded that honourable members elected to this Parliament could laugh about the fact that people were drinking contaminated water on that site. I think it is appalling. I condemn those members of this Parliament who in fact laughed. Mr O'Keefe —They were on your side. Mr HAND —They were not; they were on the honourable member's side. If he wants me to name some of them, I will. Last week the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) visited the plant. He is reported in a Press interview in the Australian Financial Review of today as saying: There is a belief among the workers that neither the company nor the Territory Mines Department is able to assess health protection procedures objectively. It is little wonder that that is the case because the same article states that the mining company in a letter concerning a report it had commissioned: This report is expected to be somewhat criticial of our current safety program and will recommend certain actions. The company will implement these actions as soon as possible . . . What an admission of guilt that the company is aware that it is in breach of regulations and that it is putting workers' health at risk! I believe that the Government has a responsibility to examine what is happening at the Ranger mine. We should be asking questions such as: Why is there worker distrust of the Northern Territory supervising authorities? Why do the workers see these authorities as aligned with management and lacking objectivity? What are the implications of this distrust with regard to the operations and activities of the Northern Territory supervising authorities in their monitoring and supervisory role in the total environment of the Alligator Rivers Region? How long after the discovery of the contamination of the drinking and washing water supply were the workers tested? What was the time lag between contamination and the discovery of contamination? Mr McGauran —Mr Chairman, I take a point of order. I am at a loss to know how this ideological ranting relates to the estimates that are presently under discussion. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne is relating his remarks to the Department of Resources and Energy. As such I think they are appropriate. Mr McGauran —Mr Chairman, we are discussing the estimates of the Department of Trade and the Department of Resources and Energy. There has been no mention by the honourable member of estimates funding of any type whatsoever. Rather he is engaged in an ideological pandering to the left wing of his Party. The CHAIRMAN —Order! There is no point of order. Mr Shipton —Do you want to bet- Mr HAND —If the honourable member is a punter he might follow my lead. The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) is typical of honourable members in the National Party. They have an absolute lack of concern for people who are working in risk environments making big bucks for their National Party mates. The honourable member for Gippsland should have listened to his leader when he came into this chamber singing the praises of the uranium industry and the employers in that industry, not talking about the estimates as the honourable member wants them talked about. I think I am entitled to talk about the effects of the mining industry on workers. In 1981, under the former Government, a series of events took place at Ranger which put workers' health at risk. Honourable members opposite cannot deny that. What did the former Government do about that? It did absolutely nothing. At Roxby Downs certain aspects of the mining operation are currently putting at risk the health of workers engaged in a feasibility study. I ask the Government and the Minister for Resources and Energy to take up the suggestions put to the Minister by the trade unions and other people when he was in the Northern Territory and examine closely the industrial health and safety aspects of this industry. I hope it will not be long before legislation is introduced into this place by this Government which will go a long way towards bringing about a proper health and safety program for this country. Mention was also made of the Ringwood paper and the synroc project. Whilst one must commend people working in this area I think it is irresponsible for people to suggest that the synroc project is anywhere near the point of being able safely to handle nuclear waste. In conclusion, I remind people what this place did in its last week of sitting. We asked the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs to examine the effects of asbestos mining on the Baryulgil community. This is an example of miners' treatment of people engaged in industry. At this point in time all I am saying is that we have seen over the years, in a whole range of mining industries, the total lack of regard that the miners have had for workers engaged in those industries. If honourable members go to Baryulgil and talk to the people there they will see the effects of the blatant disregard of people's health and welfare. When people are allowed to drink contaminated water I think it is about time that honourable members opposite stopped laughing about it, showed some concern about it, and showed some concern for the people involved. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(5.55) —I respect the fact that there is limited time available for this debate. I thank the Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) for giving me the time to speak. I am always concerned about the fact that, when we discuss the Estimates, in particular those relating to water resources, more is not said about the water resources of Australia. In the three years since I became a member of this Parliament I have always been amazed by the fact that honourable members on both sides of the chamber do not talk about the need for the conservation of Australia's natural water resources. Water is tied up with production from the soil, it is tied up with Australian trade and it is tied up with the prosperity generally of Australia. Yet an amount of only $46m has been set aside in the Budget for assistance to the States. We appreciate the fact that, although water resources generally, their development and maintenance are principally the concern of the States, the States look to the Commonwealth to assist them financially, through taxation measures and through other incentives to encourage communities and governments to go ahead with the development of water resources in Australia. We have to appreciate the fact that water works are productive; in other words, they are producing, assisting our trade, lowering the cost of production on the farm, assisting in the increase of actual production per acre on the farm and bringing down farm costs, which is a very important factor today. All honourable members within the Parliament are concerned; we must be. The Government may not admit it, but the fact of the matter is that this country's economy will principally remain an economy based upon the export of primary production-the things that my colleague the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O'Keefe) spoke about a while ago-beef, grain, wool, dairy products and fruit. This is what we were reared on in this country. This is how the standard of our economy generally was built up and will continue to be built. It is important that governments of Australia recognise this. In over a century we have had eight very severe droughts. Work is important not only to conserve water but also to harness water and mitigate the effects of flooding throughout the coastal areas and the western lands of Australia. These things are terribly important. I have been overseas and I have seen in California how the western water districts worked independently from the Government and how private consortiums joined to develop the water resources of America. We have reached the stage where consortiums within our country, Australian owned and financed, need to develop our water resources. What does it matter if we invite other countries that have the capital to join with us to develop our water resources? It is so important that this be done that I believe the Parliament should give much more attention, both within this chamber and in the States, to this very important work of water conservation. It concerns not only water for irrigation, salinity research and drought research but also domestic supplies for our stock, our towns and our cities. In dry periods there is always a demand for water conservation to give water to people in domestic situations. I know that it is costing farmers thousands of dollars a year to cart water to their stock. Yet we see water flowing out to sea every time we have a few inches of rain. What are we doing as a nation to tackle the problem? Does Australia have an overall water resources policy? Most countries have such a policy, as the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) has said. I have not seen an overall policy that will develop water within Australia for the benefit of the people concerned. Water is our life blood; it is like the blood in our bodies. It keeps us going. We have to be aware of this. I emphasise that, if those involved with the primary industries within Australia are to thrive and expand, they must be helped to keep their costs down . The best way we can assist them on the farm is by providing, wherever we can, an efficient water supply. As I said earlier, this would bring down our costs, increase the production on the farm and earn the wealth our country requires so much. I was disappointed that some of the States, particularly New South Wales, have taken away the subsidy for a farmer to conserve water on his property. I know that a taxation concession is available from the Commonwealth. I hope it is still available: I think it is. If a farmer can develop water resources on the property and build a dam it is very important that he be encouraged to do so. Let us look at this matter on a big scale. Let us, as members of parliament, say that water is the life blood of Australia. Let us follow through that doctrine. No matter what we do as far as production and exports are concerned, water is the life blood of everything we are talking about. I wanted to raise this matter again. I have spoken about it before in the House. I assure you, Mr Chairman, that while I am a member of the Parliament I will always speak favourably about more funds being allocated for water conservation. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(6.02) —I thank honourable members for their contributions, wide and varied as they were. Estimates for other departments relate to primary industry and I have no doubt that other matters will be mentioned when those estimates are dealt with. I want to advert to the matters relating to trade and to make some comments in the brief time available to me. This Budget provides approximately $300m by way of assistance to export industries. It is significant that there are promotion outlays of $35m and about $4.2m which will provide for new initiatives. In that sense we are very mindful of the fact that trade is the life blood of what we are about in this country. It is important that we talk about new initiatives and trade promotion activities. This will involve substantial sums of money, missions and activities in markets throughout South East Asia, the Middle East, New Zealand and the Pacific. We also need to talk about areas of high technology in the provision of products and services. Whilst this has not been clearly identified, one of the fastest growing export areas is what is called elaborately transformed manufactures. Despite the fact that our manufacturing industry is declining in turn from the point of view of domestic production, there is an innovativeness about Australians which must be looked at. I think one of the gaps in my Department at present is that we do not seem to have any segment specifically related to the export of manufactures. The Trade Commissioner Service introduced in the 1930s arose out of a meeting in Sydney of all the State representatives from the chambers of commerce and the chambers of manufactures. Those people were told: 'You also have to look at what you can do to survive'. I think it is very true that everybody who has participated in this debate is anxious that we do better, and so am I. They identified the markets in which we can improve. I am anxious that we improve our position rapidly. China was mentioned particularly. We have established a special section to deal with China . I am delighted to know that it looks like achieving a rapid improvement. This section does not relate only to the areas we want to talk about, such as the agricultural area, but also to technology and the areas where we think we can certainly play an effective role in China's modernisation program. We also want to talk about the North American market. Let us make it very clear that there are market opportunities for us in Canada and the United States of America, as there are in Japan, if one is talking about areas which, at present, I do not think have been adequately explored. The New Zealand-Australia relationship will work well, although there are a lot of difficulties associated with getting it started because there is a lot of uncertainty about which way it should go. In terms of domestic relations it is also important to look at the States. They have a role to play. I am anxious that we promote what is called Commonwealth- State trade promotion programs. The States can be involved because they run the ports. They run a number of the resource areas. We have to encourage them to work as a nation and not to have six or seven States all trying to sell the same product overseas and cutting each other's throat in some of the markets in which we should be acting in unison. The buyers are acting in unison and it is important that we, the sellers, understand that there is an Australian concept. I am delighted to know that our coal producers are taking part in study groups. I have encouraged that. I want to see the coal producers really discuss matters relating to the industry and to what will make that industry effective. It is quite counter-productive to have sales of coal at a loss and mines closing when we have such a precious energy resource. I am disappointed to think that the Leader of the National Party (Mr Anthony) is so upset about what is called an overseas trading corporation. He opposed it last time it was proposed. His Party defeated such a proposal last time it was put in the Senate. We do not have an overseas trading corporation. The Japanese have a number of trading corporations. As a matter of fact, I am told that we lose about $40m on the sale of our wool to the Soviet Union through Japanese trading houses. How can we afford to ignore the fact that other nations are now using this sort of additive to their ability to trade when 30 per cent of world trade is government to government? The sugar industry wants to talk about taking fertiliser in exchange for sugar. Why can that not be done? But we cannot always expect the private sector to be able to do such things. This applies right across the board. I am having a feasibility study undertaken about an overseas trading corporation and I invite the private sector to be right up front and involved with that. Such a corporation would operate only from the point of view of taking goods to guarantee that we get a sale which we would not otherwise get . For example, it is quite silly to think that we are now letting the trading houses of Japan sell so many of our goods and get the benefit of that. There are a number of matters which I cannot readily take to much of the Committee's time in discussing. The Leader of the National Party-he was fair in some of his comments but certainly not in relation to this matter-suggested that there were some problems in the industrial relations area in the Pilbara recently and that the Government stood idly by. We did not stand idly by; far from it. The problem involves difficulties in that management in Australia is not really understanding industrial relations as it perhaps should be. For example, if three apprentices served their time in the Pilbara and an employer decided that he was not going to employ them any longer, it is natural, that with these three young men facing dismissal, the Australian sense of fair play, the rest of the tradesmen might say that that was not giving them a fair go. The matter was as simple as that. We could not really get to the heart of the problem because, firstly, it was virtually a State matter and, secondly, regretfully I do not think the company responsible was very mindful of the fact that it could have done something about the matter. The dispute certainly cost us about $30m in terms of trade. It is wrong to put all the blame on the unions or the workers when one looks at areas such as the Pilbara. I know things have to improve. Simply to make the statement that the unions and the workers are always wrong is not right. They have a very effective performing position in terms of commodity sales. It is counter-productive to be suggesting all the time that there is something wrong with them. One can look at the very poor track record of a couple of companies in Australia which could do a lot better in the area of industrial relations. Some of the companies in the same region are miles ahead of the others and have had no industrial troubles whatsoever. One has to look at the personality problems that originate in that area. A matter also identified today by the Leader of the National Party was our credit rating. I am happy that he raised the matter. When I inherited this portfolio our current account deficit was over $9 billion. I think we will get it down to $6 billion. The forecast is that it will be $6 billion for the next five years at least. Why is that so? The reason is that about one-third of that deficit relates to profits remitted to corporations overseas. The problem is: For how long can this country go on borrowing just to cover the current account deficit? I have looked at an excellent paper given to me by the Trade Development Council. It says that this deficit will remain undiminished and that we will need to continue the capital inflow. The paper states: The Commonwealth government's overseas debt obligation was $6.9bn . . . Taking into account State Government guaranteed raisings . . . Australia's publicly guaranteed sovereign debt currently stands at about $10bn, half of which falls due for repayment during the next decade. If overseas indebtedness of enterprises is included ie. debt which is not government guaranteed, Australia's aggregate foreign debt is closer to $40bn. If this amount is going to escalate, as it obviously will, is it not obvious that we are having all this difficulty with trade in terms of what can happen to our exchange rate and everything else? I think it is very important that we, as Australians, realise that we have to do much better in a certain number of areas . We do not mind foreign investment, but we cannot have foreign domination, where so much money is remitted overseas that our current account is affected. Nor can we have the problems of invisibles, as high as they are, particularly with freight. We carry only 4 per cent of our own goods in our own ships and much of the other money goes to foreign corporations in insurance. They are some of the things that honourable members can identify. I know that they have not had the time to talk about them today. I congratulate Mr Teese of my Department who has worked tirelessly to get the international arrangements for sugar on a basis that will help the producers in Australia. They are the most efficient producers in the world, but what are they up against? They are up against the fact that the European Economic Community and others are subsidising their sugar, have massive stockpiles and are now not prepared to come to the agreement that Mr Teese put forward. For example, France has advised that the EEC would not accept what is called a reference export availability of less than 6.5 million tonnes. That is virtually its own reserve. Australia has proposed that we leave the availability at about 3 million tonnes, but the EEC refuses to participate. These are the problems that Australians face. We are pretty fair traders and we are very efficient, but we do not always get a fair result when it comes to international arrangements. World sugar prices over the last two years have been depressed by world record surpluses. Late last year the price fell to US6c a pound, the lowest price for 15 years. These are the problems. I would not want it to be thought that Australians were not trying. In fact, Mr Teese of my Department is responsible for putting forward these propositions. He cannot get agreement not only from the EEC but also from Cuba in terms of the operations of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance. It does not want to include its particular deals with the Soviet Union as part of the package. We have awful problems in this area. I am happy to say that we have come to some sensible arrangements in the beef area but again there was poor forecasting from Australia-very poor indeed-as to our ability to provide the appropriate quantity of beef to the United States market. That got us into no end of trouble and it was only after special representations that we could get another 40 million pounds sold there. I am disappointed that corporations that should have known better were not able to gauge Australia's capacity accurately. All of these matters are of vital importance. I have undertaken a review of the Trade Commissioner Service. I think it can be substantially improved. I think that improvement ought to relate to linguistic skills, apart from a few other matters concerning our dealings with other countries. I think also it is important that we talk about regional development. I am anxious to establish regional trade commissioners in areas such as Geelong, Townsville and Newcastle, to mention just a few. I want the co-operation of the States. Other matters relating to minerals and energy were raised by my colleagues and the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) would like a couple of minutes in which to deal with them. I thank honourable members for their participation in the debate. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology)(6.12) —I will pass on to my colleague the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh), whom I represent in this place, the comments made first by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell), who spoke about the work of Professor A. E. Ringwood in the development of Synroc, and, from a slightly different perspective, the remarks of the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) about health and safety in uranium mining. I take up another point made by the Opposition in relation to estimates for the Department of Resources and Energy. The honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan), who seems to have left the chamber, complained that water resources were not adequately covered by the Budget. A couple of things should be mentioned. First, the Government is about to announce the appointment of an interim council for an institute of freshwater studies which will have as its terms of reference precisely the sorts of matters that were raised by the honourable member for Lyne. It is also expected that in 1983-84 a 14-volume study on water resource perspectives will be produced which, of course, was commissioned by the preceding government. There will be an abundant wealth of information, if not of water, that we can consider in the immediate future. It should be pointed out also that the payments to the States for water resources have increased by 25 per cent. The impression was created that water supply was a matter of indifference to the Labor Government but had been a matter of great concern for the previous Government. Last year the total expenditure paid to the States was only $34.285m. The estimate for this year is $42.856m, an increase of 25 per cent. I will pass the comment of the honourable member for Lyne to my colleague Senator Walsh. If specific matters need reply no doubt that can be done by the Minister. Proposed expenditures agreed to. Department of Transport Proposed expenditure, $183,810,000. Department of Aviation Proposed expenditure, $430,812,000. Mr LUSHER(Hume)(6.16) —I wish to address my remarks to a couple of factors which emerged in the estimates. The first relates to the Northern Territory railway. The estimates for the Department of Transport included an amount of $5m for further study of track and other matters, which brings to something like $10 .3m the amount of money which has now been allocated to that study. I am concerned about this matter simply because the Government has not yet made any commitment to the project as a whole. I just want to put that into some sort of perspective. In 1981 the Commonwealth Government made a commitment to build the Alice Springs to Darwin railway. At that time the then Government announced a $ 545m program to construct the railway and to have it completed by 1988-89 as one of the bicentennial projects proposed by that Government. There was no doubt whatsoever that the then Labor Opposition clearly committed itself to that project during the build-up to the election campaign which culminated in its victory on 5 March. It is not simply a question of the Government, having come to office and having been confronted with a huge $9 billion or $10 billion deficit, deciding that this project could not be proceeded with. In fact, the incoming Government confirmed that it would proceed with it. The now Minister for Transport, Mr Peter Morris, on 15 March told the Northern Territory leader of the Opposition in Darwin, Mr Collins, that this was not a parochial project; it was a project of national and international significance which the Labor Party would honour. On 15 March the Treasurer, Mr Keating, branded a media report that the railway would go in Budget cut-backs as pure speculation. He said: We are horrified that the railway has been singled out. On 4 April, the Minister for Transport, Mr Peter Morris, said: The Government has a long-standing commitment to the railway and legislation allowing it to go ahead could be passed in the May parliamentary sitting. The railway does not have any relationship to the losses being incurred by the various rail systems at the moment. It is a development project and a project of significant defence important. Mr Braithwaite —Who said that? Mr LUSHER —It was the Minister for Transport. Again on 8 April the Minister said to the Northern Territory Leader Opposition, Mr Collins: Legislation is being drafted and a Budget submission is being prepared. Preparations for the construction of the rail link are proceeding on schedule. Then in the Senate on 22 April the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Gietzelt, representing the Minister for Transport, said: 'No steps will be taken that will curtail that election commitment'. As we all know, the mini-Budget decision to require the Northern Territory Government to fund 40 per cent of the project will effectively kill off the project. I make it clear that the Opposition's position is that the railway should go ahead. That position has been stated in the Northern Territory by myself as the Opposition spokesman, by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and also by the Leader of the National Party (Mr Anthony). Regardless of what the outcome of the inquiry by Mr Hill might be, the fact is that the Government has got itself into a situation in which it ought not to go ahead with this $5m expenditure if in fact it is not to proceed with the railway. The $5m ought to be held up. Mr Reeves —An expenditure of almost $4m was committed, and you know about that. You committed yourselves to it. Mr LUSHER —We have committed ourselves to it. Mr Reeves —The sum of $3.8m was spent before you did anything about it. Mr LUSHER —That is right. Mr Reeves —What is wrong with spending $5m before making a commitment? Mr LUSHER —Because your Government effectively killed it off. We made the commitment to go ahead with it. The Government has created a situation, as it well knows, in which the Northern Territory has no hope of meeting the 40 per cent cost and it is then, in the light of that, proceeding to spend another $5m of taxpayers' funds. Mr Chairman, I seek leave to table some papers, which I have shown to the Minister for Transport, in relation to the matter. The CHAIRMAN —Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. Mr LUSHER —I thank the Committee. I table the papers. The Australian National Railways Commission concerns me a lot. I know it concerns the Minister because he and I served on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure which looked at this matter over a long period . He would know as well as I the concerns that we had in that inquiry and in the conclusions that were reached. I noticed also that in the Senate Select Committee on Statutory Authority Financing report which came out the other day there was also a reference to the Australian National Railways. That report states: Although ANR has only been operating in its present form since 1977-78, its results in that time raise some serious questions regarding its longer term financial viability . . . between 1977-78 to 1981-82 the accumulated real losses amounted to $397.1 million. This sum is particularly large when it is considered that the Australian Research Development Organisation estimated that in 1978-79 ANR's capital stock was valued at $600 million. I mention that matter because I think it is another view as to the difficulties facing the Australian National Railways. One of the things that interests me about this matter is that as I understand it the last figures that we have on the ANR are the 1981-82 figures. In that period there was a deficit of $73.6m which, of course, is significantly higher than the deficit that it budgeted for in its corporate plan. One of the things about which the Expenditure Committee was critical was the situation in relation to the corporate plan. The fact of the matter is that the corporate plan has not come anywhere near achieving a break-even position by 1988, which is the stated ministerial target accepted by the Commission for its operations. In 1982, according to the fourth corporate plan, the Australian National Railways deficit should have been in the order of $60m; so it was very inaccurate. The fourth plan also for the 1983 financial year again projects a deficit of about $60m and $55m for the 1984 financial year; yet in the estimates $106m was made available last year, I think, and $85m was made available this year. It is quite apparent that, as a result of all sorts of things which may be quite proper, the Australian National Railways' financial situation has deteriorated very dramatically from the position that existed when those corporate plans were made available to the Expenditure Committee. I wish to draw attention to something that was said in this House by the Minister's predecessor, which concerned me at the time. I hope it concerns him and I hope it concerns him more now. In response to the Expenditure Committe report, he said: I note that, in the period since the Committee received the evidence on which it based these conclusions, the Commission has continued to refine its corporate planning processes in the light of the experience it has gained in the use of the techniques involved in corporate planning. There has been quite close correlation between the Commission's financial results and its projected performance. In the light of this I would not propose to intervene in the matter at this stage. I sincerely hope that the Minister will not take the same attitude that the former Minister took because I think that that was a very unsatisfactory response. I want to know whether it is still the objective of this Government that the ANR should break even by 1988. If so, I challenge the Minister for Transport to show to this House in a statement how that will be done. If not, I challenge him to make a statement to this House about the continued haemorrhage of public funds that ANR involves. That is something which I think is very significant. I would have liked to have made some comments in relation to the Australian National Line but time is running out. I would like to incorporate in Hansard a balance sheet which indicates briefly what the Government's capital injection has done. The CHAIRMAN —Is the honourable member seeking leave? Mr LUSHER —Yes. The CHAIRMAN —Leave is granted. The incorporation is subject to the approval of the Speaker and the material proposed to be incorporated falling within the guidelines laid down by the Speaker. The document read as follows- ANL Balance Sheet Adjusted 1982 1982 $m $m Capital 36 126 Reserves 7 7 43 133 Less losses 15 15 28 118 Loans 183 123 Provisions 18 18 201 141 Current liabilities 139 139 368 398 Current assets 115 145 Fixed assets 253 253 368 398 Mr LUSHER —I thank the Committee. I think the Government should take advantage of the capital injection to look at the possibilities of disposing of the Australian National Line. I think the Minister should make a statement to the House as to why we need to have the Australian National Line as an Australian government-owned flag carrier. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat)(6.26) —Several rather important issues have arisen from the estimates concerning the Department of Transport to which I would like to refer. I refer in particular to a number of initiatives that the Government has taken. The real significance of the initiatives relates to the effects that are to be felt in a number of very important industries and the quality of life right across the Australian nation. The Government is concerned to improve efficiency and also to effect economies in road transport, in rail and in shipping. It is to the credit of the very industrious Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) that he has consulted-and he did this even when he was shadow Minister-representatives from every major group and the States to ensure that government policy has direction and purpose that will enhance rather than inhibit the transport industry in this country. Mr Hollis —A good Minister. Mr MILDREN —I certainly agree with that statement; he is a very good Minister. The decision of the Government to concentrate on road construction has been received with acclaim right across the nation. A major benefit of this program to be begun in this financial year will be the creation of 19,000 job opportunities. The jobs on local roads program signals not only a real attempt to create jobs but also a recognition of the needs of local government for funds to undertake construction and maintenance programs. The $70m has been welcomed especially in a period of very tight budgetary constraint. Of course in future even greater increases in funds will be needed by local governments if they are to improve road standards as old roads pass their accepted life spans and deteriorate. That statement rings true in connection with the condition of roads in many parts of the country. In some parts of Australia, the Australian bicentennial roads development scheme will signal the beginning of much needed road works. I refer, of course, to one road in particular in North Queensland. That area has languished for decades because of the inadequate provision of road funds. There is little doubt that the tourist industry in that part of the country will not progress unless there is a major upgrading program for the Bruce Highway. As my esteemed colleague, the very active honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) would know only far too well, the many years of neglect both by previous Federal governments and the Bjelke-Petersen Queensland Government have caused cities such as Townsville to be seriously disadvantaged. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Progress reported. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation and Special Minister of State) —Mr Speaker , I seek your indulgence to add to an answer I gave to a question this afternoon . Mr SPEAKER —I grant that indulgence to the Minister. Mr BEAZLEY —I wish to add to an answer I gave this afternoon to a question by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). I am now in a position to supply the following information: In the course of a telephone interception related to suspected Commonwealth narcotic offences and made pursuant to judicial warrant under the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979, information became available to the Australian Federal Police early in May this year which gave rise to a suspicion in the mind of the Commissioner, Mr Grey, that offences under New South Wales law may have been committed in relation to the early release of prisoners under the then operative State licence scheme. It was also his view then and subsequently that the circumstances disclosed no possible breach of Commonwealth law. The Commissioner of the AFP communicated his concern to the then Special Minister of State, the Hon. M. J. Young, MP, on 11 May 1983, advising him that he proposed to make the information in question available to the New South Wales Police Commissioner, Mr Abbott, pursuant to the terms of section 7 (5) (i) of the Act. The information in question was passed by the Commissioner to Mr Abbott the following week, on Monday, 16 May 1983. Mr Young advised the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on 11 May of the information he had received from the Commissioner, and the Prime Minister directed Mr Young contact the appropriate New South Wales Minister and ensure, so far as it was within the Commonwealth's capacity to do so, that all necessary steps were taken to investigate fully the matters in issue. Mr Young then met with the Hon. L. J. Ferguson, who was Acting Premier, in Sydney, on 16 May and informed him of the matters believed by the Commonwealth to require investigation. A number of communications have occurred between Commissioners Grey and Abbott on this matter since mid-May. Commissioner Grey made it clear both orally and in writing that the Commonwealth was concerned that any investigation of the prisoners question did not jeopardise the Commonwealth's ongoing narcotic investigation which was a major one, but equally he made it clear that provided sources were not compromised there was no reason why the investigation into the prisoners matter by the State police should not proceed. There is no foundation for any suggestion that any request was either made by the New South Wales authorities or acceded to by the Commonwealth authorities for the removal of any Commonwealth telephone interception or that the installation or removal of any particular interception during the period in question occurred for any reasons other than ordinary police operational reasons, having regard to priority narcotics targets and available resources. The Commonwealth is unaware of the results of the investigation by the New South Wales police. In all the circumstances, particularly given that no question of offences under Commonwealth law is involved, it would not be appropriate for the Commonwealth Government to reveal any further details. The disclosure of any such further information must remain wholly a matter for the New South Wales Government. Mr Peacock —Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence. I simply wish to- Mr SPEAKER —It is a difficult area in that I think the Minister is adding to a promise that he had given to you as the Leader of the Opposition. If you wish to make a brief comment, I will grant you that indulgence. Mr Peacock —I understand the difficulty you are placed in, Mr Speaker, and in view of the matters that are not traversed in the answer, as well as certain matters within the answer, we will follow this matter up tomorrow. Consideration resumed. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat)(8.06) —I was mentioning the funds that have been allocated to the jobs on local roads program, and also the amount of money which had been allocated through the Australian bicentennial roads development program for national roads. In particular I was referring to roads in North Queensland and the area in and around Townsville where my colleague the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) has been extremely diligent. As we know, he is well known in that area for the work which he has undertaken for transport. In 1979 the same gentleman formed the North Queensland Airports Development Council which laid the foundation for the establishment of the international airport at Townsville. That work has been recognised by Qantas Airways Ltd and also by the local community. Of course, he ensured that he was with the Minister for Transport in travelling between Cairns and Townsville, to make sure that the Minister was fully acquainted with the state of those roads in that area. I think it is to his credit, to a large degree, that that road will receive a considerable amount of Federal funds for upgrading and also ensuring that those very dangerous single lane bridges, which are a major problem in the area, are remedied. In relation to the ABRD program, allocations have also been made to complete the duplication of the carriageway between Melbourne and Ballarat. This, of course, is extremely important. Not only does it continue the opening up of access to Melbourne from Ballarat by fast traffic but also it provides an increased opportunity for tourist facilities to be developed in Ballarat. Ballarat, as honourable members know, is probably one of the unique tourist cities in the Commonwealth and is, of course, in the focal point of tourism in the central highlands area of Victoria. Much has been done in the area and we know that in the future there will be an even greater development of tourism. The jobs on local roads program signals not only a real attempt to create jobs but also it provides a great deal of opportunity for local governments to undertake the construction and maintenance of their road programs. I suppose when one refers to ABRD, it would be only just to give some credit to the previous Government in this particular program. I think, however, that one cannot help but make some kind of reference to the fact that it was a program brought in in haste to bolster the Government's hopes in the election which it intended to hold in the latter part of last year. History records, of course, that that did not take place. But I still applaud that Government for its initiative with ABRD. It is a pity it had not done it years before. It should also be recorded that work needs to be done on roads in north Queensland. Unless that area has access roads, all forms of development there will be truncated; there can be no further development. I have been there and I have spoken with the local people there, and this is a very critical matter. This is so all along the Bruce Highway. I want to comment on the road safety program. I commend the Minister for Transport for having included in the Budget an allocation of $200,000 for a feasibility study and development of a national road safety and public education program. Of course, I also give full credit to the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling), who is known through the length of this country for her concern for this matter. Given the appalling casualty rate on the nation's roads, it is critical that such a study be undertaken. The objectives of the program are to make adults more aware of their responsibilities and to improve the safety of their children. It is an appalling fact that over 5,000 children are killed or injured in road crashes in Australia each year. Sixty children are killed in cycle accidents and 140 child pedestrians are also killed. Sadly it must be surmised that some of these children would still be alive had they received an adequate education in road safety. I draw the attention of the chamber to a most active, well-organised and well- supported program on road safety education in my electorate. I refer to the Keith Edmonston Road Traffic Safety School, which is run by Mr Russell Lindsay. This is one of the most comprehensive and well-organised programs in Australia today. Over 14,000 children have been assisted by the traffic school. It enjoys the enthusiastic support of parents, local schools and local government bodies. In addition, the staff of two is provided by the Victorian Education Department. Local service clubs have contributed considerable sums for the purchase of tricycles and bicycles and two local auto retailers have provided cars for driver education. The lay-out of the school, which is situated at the Ballarat Airport, provides realistic experience in traffic control. Curriculum programs have been developed to enable teachers to undertake follow-up teaching in schools and the ages catered for range from pre-school to secondary students. Audio-visual programs have also been developed, some of which have been produced in co-operation with local television stations. For wet weather-and Ballarat occasionally has some of this-one of the buildings at the airport has been imaginatively painted to simulate roadways. Little children are able to ride their bicycles and tricycles according to the dictates of the traffic code. I must comment on this program and hope that the Joint Standing Committee on Road Safety shows some interest in its activities. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable gentleman's time has expired. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(8.13) —In the time allowed to me I should like to comment briefly upon three subjects-the capital works program which the Government announced, air fares on trunk routes, and Trans Australia Airlines. The Government, through the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley), announced a capital works program and I think it should be placed on record immediately that the capital works program which the Government announced in the news release put out by the Minister on the night of the Budget was very largely the capital works program of the previous Minister, a Minister who had both courage and a sense of direction in terms of policy making and who held the position for only a relatively short time. He is not well at the moment, although he will be returning at the end of this month. I wish to make it perfectly plain to the Committee that the present Minister, perhaps by oversight, in arrogating to himself the capital works program of the previous Government, with some modifications, completely overlooked in his public statement, at least the copy of the public statement I have-he may have said something about it elsewhere-the fact that he was really dealing with the capital works program of the previous Government and in particular of the previous Minister, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife). On the subject of what the Minister had to say, I should like to make these comments: He said in his news release that this year's Budget provided the largest national airports and airways program in Australia's history. That is a very questionable statement since, on my interpretation of the facts, the previous Government's program was the largest. He then went on, in relation to the airports and airways development program, to say that total Commonwealth spending would be $620m over the next four years. In fact, under the previous Government the figure was very much higher since in the Budget of 1982-83 it had announced the Sydney program for a third runway at the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport, and it announced the program for the development of Darwin Airport, which amounted to some $86m, on 24 November 1982. I am sure the Minister will acknowledge these things; that, for example, where he refers in his Press release to particular features such as the redevelopment of the Darwin Airport international and domestic airline facilities, which he has estimated to cost $96m, he was there referring to a decision of the previous Government, the estimate then being $86m. I have been to Darwin recently; I have had a look at what is proposed, and there have been no alterations whatsoever to what was proposed by the previous Government. To take one or two more items, the Minister went on to say that there was to be construction of a new international terminal complex and associated works at Perth Airport, as though that was something novel. It was not. In fact, it was a Budget decision announced in the 1982-83 Budget by the previous Minister, as was the next item, when the present Minister referred to the construction of a parallel taxiway at Perth Airport to cost a total of $3m. Other items fall into precisely the same category. I wished to make that plain since I think it should be known that the capital works program of this Government, as indeed is the case with so many other policy directions of this Government, is in fact no more than a continuation of what the previous Government set in place, the major difference in the capital works program being that this Government decided to abandon the third runway at Sydney, an abandonment which of course was no more than a purely political response. I wish next to say something about pricing. We have the situation where prices for carriers-I refer in particular to Ansett Airlines of Australia and Trans Australia Airlines-are set by the Independent Air Fares Committee. One can view only with concern the trends in airline fares in this country. I presume this is a concern which the present Minister shares. In the report of Price Waterhouse on the practicability of selling TAA, which was made to the previous Government in December 1982, this is said at page 34: Air fare rises have accelerated in the last few years. Since 1979 the CPI has risen by 31 per cent while the network economy fare has risen by 69 per cent and the Melbourne-Sydney fare by 80 per cent. That is a quite staggering increase, one would think, when measured against the rate of inflation. The report went on: These fare rises have contributed to the slower growth in passenger traffic in the last few years. One could hardly argue with that proposition because it is the inevitable consequence of such a price rise. Some other figures of equal interest have been taken out by Mr Sandilands, the travel editor of the Sydney Morning Herald. They appear in the Sydney Morning Herald of 1 October. I extract these figures from what Mr Sandilands wrote: The average domestic fare since January 1981 has increased by 54.2 per cent. The Sydney-Melbourne fare has increased by 71.2 per cent. Of course, just recently a 6 per cent increase has been granted by the Independent Air Fares Committee to Ansett and TAA, which has the result of bringing total fare increases approved by the Independent Air Fares Committee this year to 12.8 per cent, which is roughly twice the rate of inflation during that period. To sum up, over a period of some years one sees what can only be described as an exceedingly dangerous trend-dangerous for the airlines since it bears upon their profitability, when air fares have been increasing at roughly twice the rate of inflation. This leads one, of course, to some obvious questions: What is the reason for this trend? How long can it continue? Is it simply a temporary phenomenon or is this something which is built into the system? Is it perhaps the consequence of the insulation of Ansett and TAA from market forces? How long is the long-suffering consumer to put up with these kinds of increases? The consequences, of course, in the long run are as bad for the companies as they are for the consumers because, as the Minister pointed out in his Budget summary , there has been a drop in air travel in the 1982-83 financial year of about 9 per cent and the Department expects that to continue. This trend has been in place now for some years. So on the one hand there is an increase in prices and on the other a decreasing number of passengers carried. Lastly and very briefly I will say something about TAA. The financial position of that company is well known; indeed, too well known. I have put on the Notice Paper a number of questions for the Minister's attention. I ask for his early attention to those questions. They have been there now for a month or so. I would have thought that they were fairly simple to answer. The report of TAA for 1982-83 reveals that that company, which received $115m of taxpayers' funds this financial year, is in a serious financial position and that the Auditor-General has very grave and trenchant criticisms to make of its accounting practices. The questions I have put to the Minister are ones that should be considered by him in the implementation of his portfolio and in the interests of the Australian public knowing what is happening in TAA this year and what we can expect for the future. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory)(8.23) —I will speak about the Alice Springs to Darwin rail link and point to some of the hypocrisy which surrounds this new- found concern we have heard expressed by the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) this afternoon. Mr Lusher —There is nothing new about it; I have been expressing it for six months. Mr REEVES —I will tell the honourable member a little about the history of the Liberal-National Party coalition with regard to this issue and then he might like to reconsider that statement. The history of the Liberal-National Party coalition over this project is one of insincerity and dishonesty. The Liberal- National Party coalition has been in government for 31 1/2 of the last 35 years. In that time it did not initiate one inch of construction on the Adelaide to Darwin rail link. Instead, in 1976 the then Liberal-National Country Party Government, of which the honourable member for Hume was then a part, closed down 500 kilometres of the line between Adelaide and Darwin. In the process it put out of work hundreds of people in the Northern Territory. So in the last 35 years the Liberal-Country parties have not initiated one inch of construction of this line for which they now express so much concern. Indeed, in 1976 they closed down 500 kilometres of the line that then existed. In 1972 the Whitlam Labor Government came to power and stopped the dilly- dallying by the Liberal-Country parties that had been going on for decades. The Whitlam Labor Government initiated the first construction on that line in many decades, namely the standard gauge link between Tarcoola and Alice Springs. Mr Whitlam, as Prime Minister, drove the first peg in that project in 1975. When the Liberal-Country parties came back into government in 1975 they had little option but to continue with the line. They completed the line in 1980. Then the dilly-dallying started again. They had the opportunity in 1980 to demonstrate their real concern-the concern and commitment they now express for this project. Instead, they decided that they would not continue the line then and there as they had the opportunity to do. They decided that a study should be made of the Alice Springs to Darwin section of the line. In late 1980 they announced that they were going to spend $10m on a route identification project. It is worth noting that an election was coming up at about the time they announced this study. By the time the Labor Party came to government in March 1983 the former Liberal-Country Party Government had spent only $4m of the $10m it said it would spend on this route identification study. However, in 1982, with another election coming up, the then Government said it would commit itself to building the railway line. The history of the previous Government's commitment to and concern for this line is very closely related to elections. As I said earlier, I think that the real measure of its commitment is demonstrated by the fact that it has not initiated one inch of construction of that line in the last 3 1/2 decades. In May this year the Liberal-National parties had the opportunity through their colleagues in the Country Liberal Party in the Northern Territory to make a commitment to the joint development of the Alice Springs to Darwin section of the Adelaide to Darwin railway line. That proposal was initiated by the new Labor Government and was put to the Territory Government on the basis that the Territory Government was to make a contribution towards the construction. Instead of sitting down and rationally discussing the project and looking at all the pros and cons of a joint development, a joint construction of the railway line, the Country Liberal Party in the Northern Territory set about a campaign of politicking, abuse and stupidity such as has not been seen certainly in the Northern Territory's history. In the process it rejected out of hand the new Labor Government's proposal for a joint development of the railway line. Faced with that rejection, the new Labor Government has now proposed that a study be undertaken of this rail link and the whole of the Northern Territory's transport system to ensure that the Northern Territory ends up with an efficient, reasonably priced, all-weather transport system. This study will look not only at rail but also at air, sea and road transport. The most amazing thing about the speech of the honourable member for Hume this afternoon was that he said that we should not spend the $5m that has been allocated in the 1983-84 Budget to complete the study. It appears to be his belief that we should leave it as it is and give up all hope of ever having the Alice Springs to Darwin railway link constructed. I am sure that his colleagues in the Northern Territory are shocked, as I certainly am, that he said that. He betrays his real position on this issue, and that is, that he and the Liberal- National parties, despite the fact that they now say that they would build the railway line, never intended to build it. They have never actually done anything to have it built and they will not build it if by some strange twist of fate they ever get back into government. If honourable members look at the Country Liberal Party at the Territory level they will find that it does not want the Alice Springs to Darwin railway link built because it wants to use the railway as an issue in the forthcoming Northern Territory elections. The only group that is really endeavouring, against long odds, to do anything about it is the Australian Labor Party. I will run through what the Liberal Party has done about this issue. Firstly, in 1980 it was presented with a fait accompli. It did nothing further on the line-which it could have-to take it from Alice Springs to Darwin. The Country Liberal Party in the Territory stopped work in May-June 1983 by its intransigence and unwillingness to even discuss a joint development of the project. This afternoon the honourable member for Hume told us that he even wants to stop the study; he does not want to spend the $5m that the Labor Party has allocated for it in 1983-84. I will also briefly go through some of the aspects of the budgets for the Department of Aviation and the Department of Transport that are great news for the Northern Territory. The first is one that has already been mentioned, and that is the $96m Darwin Airport project. The previous speaker, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), made great play of the fact that the previous Government had announced this back in 1981. Sure it had. I think it announced it about four times. It announced it every year for the last three or four years. The previous Government was very good at announcing things but not very good at constructing them. In six months this new Labor Government has allocated money to the project and over the next three or four years we will see it completed. The second very significant matter that is contained in the 1983-84 aviation- transport budget is the 23.3 per cent increase in total road funding to the Northern Territory. That adds up to an additional $7.2m this year for the construction of roads in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory is, as anybody who has been there will know, a very sparsely populated area and our roads are essential for communication and trade. There are two other significant announcements in the Budget. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(8.33) —I join in the debate on the estimates of the Department of Transport and the Department of Aviation with some considerable enthusiasm. May I say from the outset to both the Minister for Transport (Mr Morris) and the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley), who are in the chamber, that I hope my remarks will be constructive; they certainly will not be personal. I place on record the very high regard in which I hold the Minister for Aviation, who is sitting at the table, and his colleague the Minister for Transport, across party lines. Some time ago a Minister in the Whitlam Government made the somewhat historic but very accurate pronouncement that Tasmania was an island completely surrounded by water. The fact is that what he said was quite right. I have to remind the House and the people of Australia listening to this debate that that situation continues. Therefore, as the only Tasmanian representative participating in this debate, tonight I want to highlight my remarks about the continuing problems which confront Australia's only island State in its links and connections with what I refuse to describe as the mainland but prefer to describe as the north island of Australia. Some time ago I was privileged to address an international conference in Melbourne. I commenced my remarks by reminding international delegates who were visiting Australia that there were great similarities between Australia and New Zealand. In New Zealand there is a north island and a south island; exactly the same applies in Australia. It is also very appropriate that in the chamber tonight we have the Hon. Ian Braid, Minister for Main Roads and Minister for Local Government in the State of Tasmania. Mr Burr —Hear, hear! Mr HODGMAN —I note the welcoming interjection from my colleague and friend, the honourable member for Wilmot. In the Tasmanian Parliament one is not allowed to refer to strangers and if one does so there is a great risk that the entire public gallery will be cleared. Fortunately, that is not the position here and, I am sure on behalf of all members on both sides of the House, we extend a very warm welcome to the Hon. Ian Braid and Mrs Braid. My opening remarks deal with the question of air communication and I say from the outset that the establishment of the international air terminal in Hobart, which has now been completed and is operating, is greatly welcomed. But I commend to the Minister at the table, the Minister for Aviation, and to his colleague the Minister for Transport, who is in the chamber, the urgent necessity for upgrading Hobart Airport to true international standard. By that I mean for it to have a capacity to receive normal international flights. To make the point-I do it with some feeling because my friend the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), with whom I clash occasionally but who is nevertheless my friend, has made certain statements in relation to the number of international airports that Australia should have-I wish to place on record on behalf of myself, my colleague the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) and my colleague the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr) that Hobart has had an international air link with Christchurch, New Zealand, for some considerable time. It is an international airport. We greatly appreciate what has been done which, as the Minister will confirm, was an initiative of the previous Government but was carried through into fruition by the present Government. I invite all those honourable members who have the opportunity of visiting Hobart to have a look at the new international terminal. But it will only be complete when the actual tarmac at Hobart Airport is upgraded so that it can take jumbo jets and all normal international aircraft. Notwithstanding the tragedy of the Mount Erebus disaster, I wish to refer to two very fundamental points. The first is that Australia's Antarctic activity will increase, and increase quite dramatically, over the next five to 10 years. It is absolutely essential that air contact with the Antarctic be by the shortest possible route. The upgrading of Hobart International Airport to true international standard will permit that to be done. It is nonsense to fly equipment all the way from Sydney or Melbourne to the Antarctic. It is essential for our Antarctic program that the closest possible airport be upgraded to take those aircraft. In my second point, I refer to a speech I made in the Tasmanian Parliament back in 1968. I draw attention again to the fact that Antarctica has the potential to become one of the greatest tourist attractions of the world in the twenty-first century. I repeat that the tragedy of the Mount Erebus disaster has made many people think that Antarctic tourism will not become reality. I can assure the House that the opportunities for developing a major Australian participation in Antarctic tourism are enormous. This most magnificent, white, extraordinarily wealthy and extraordinarily beautiful continent will be accessible to mankind and to the ordinary commercial traveller before the end of this century. I believe in the potential of the Antarctic for tourist development, whether tourists fly there or whether they travel by ship. I believe that the Minister for Aviation, who is at the table, is such a far-sighted Minister he will see that there is good sense in relation to our Antarctic program and Antarctic tourism. In addition, might I say that it would be very desirable if the current Australian-New Zealand southern link-that is, between Hobart and Christchurch- could be extended to Hobart and Wellington, and Hobart and Auckland. Again, the only problem is the fact that the airstrip cannot take the big jumbo jets. I commend to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism the proposition that tourists do not wish to backtrack and that, therefore, we ought to have an Australia-New Zealand tourism circle whereby, for example, people could go from New Zealand to Hobart, then fly to Melbourne, Canberra and Sydney and then perhaps back to the North Island of New Zealand; in other words, a circuit. You, Mr Chairman, with your great experience as a Minister will recall that tourists do not like to see the same thing twice. In other words, I put these propositions to the Minister at the table and hope that he will-and I am sure that he will-give them very careful consideration. The Minister for Transport will not get a blast from me tonight. Indeed, I might say across party lines that although I have fought with him in the past there are things that he has done which I think should be commended. I might in fairness say that I believe that the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) in his capacity as shadow Minister is also doing a fine job. The Minister for Transport is about to make one of the most critical decisions ever for the future of Tasmania. That decision will be made when the Minister for Transport receives the report of the officials and subsequently meets with the Tasmanian Minister for Transport, the Hon. Roger Groom, and the Victorian Minister for Transport, the Hon. Steve Crabb, to discuss what is to happen in relation to the replacement of the Empress of Australia. My colleague the honourable member for Wilmot, along with the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman), the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) and, indeed, the honourable member for Franklin- all Tasmanians-are emphatic in their view that what we need is not just one replacement for the Empress; we need two. Mr Burr —Hear, hear! Mr HODGMAN —I thank the honourable member for Wilmot for his interjection. I want to say to the Minister for Transport that, if he analyses the tourism figures, if he recognises that Tasmania is now leading Australia in relation to tourism promotion and if he recognises that our island State has the opportunity to become the tourist mecca of Australasia-and I mean that, in those precise words-I ask the Minister to display the vision of which I believe he is capable, to seize the nettle and to ensure that the Empress of Australia is not replaced by just one vessel but is, in fact, replaced by two. I am aware from my term in the Ministry last year that there were I think some five specific proposals in relation to the replacement of the Empress. I appeal to the Minister and to the Hawke Government to seize the opportunity and to ensure that Tasmania has not one, but two ferries operating across Bass Strait. I also want to appeal to the Minister to have another look at what is happening in relation to a matter raised with him by the honourable member for Wilmot in respect of the town of Bridgewater, which is about to be bypassed and put into bankruptcy by a proposed national highway extension which will wipe out that town. Mr Burr —At least put in a slip road. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member for Wilmot is quite right. If the Government is not prepared to vary what work is already under way, at least let it put in a slip road. But, more progressively, will the Minister accept the submission of myself and the honourable member for Franklin that the national highway ought to be extended through to Huonville which is really now part of metropolitan Hobart ? It is becoming a dormitory suburb, with many living in that area as you would well know, Mr Johnson, who regard themselves as part of Hobart. I hope that the Minister will look at this carefully- The CHAIRMAN —Order! I am sorry to interrupt, but the honourable gentleman's time has expired. Mr HODGMAN —You have given me a very good hearing, sir. Thank you. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation)(8.43) —I wish to respond very briefly to some of the points raised. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), who has just spoken, referred to aviation developments in Tasmania, particularly in relation to Hobart. He would be aware that included in the recent package of measures for Tasmania is an amount of some $3m to be spent on the upgrading of Hobart Aerodrome to full 727 standard. I did address at one point of time the general questions that the honourable member raised. He has raised them again so I will look at them and review the answer I gave to one of his colleagues on that matter, I think a month or so ago. The honourable member would be aware that in the aviation program we always have to be very careful, when we undertake civil works, to stick pretty close to well assessed genuine aviation needs. Sometimes we tend to get a little too emphatic about the tourism and job creation aspects of particular projects. Important as those areas are, we need to recollect that the aviation budget, particularly the civil works side of the aviation budget, is one of those very rare instances of any major government program which is predicated on the assumption of, as near as possible, total cost recovery from the industry. That of course can have very substantial effects on, among other things, air fares. As anyone from Tasmania and Western Australia would know, air fares also have a fair bit to do with tourism. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) raised a number of more general matters relating to the aviation budget. This year our budget is $620m. This represents the largest budget for the aviation civil works program. The honourable member mentioned a couple of instances in which projects were announced after a Budget by the previous Government. I suppose, if I wanted to do the same sort of thing, I could add to the $620m a billion dollars or so for a second Sydney airport. Until those projects actually get off the ground and reach a design stage and program I do not think it is legitimate to include them in the forward Estimates. What we have done in the case of both Darwin and Perth is to take promises from a stage of being promises through to design stage which is suitable to go before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and which is suitable for commencement at the end of this financial year. That is really the point at which one can legitimately claim for oneself a degree of credit in these areas. The honourable member for North Sydney went on to discuss the question of air fares and the recent announcement by the Independent Air Fares Committee of an increase in air fares. He drew attention to the undeniable fact that air fares in this country have risen dramatically above average increases in costs and that this has had a very deleterious effect on the industry. I could not agree with him more. One of the problems which this Government confronts in this area is that we are bound by legislation, passed in the previous Parliament, which established the Independent Air Fares Committee. More importantly-I think there is a lot going for having an Independent Air Fares Committee about the place-it set the terms of reference on which the Independent Air Fares Committee must operate. We did point out when those matters were introduced into the Parliament that we believed the Independent Air Fares Committee had inadequate provisions within its charter to take into account the question of public interest when considering air fare rises. As a result, the Independent Air Fares Committee is capable of doing a great deal of work in making sure that the airlines justify their increases, but it must still conform to the basic cost-plus arrangements of the pricing processes which are included in its charter. The Independent Air Fares Committee acts principally on the initiative of the airlines. It is the airlines in the first instance which go to the Committee with propositions for air fare increases. To this point of time I have been impressed by an acceptance on the part of the two airlines that there is no great value to them in substantial increases in air fares because, as is quite evident from the figures which the honourable member cited and which I have cited in other places, people are beginning to vote with their feet, so to speak , and are starting to not use air travel. Unquestionably, one of the factors in their decision is the price of the product. That is why it was with some disappointment that I saw the airlines approach the Independent Air Fares Committee for that rise in air fares. I had hoped, as a result of the indication which the airlines gave a month or so earlier when they introduced a 45 per cent air fare reduction-in a number of areas in Australia, although not in all areas, this is working very well-that this indicated a change of heart on their part. The airlines must really begin to address seriously this question of the price of the product and their role in public transport. These factors will undeniably play a substantial part in public and private submissions by a variety of interested parties when we start our review of the two airlines agreement in the middle of next year. Other matters that have been raised in relation to aviation include ones raised by the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves) on Darwin Airport. I take note of the comments he raised. I also thank him for the very constructive role-he is no longer in the chamber-he played in the Party's, the Cabinet's and the Ministry's deliberations on the provision of a terminal for Darwin. He was extremely helpful in putting forward the Northern Territory's perspective on this very important matter. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(8.52) —I would like first to thank those honourable members who participated in the debate, particularly the Chairman of the Caucus Transport Sub-Committee, the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren), the very competent and very able Chairman that he is, the shadow Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) and the honourable member for the Northern Territory, the hardworking John Reeves. I would also like to take the opportunity to commend the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling), although she did not speak in the debate, for her work to date in revitalising the activities of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety. It is a very important committee. It is a committee from whose activities we can get a great deal of social benefit as well as financial benefit for a relatively small outlay. We should remember that the estimates before us and the Budget of which they form part have been drawn up against a background of an economic shambles that this Government inherited. I think it says a great deal for the Treasurer (Mr Keating), the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) and the Cabinet that in the seven short months almost since the change in government we have been able to draw together the priorities that are needed to put this economy back on a stable and growth basis and, at the same time, attend to the pressing priorities across the range of responsibilities that the Government has taken on. This Budget stimulates economic activity. The funding in the Estimates creates jobs and provides a basis for a return to economic prosperity and a return of business confidence. The Estimates are fair and they help the people in greatest need and, more than anything else, the programs that we have undertaken are designed to help the unemployed. The Government's objective in these Estimates is not just economic recovery, but sustained economic growth. The real incomes of Australians cannot improve until we manage to increase the size of our national income by using our resources effectively. It is in this area that the Budget provisions and the Budget estimates of the Department of Transport make an important contribution. As far as transport is concerned, we will be spending some $1,433m this financial year, a boost of 21 per cent on last financial year. Our main priorities will be road building, firstly to improve our infrastructure and, at the same time, to create more jobs. Some 19,000 additional jobs will be created this year as a result of the funding being provided in the Estimates for road works. Another priority is road safety, which I have already adverted to, and which for so long was neglected by the previous Government. We believe that by investing in road safety not only do we save more Australian lives, but we also make a contribution to a reduction in health expenditure and to improved transport efficiency. I will not go through the details of the provisions of each of the estimates as they are already covered in the documents before the chamber. I want to make mention first of the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme which I thought may have been mentioned this evening. It has been a matter of some controversy. With the proclamation of the Inter-State Commission Act of 1975 on 26 September last, it is the intention of the Government to establish the Commission later this year. The first task that the Commission will have to undertake will be a review of the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme. Before that can commence, in honouring the undertakings that I have given to industry, interest groups in Tasmania and to the Tasmanian Government, there will need to be consultations with the Tasmanian Government and with interest groups and industry groups such as the Tasmanian Chamber of Industries-Mr Frank Palmer and his fellow executive- so that there is an understanding in the terms of reference that what we are about will best meet the needs of Tasmania. In commenting on the remarks of the various speakers, I must say that frankly I was astounded at the statement made by the shadow Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Hume, that the $5m being provided in the Estimates for completion of the route identification, preliminary design and planning of the Alice Springs-Darwin railway, should not be spent. He went further to say that the $5m ought to be held up. This was a dramatic contradiction of the remarks he made later when he complained that the project was not going ahead and that we had offered immediate construction to the Northern Territory Government on the basis that we could afford to pay for 60 per cent of the cost of the project if the Northern Territory Government could find the other 40 per cent. It is simply a matter of what this country can afford. We inherited a Budget deficit at least 50 per cent greater than that which all of Australia had been led to believe by the former Prime Minister and by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) . It is very interesting that, in the period since we announced our decision in respect of the railway, there has not been one word from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. In fact, his contribution to debate on the economy has been that the deficit in this Budget is too high. I ask the chamber whether anyone seriously believes that if the Opposition had been returned to government that, facing the $10,000m deficit that it had created in its seven years of office, it would have started work on the Alice Springs-Darwin railway. No one believes that, least of all the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Really, we have had a token protest about our Government's decision. But the economic rationalists sitting on the benches opposite now know very well that had they been returned to government they would not have commenced that project. We have not said we will not commence it. We have said that we can afford 60 per cent of the cost of the project. If it is the top financial priority of the Northern Territory Government, we ask it to assist. Can it find the other 40 per cent because certainly if it is its top political priority it is its lowest financial priority. Let us look at the record of the Liberal-National parties on railways. It is a very, very shabby and abysmal record. They have been in office for 30 years since World War II. Their main feat was to tear up the Darwin-Larrimah railway in 1976, the only railway the Northern Territory ever had. It was a narrow-gauge railway. That was their contribution. The Tarcoola-Alice Springs line was commenced by the Labor Government in April 1975. The commencement of that line and its completion in 1980 led to the circumstance that it was worth then considering constructing a railway line from Alice Springs to Darwin. Let us look at the expenditure for the Alice Springs-Darwin line. In 1980 the former Government promised $10m to be spent on route identification, survey, design and planning. When it lost office it had underspent that amount by almost half. In these Estimates we provide, in one year, an amount equal to all of its efforts from 1980 onwards. So let us get the facts in place. What has confused the picture even more, recently, has been the decision by the Northern Territory Government to share with the Queensland Government the cost of half a million dollars for the feasibility study into a railway from Mount Isa to Tennant Creek to Alice Springs to Darwin. The point that is being raised, properly, is: What is the Northern Territory Government's preference? It does not have one miserable dollar that it can put towards building the Alice Springs-Darwin railway. Not one positive proposal has come forward from that Government. There has been a lot of politicking, a lot of posturing and a lot of cheap rhetoric but not one miserable dollar. It is very quickly able to enter into an agreement with the Queensland Government to share the cost of a half-million dollar feasibility study into a railway from Mount Isa to Tennant Creek to Darwin and Alice Springs. The other thing that is most confusing in all this debate is the insistence of the Northern Territory Government that the Stuart Highway from Alice Springs to Darwin is perfectly adequate; that it does not need any upgrading carried out on it. That is something that the Northern Territory Government will have to explain to the people of the Territory. The point we have reached in respect of the railway is that an independent economic inquiry has been set up under the chairmanship of Mr David Hill from the State Rail Authority of New South Wales-a man who is highly respected and highly regarded in this country. He is the administrator of the largest railway system in this country. When his name was put forward to the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory his first telex response, along with some other comments, was that he would accept it; that he would go along with it. He had a weekend to think about it and he came back with another response. He came to the conclusion that Mr Hill was an appointee of a Labor colleague government and, therefore, most unsuitable to carry out an independent inquiry into the proposed railway. For that reason he would not agree to Mr Hill's appointment. The Chief Minister of the Northern Territory did not say that the person he recommended was none other than Mr Clem Jones, the former Labor Lord Mayor of Brisbane and a well- known Labor identity. So on the one hand, Mr Hill, a skilled railway administrator, is unsuitable because he is an appointee of a Labor government, and, on the other hand, a former leading Labor personality and Labor Lord Mayor of Brisbane is acceptable. I leave people to draw their own conclusions about that. The position at this stage is that the inquiry will proceed under the chairmanship of Mr David Hill. The shadow Minister for Transport adverted also to the $5m. He did not seem to understand what the $5m was about. It seems to me that he just has not read the estimates. The matter is clearly explained on page 46 of the explanatory notes for my Department. I just recommend that for his perusal. In respect of the financial performance of the Australian National Railways I remind the House that the accounts and financial results at which we are looking for the past year are all the result of seven years of bungling mismanagement of the economy of this nation by Liberal-National Party governments. Those honourable members who sit opposite are the guilty men. They produced these results; they mismanaged the economy. The point was made by the shadow Minister for Transport that the lost subsidy to ANR last year was $106m. These etsimates provide $85m. He said that these figures seemed to have gone askew from the objctives of the corporate plan intended for ANR by the previous Government. I remind him that it is all his doing. His comments are really a condemnation of his and his colleagues' mismanagement. The next matter that was raised concerned the Australian National Line. The records will show, as the annual reports come in, that over a period of seven years the four public authority transport enterprises-ANR, ANL, Trans Australia Airlines and Qantas Airways Ltd-were all denied adequate capital, leadership and support by the previous Government and were subjected to a vendetta by members of the then Government and those who now sit opposite. The effect of that vendetta was devastating on the performance of those enterprises. The demoralisation, the lack of interest, the lack of policy directives from the Government, all contributed to the results we see coming forth in public transport enterprises. One of the very first actions we took was to place ANL on a sound financial footing. The capital injection of $90m was to put it on a sounder financial basis. A concord was reached between the sea-going unions, the management of the Line and this Government to improve the productivity of the organisation, to improve efficiency and to give the Line a chance to improve its performance. As a trading nation we rank about seventeenth in the world. As a maritime nation we have an abysmal rate of participation. About 3 per cent of all cargoes go out on Australian flag ships. We should have a fairer share of international trade in Australian flag ships, but to do that we have to make vessels more competitive and more efficient. we are doing that, something the previous Government-- Mr Moore —Go talk to the unions. Mr PETER MORRIS —We have talked to the unions and reached a concord with them, something the Opposition will never be able to achieve. The only thing it understands is division, confrontation and lack of leadership. That is why each of those public authority enterprises has experienced the difficulties it has. We are changing all that. Let me turn to the matters raised in respect of Tasmania. I will deal first with the replacement of the Empress of Australia, which was raised by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). One of the major difficulties here is the constant change in policy of the Tasmanian Government. A committee which the previous Government established in November last year came down with a report, which I understood at the time to be a final report, in favour of an ANL proposal for two combined freight-passenger car ferry vessels to operate across the Bass Strait as a replacement for the Empress. When we came to Government we were advised that the Tasmanian Government's preference was not for that proposal at all. It did not support that; it wanted passenger-cargo ferries only . It did not want a bar of the ANL proposal of last year. Subsequently it has again changed its policy. It now seems to be interested in the ANL proposal. On 1 July at a meeting in this building with the Tasmanian Minister for Transport I undertook to ask the officials in Victoria, Tasmania and the Commonwealth to hasten the completion of their final report. One would have thought it would have been finished under the previous Government, but it was not. The draft report was sent to the Tasmanian Minister for Transport on 23 August. It sat there until we got a phone call on 23 September. There was a rush and a bustle to try to get some action. Since then views and amendments have been exchanged, and I am expecting to receive in the near future the final report from those officials. When I do, just as quickly as I can I will convene a meeting of the relevant Transport Ministers from Victoria and Tasmania. I turn now to the matter of the two passenger ferries. There is no specific proposal from the Tasmanian Government to this Government for a passenger car ferry only. The Premier of Tasmania wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on 5 August seeking advice about financial support for an additional passenger ferry for the summer season. On the same day he also wrote to the Australian National Line. On 12 August the Australian National Line replied to the Premier of Tasmania and made these points. It said that before accepting such a proposal it would be necessary, first, to identify a suitable available vessel which would have to meet the requirements of the Australian Navigation Act. It said it would be necessary to agree to the manning and conditions with the unions. The Australian National Line said it would be necessary to bring the vessel to Australia. It said it would be necessary to determine and agree to ports of call and additional facilities required to service the vessel. It said it would be necessary to provide the extra staff and computer capacity to arrange the bookings. It said it would be necessary to advertise the service and then to determine who pays to subsidise any losses accruing. That advice went to the Premier of Tasmania on 12 August. My understanding as of a few days ago was that the Australian National Line had had no further response from the Premier of Tasmania. So again the ball is in the court of the Tasmanian Government. I repeat, as I said the other day in Launceston, that the Tasmanian Government on these issues is very long on talk and rhetoric but very short on action. There is no specific proposal for a replacement from the Tasmanian Government before this Government. The Premier telephoned the Prime Minister on Friday. The Prime Minister mentioned the matter to me this morning. My understanding is that the Prime Minister did not tell the Premier that a decision would be made this week but that the matter would be considered this week. Again, more confusion has been brought in from the Tasmanian end. I have tried to respond to those matters that have been raised by honourable members in the debate. I just want to emphasise that as a government we have acted as quickly as we can in putting transport on a more sound and efficient basis. Whilst surface transport might not have the glamour of some of the other issues in this country, its efficiency and cost are absolutely fundamental to the economic performance of this country. Until we can improve our transport efficiency and make our transport services, particularly those on an international level, more competitive we will have difficulties in expanding our overseas markets. Proposed expenditures agreed to. Department of Employment and Industrial Relations Proposed expenditure, $158,441,000. Department of Education and Youth Affairs Proposed expenditure, $730,303,000. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(9.13) —In the absence of the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife) who is recovering from an operation, it is my pleasure tonight to speak on the estimates for the Department of Education. On looking through them I am instantly drawn to the fact that this Government has a great desire for publicity. I notice that the appropriation for publicity is one of the few items that has well and truly advanced in relation to the consumer price index. In fact, this vote has risen from $220,000 to $245,000 this year. The significance of that is that other items in the estimates have not been treated so generously . Of course, in keeping with the current style of the Australian Labor Party Government in having a high photographic presentation, one looks to ascertain that sort of allocation of funds in the education budget. Since the last Budget education costs in Australia have risen by around 11 per cent. Therefore, when looking at the estimates that have come before us one has to take some consideration of what these increases might be in real terms. What do we find? The much trumpeted education influences within the ALP are widely sung. One can look at the Australian Teachers Federation which contributed so handsomely to the ALP by giving it $750,000. First up is a refresher of $250,000 along the trail. We need only to look at the performance of the Teachers Federation at the recent Council of the Australian Council of Trade Unions in which it said that the responsibility for children lay not with the family, but with the state. That is the sort of stuff that controls the Teachers Federation which put a million dollars into the coffers of the ALP. That is big money, even to socialists. The votes for the Department of Education and Youth Affairs are worth noting. What has happened? In Labor's first education budget it has reduced total spending in proportion to total outlay on education by 0.3 per cent in real terms. It has reduced expenditure on all student assistance schemes by 2 per cent in real terms; reduced assistance for tertiary students by 6 per cent in real terms; reduced tertiary education assistance scheme eligibility by 0.08 per cent in real terms; reduced post-graduate award living allowances by 4 per cent in real terms; reduced the adult secondary education assistance scheme by 4 per cent in real terms for living allowances and 0.8 per cent in real terms in eligibility. It reduced expenditure on the Aboriginal secondary grants scheme, the Aboriginal study grants scheme and assistance for isolated children scheme by 4 per cent in real terms and has allowed the gap between unemployment benefit and student assistance to widen, thus increasing the disincentive to greater educational participation. What did Labor promise with relation to higher education? It promised to provide post-doctoral fellowships for 300 scholars to boost national research efforts. What action has it taken? None whatsoever. It promised to increase progressively student assistance through TEAS until the level of allowance equalled the single unemployment benefit and to maintain the nexus. Promise: Broken. In fact, the gap has been widened. It promised to raise the threshold of the TEAS means test until it equated with average weekly earnings. Answer: Not honoured. That was another broken promise. It promised to establish an emergency student loans scheme to replace the student loans scheme. Action: No action; another promise broken. In the schools sector, Labor promised to institute a new program for primary schools at a cost of $9m per annum. Action: Not honoured. It promised to provide an additional $37m in its first year for recurrent resources in government schools. Action: Not honoured. It said that it would provide an additional $16m in the first year of the program for needy non-government schools. Action: Not honoured. It promised to provide $24m over three years for the computer education program-a promise not honoured completely; a half way house. But at least that was something. Mr Hollis —It will come. Mr MOORE —It will come as long as we wait. Mr Hollis —It would never have come under you. Mr MOORE —It will not come to much under the Labor Government. Labor also promised to establish a revolving loan fund with an initial contribution of $5m to bring forward construction of planned new non-government schools. That promise went pretty flat because the Teacher's Federation was dead against it; it went straight out the window. Labor made all sorts of promises with respect to the funding of non-government schools. We have seen the result. Forty-one schools got a basic mention as to what was going on. There has been no guarantee given by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) that this action is not the beginning of the hit list, not the beginning of the run on state aid. Mr Hollis —Come on! We are talking about education. Mr MOORE —A long time before the honourable member for Macarthur came here members sat on the front bench of a Labor Government and said they got themselves so involved in state aid they had to be moved. Because of that a new list of 41 schools has been drawn up just to break the ice in this area. All those involved in that area ought to take note because there is no doubt as to which way it will go. In the area of technical and further education Labor promised a special triennial program to cost $30m to upgrade equipment and facilities for the latest technologies and to stimulate employment in Australian manufacturing. Result: Not honoured. It promised an immediate boost of $15m in capital and recurrent funds to the States. Result: Not honoured. In the area of migrant education it promised $45 per capita in grants for ethnic schools. Result: Not honoured. Labor promised to provide $3.68m per annum to cover the costs involved in transferring all eligible casual migrant teachers to permanent positions. Result: Not honoured. That is a great record for a government which is so involved. I am not surprised when $1m comes along from the teachers union which espouses such worthy comments as that the State should be more responsible for the children than the parents. Just to get things in context-every now and then we do not-I wish to quote from the University of New South Wales Students' Union publication which reports the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs ( Senator Ryan) as having said in October 1981: We believe that we are already getting to a situation in which, because of the Government's mean minded handling of the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme, only the sons and daughters of the affluent are able to undertake tertiary education. This is an appalling situation for a country such as Australia. It is particularly appalling in that it is a setting back of the clock; it is a reversal of the trend of increasing access to education which I am very happy to acknowledge was started by Prime Minister Chifley and extended enormously during the Administration of Robert Gordon Menzies. The restriction of the access of Australian citizens to higher education on socio-economic grounds alone is an appalling situation. It is a situation which we will oppose in every possible way. Under the heading 'The Election Promise'-election promises are made very easily- the University of New South Wales Students' Union publication stated: progressively increase the TEAS family income means test until it equals with average weekly earnings and then maintain the nexus. I have just outlined that promise- progressively increase the maximum TEAS benefit until it equals with the single unemployment benefit and then maintain the nexus. liberalise the definition of 'independence' which allows students to have their needs assessed separately from their parents' circumstances. The publication listed the following as realities in the students' budget: TEAS increase from maximum of $59.45 to $62.25. Living at home allowance up from $38.55 to $40.36. When inflation is accounted for this represents a 2.6% decline in TEAS allowances. a 6% adjustment in the TEAS means test on parental incomes. This adjustment represents a restriction on eligibility for TEAS as the budget projects a minimum level of wage increases this financial year of 7%. incidentals allowance remains the same at $100 per year for university students . This allowance is meant to cover costs such as Union fees, textbooks, equipment, field trips, etc. Before this budget it was inadequate-now its just a joke. That was stated by the student publication from the University of New South Wales. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Ms MAYER(Chisholm)(9.23) —I wish to address two aspects of the planned programs of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations which have been allocated $733m in the Budget. The first is the community employment program and the second is the provision for apprenticeship training and support. The two programs mesh together to provide employment experience and skills training for our work force so that the depressing and deskilling effects of long term unemployment are mitigated and a basis of experience and skill is provided from which the recovering economy can benefit. Unless one has personally experienced lengthy periods of unemployment it is almost impossible to understand the full effect of it on the motivation, self-esteem and development of the individual. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) today pointed out the benefit of energy, enterprise and persistence in reaching success. That is undeniable. But all of that energy, enterprise and persistence was fuelled by money, by huge income which led to huge expenditure and continued employment of those involved. To the person who has been unemployed for months or even years, the energy, enterprise and persistence which led to success are fantacies from some other world, and yet they are qualities which, given some opportunities to show themselves, abound in our nation. I will just take a minute to say: Good on you, Brockie. The community employment program is planned, through the expenditure of $400m, to give employment to some 70,000 people annually; that is, 70,000 people who would not otherwise have had the opportunity to acquire the motivation and the self-esteem to show energy and enterprise will now be able to do so. The family of the person who has been unemployed suffers as much as the unemployed person does from that unemployment. For those 70,000 people for whom the community employment program will provide some employment, that employment benefit will spin off to their families also. That is a most important thing to realise about that program. The announcement was made today of the first jobs approved under the CEP. These community projects of lasting worthwhile value will employ 143 people in South Australia for periods ranging from three months to a year, on such things as construction and renovation projects, the redevelopment of the Adelaide Central Mission, museum development and tourist promotion. Some 30 per cent of this creation of jobs is being borne by the sponsors, giving a real community input to the problem of employment generation. This first example of the way in which the Government, local councils and community organisations can work together to use the energy and potential existing in our nation to the benefit of the nation , clearly demonstrates the will that exists on all sides to tackle our most severe problem constructively. The $300m that will be put into community employment programs and the $100m which is the balance of the wages pause program distributed amongst the State and Territory governments for job creation programs gives some credibility to our election promise that we shall be putting employment as one of our major priorities. Today also the Victorian committee to deal with job project submissions has been announced and work will now go on quickly in Victoria to get employment projects under way. The second area with which I wish to deal tonight at some greater length encompasses the training and skills program. Under the Fraser Government expenditure on the labour market programs fell by 38 per cent in real terms between 1975 and 1982. That was the practical result of the philosophy that the victim is to blame for his or her own misfortune-a philosophy that this Government rejects utterly. This group of programs, the group of the training and skills programs, addresses the need to improve the skills base in employment which is seriously eroded by massive unemployment. It is not only the job skills that are lost; it is also the teaching skills and training capacity within industry. Recovery would be slow indeed if we were to wait for the appropriate job skills to be available before business could begin or expand. Total labour force programs expenditure, including skills training and the assistance schemes, will be $333m in 1983-84, a recognition of the existing and future needs of industry that illustrates this Government's commitment to long term solutions rather than short term panaceas. The whole area of apprenticeship training is one in which there has been, certainly in Victoria, substantial investment by the education system. This investment in teacher training, in the equipping of schools and colleges of technical and further education, is a long term investment which can be useful only if the jobs of apprentices are protected and the employers are encouraged to take on apprentices. The increase of nearly $100m in the training allocation to the total of $333m includes increases of up to $12m for the Commonwealth rebate for apprentice full-time training program, which compensates employers for the cost of releasing apprentices to attend their trade courses and which provides certain other benefits to employers and apprentices. The number of apprentices attracting this rebate in 1983-84 is expected to be about 96,000. The allocation for the special apprentice training program has virtually doubled to $20.5m, the major increases coming from the special assistance program and the special trade training program. The main parts of this program are the training schemes for mature age apprentices, which include three special schemes in connection with the North West Shelf project, another in the Hunter Valley associated with the coal-based power generation project and a third in Queensland in the mining industry. A most important part is the pilot program to provide advanced pre-apprenticeship courses for 1,000 people as a follow-up to the 2,000 people funded for pre-apprenticeship courses. The pre-apprenticeship courses have been allocated $11m. The Government's initiatives in training and skills programs are the result of an understanding which is clear in the education programs that the nation cannot reel from trough to slippery slide to plateau to trough again, but must have some sense of the future as well as the present. One of the most difficult periods through which the education system has had to go has been that period during the time of the previous Government in which education was seen as totally separate and different from the employment needs of the nation and in which no planning and no future was thought about for those people within the education system. This Government, through the labour force and training programs allocation being up more than 110 per cent to $733m, has involved approvals for 265,000 people compared with 223,000 people in 1982-83, an increase of 19 per cent in those approvals. Trade training has increased by $22. 4m or 23.5 per cent, and more than 100,000 apprentices in total are expected to be assisted. Non-trade skills training has increased by $8.7m or 58.9 per cent to $23.5m with some particular emphasis on assisting retrenched workers. Funds to improve employment prospects of young people are up by 20 per cent to $93.5m through work experience and training schemes. Of particular interest to me personally is the assistance to increase women's participation in the full range of labour force programs. The Government, through these programs, has done three things: Firstly, it has carried out an election promise to increase employment opportunities; secondly, it has recognised the realities of the necessity for long term initiatives; and, thirdly, it has provided to industry and its employees notice that it has faith in the future and in the enterprise, energy and persistence of the Australian people. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(9.33) —I rise to speak to the estimates for the Department of Education and Youth Affairs. I wish to express my total opposition to and rejection of the recent decision of the Australian Education Council to discontinue the national testing program which reports on the levels of literacy and numeracy in Australia. The survey commenced in 1975 on the recommendation of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Specific Learning Difficulties. That survey was to that time the only reliable data on learning difficulties in regard to literacy and numeracy in Australia. That Committee reported that, in Australia, one child in every classroom of 10-year-olds is virtually unable to read. One child in every three or four classrooms of 14-year-olds was not an independent reader. The survey conducted in 1975 further indicated that 18 per cent of 10-year-olds were unable successfully to transcribe a passage of 49 words, that 4 per cent of 14-year-olds could not subtract nine from 17 and that 15 per cent to 20 per cent of students were seen by their teachers as needing remedial instruction in reading and number work. The 1980 survey, which followed the 1975 survey, indicated that there had been some slight improvement in the quality of literacy and numeracy in Australia. But the Australian Education Council in fact has decided to discontinue what was designed to be a longitudinal study over many years indicating to the nation as a whole just where we are advancing in basic skills. The lack of information can cause needless and extensive anxiety when wild accusations are made on the levels of literacy and numeracy in Australia. To have no information is most discouraging for teachers and for schools. It provides decision makers with little information on remediation and programs to assist children in schools. A survey conducted on a regular basis provides information on standards whereas without that information we rely on empirical information which is not sound and which has not been scientifically based. Nor can it be argued against or assessed. A recommendation of the Select Committee was for a regular survey conducted on a four or five yearly basis. The 1980 survey was conducted with a few modifications to the 1975 survey and in fact indicated that there had been some slight improvement in literacy and numeracy in Australia. A further aspect of this important survey that has now been discontinued is the obvious link with employment prospects. The report of the Myers Committee of Inquiry into Technological Change in Australia and the report of the Williams Committee on Education, Training and Employment both mentioned the important link between levels of literacy and numeracy and employment prospects. The only way in which we can assess how we are coping as a society is to have some objective assessment. How can society, how can we as a community or a nation, accept responsibility? How can members of Parliament accept their responsibilities as elected members of Parliament unless they have some objective assessment by which to gauge the improvement, the advances, the changes in education? A regular four or five yearly survey is essential when one considers that there are between 380,000 to 480,000 adult illiterates throughout Australia today. Sixty five per cent of those adult illiterates are aged under 30 years. They are the recent results of education and the people under threat in the job market. In a report prepared by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission called 'Learning and Earning', the author makes some remarks about the role and responsibility of those who are teaching young people and decision makers. On page 71 the report states: The differing levels of school attainment of young people are linked to the variations in their subsequent activities in post-school education and the labour force. There is a very heavy concentration of low-achieving youngsters in the least attractive post-school destinations-low-skill jobs, long-term unemployment, or total withdrawal both from the labour force and from education. To support further the importance of education and job prospects I refer to what is now a rather old report but one which I think all members of the House would endorse and have regard for. It is the report prepared in 1977 by the Australian Government Commission of Inquiry into Poverty, the Henderson report. I refer particularly to the Poverty and Education Series entitled 'School Leavers: Choice and Opportunity.' In this report Professor Henderson made a very strong plea to educators. He said: Curriculum design must apply itself to the student's need for increased options in her life choices. Teachers do not have a right to experiment on students, without justifying the program with research and debate. They must be accountable and be prepared to defend curriculum experiments with the necessary logic and evidence. The decision made by the Australian Education Council to disband the national survey on literacy and numeracy in fact runs completely contrary to the recommendations made in 1977 by Professor Henderson in which he said, and I repeat: They- The teachers and those who develop the curriculum- must be accountable and be prepared to defend curriculum experiments with the necessary logic and evidence. That has not been done. In my view, it is a scandal that this national survey has been dropped and that it has been seen fit by education Ministers not to continue it. It is important for young people at risk, those 480,000-odd young people who are illiterate, to learn life skills. It is important, whether they become checkout assistants or truck drivers, whether they attend university or whether they take up trade courses. Evidence is available that 30 per cent of students entering technical colleges need some remediation before they can undertake trade courses. What is now needed is a continuation of a yardstick by which basic education can be assessed and proper policies instigated. That yardstick has been removed. We must be able to monitor the achievements of education. We must be able to assess what is happening. In response to the decision made by State Ministers for education and the Federal Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), the President of the Australian Teachers Federation, Mr Van Davey, is reported to have said in Canberra: . . . the council's decision to drop the monitoring program was good news and consistent with federation policy. I quote from the Australian of 10 May 1983: Mr Davey said the national testing scheme had 'anti-education' aspects to it. I think that is a despicable comment from a professional who is supposed to be concerned for the well being of his students and the prospect of young people to gain jobs. Education must be evaluated and it must be evaluated with all the sensitivities and skills available to the nation. Australia needs programs, but planning and successes need to be measured. Mr FREE(Macquarie)(9.43) —This evening I address some comments to the estimates for the Department of Education and Youth Affairs. The details of the Government 's decisions in this area were announced by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) in her guidelines statement on 28 July and they have been given effect to in this Budget. These decisions reflect the very high priority which this Government gives to education. Despite the backlog of failure of the former Administration, despite the difficult financial situation inherited by this Government, funds have been allocated to make a real start in raising standards and to introduce greater equity into our education system. In 1983-84 direct spending on education will rise by 11 per cent to $4.2 billion. Most of this amount, about $3 1/2 billion, will be spent on programs administered by the Commonwealth Schools Commission and the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. A major initiative of the Government among these programs is the provision of over $70m to raise the appallingly low rate of participation of young people in post-compulsory education. The participation and equity program aims to lift secondary retention rates from the present 35 per cent to a point where, by the end of the decade, most young people will have completed a meaningful, useful and fulfilling secondary education. Clearly the program will require broader curricula and new offerings in schools. In many places it will probably require new patterns of organisation. In this respect this evening I particularly commend the New South Wales Minister for Education, the Hon. Ron Mulock, for his recent announcement that a pilot senior high school will be established in western Sydney. The need for action on participation is greatest in that area because that is where many of the local schools have very low retention rates. His action in applying resources to the area of greatest need is entirely in harmony with the philosophy of this Government. Apart from the participation and equity program, other government decisions will provide a new computer education program for secondary schools-that program will cost $18m over three years-will provide for a significant increase in capital funds for government schools and, most importantly, will provide the opportunity for planning on the basis of predictable and stable funding. That opportunity for planning will be provided through three specific measures contained in the guidelines. First of all, the retrospective cost supplementation arrangements that were abolished by the former Government in 1981 will be restored. Secondly, new programs will be funded on a fixed triennial basis. Thirdly, the States will be able to commit in advance up to 70 per cent of capital funds allocated by the Commonwealth in 1984. These three measures together will significantly aid forward planning and allow schools and systems to make plans with some firm basis of fixed funding for the future. In addition, funding for tertiary institutions and tertiary programs has also been increased by 1.5 per cent in real terms. The Government aims next year to increase participation in the tertiary sector by providing an additional $10m for 3,000 extra student places in universities and colleges of advanced education. The Government has asked the Tertiary Education Commission, in recommending on the allocation of these places, to pay particular attention to disadvantaged groups in society, especially those in outer metropolitan areas which have for far too long had relatively little access to higher education. An additional $13m has been provided for the technical and further education sector . Apart from involving TAFE in the participation and equity program, these additional funds will allow at least a start on the capital works backlog in the TAFE sector. It is a pity that the Opposition, in responding to these far-reaching decisions which are clearly addressing the areas of great need in education, has chosen to focus, mostly in a dishonest fashion, on one aspect of the Government's decisions in education. The honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) this evening was no exception. That aspect, of course, is the decision to re-allocate some resources within the non-government sector. Let me this evening very briefly set the record straight. The decision requires a mild re-allocation from the resource rich schools to the resource poor, from a small number of schools, whose private income alone allows them to operate at 95 per cent of standard costs, to the great mass of under-resourced non-government schools. It is not, as has been claimed by the Opposition, a total reduction in funding. Those 41 schools will still receive next year $254 for each primary student and $402 for each secondary student. In other words, those 41 schools which have been the subject of so much misrepresentation by the Opposition will still receive next year a total of $13m from the Commonwealh alone-not counting anything they will be receiving from the States. The decision is not, as the Opposition has claimed , the thin end of the wedge or, as the honourable member for Ryan said this evening, a breaking of the ice. In fact the real level of general recurrent funds going to non-government schools will increase as a whole next year. What will change is the pattern of distribution of those funds with real increases of one per cent to schools in group 2 and 3 per cent to schools in group 3, that is, the largest group containing the neediest schools. Given the Government's firm commitment to direct assistance to those in greatest need, and given that additional resources are scarce, this funding decision, this decision to have a mild re-allocation of resources from those who can well do without to those in great need, is entirely defensible, entirely rational and entirely just. I listened with interest to the comments of the honourable member for Ryan on the areas of need in student assistance and the need for a special program in primary schools. It is certainly true that these were promised by the Australian Labor Party in the campaign leading up to the election on 5 March. The point I want to make this evening is that these decisions in 1983 obviously do not contain all that the Government would like to do in education. We intend to be occupying these benches for many years to come and we will be introducing those programs that we promised. We will be implementing in the years to come those parts of our policy that have not been implemented in this Budget. We will have many years in which to introduce them and in which to introduce new policies. In that sense, increasingly 1984 will come to be seen as a year of transition-a year of transition between the policies of the old Government and the policies of the new, a year of transition between the failures of the past and the promise and achievement of the future. A number of those policies are still being developed and it is for that reason that the Commonwealth Schools Commission has been asked to delay its next triennial report until 1985. I look forward to that report and to the progressive recommendations and implementations of Labor policy that I am confident it will contain. Mr BURR(Wilmot)(9.52) —In the short time available to me tonight I would like to bring some matters before the Government on behalf of the Opposition and ask their clarification. I ask the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) to take them on board. Firstly, Mr Chairman, I would like to address myself to the abandonment of the special youth employment training program. During the period of the previous Government, the Australian Labor Party, in opposition, was constantly critical of that program and claimed that it was not a job creation program. I remind members of the Labor Party that the special youth employment training program was never designed to be a job creation program, but rather, just as its name said, an employment training program to give young people more job skills and therefore better opportunity to offer themselves for employment. In point of fact, though, evidence shows that one- third of those who were taken into the SYETP scheme were retained by their employers as permanent employees. So in that respect it did become a job creation program. The Opposition is confused at the moment because the Government has abandoned the SYETP scheme and replaced it with another scheme called the private sector assistance program. To all intents and purposes, we fail to distinguish the difference between the two schemes. It does appear to us that for political reasons the Government has abandoned the original SYETP scheme only to replace it with an identical scheme and dress it up for political reasons as being some form of new initiative by the Government. Quite apart from that, we would like some clarification as to how the Government thinks this particular new scheme will work. Page 212 of Budget Paper No. 1 states: The new program will replace emphasis on the need for subsidised placements to be additional to normal staff intakes and for the development of formal training standards. The Opposition is concerned at how the Government intends to police intakes additional to the normal intakes of staff. We fear that employers will simply dress up job vacancies as being an additional intake in order to qualify for the subsidies that will be offered under this program, with the net result that that will add to the Government's Budget deficit and will place pressure on interest rates and inflation. In so doing it will place at risk the jobs of unsubsidised employees. The effects over a period will be that a great many jobs will be subsidised by the Government at the expense of unsubsidised jobs. I ask the Minister in his reply to respond to those points on the new private sector assistance program and how he thinks that program will work. I turn to another matter that the Opposition wishes to have clarified. We are a little confused at the estimates for the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations as they compare with the Budget Papers. I refer to a paper entitled ' Department of Employment and Industrial Relations Programs 1983-84'. Appendix B under the heading 'Labour Force Programs and Services' gives a breakdown of the various programs that will be followed by the Department, and the net cost of all of those programs is $733m. Budget Paper No. 1 at page 203 under the heading 'Labour and Employment' also gives a breakdown of the employment and training programs for the Department and gives a total cost of $958.2m. The Opposition is a little confused as to why there should be a discrepancy of $225m between the estimates from the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and those that are finally contained in Budget Paper No. 1. Again, we would be grateful if the Minister could explain the difference of $225m. It is quite a substantial amount, as I am sure the Minister would agree. I raise one other matter in the short time left to me. Whilst it is not contained in the Budget Papers, the Opposition feels that it is absolutely imperative that we have a clarification from the Government of those matters raised by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) when he delivered the John Curtin Memorial Lecture in Perth on 28 September 1983. The speech contained what appeared to be very substantial redirections of policy for the Government and raised very serious questions as to future employment prospects in this country. I will refer to two sections of the Prime Minister's speech. The first reads: However unpalatable it may be, we cannot reasonably expect in the foreseeable future, to return to the experience of the post-war generation where the conventional economy provided full employment, in the historical sense, for everybody who sought work. The next page reads: The plain fact is that no government in Australia will now, or in the forseeable future, solve the problem of unemployment solely through the available methods of increasing the supply of jobs. At least equal attention must be paid to the question of reducing the demand for jobs by helping to provide socially constructive alternatives. Those two statements from the Prime Minister's speech raise very serious social and economic problems for this country. They raise very serious questions about future job prospects. The Prime Minister stated that at least equal attention must be paid to reducing the demand for jobs. I believe that the Opposition and the community of Australia at large have every right to expect a very clear and detailed explanation of what the Government and the Prime Minister mean by those statements. I am not sure that the Minister in his response will be able to provide that explanation, but I ask the Government to provide very detailed explanations of what the Prime Minister intended in the speech he gave in Perth. Mr STAPLES(Diamond Valley)(10.00) —I speak on the allocation to youth affairs in the Budget. In opening, I think it is very important to note, as a very clear indication of the Government's commitment to our young people, the fact that the Office of Youth Affairs has been substantially upgraded now to divisional status within the Department of Education and Youth Affairs. We should note that $1. 488m has been allocated to youth affairs. Within that allocation, $300,000 in 1983-84 is going to be spent on preparation for International Youth Year which will be held the year after next in 1985. The Government's total commitment to International Youth Year over three years stands at $2m which is quite a substantial amount. I believe that we are going to get very good value from that $2m. I have great faith in community bodies such as the Youth Affairs Council of Australia. I have great faith in the dedication and ability of people working in the youth field both in the government and non-government sector. But most of all, I have great faith in the young people of Australia. I think we should be ready to show our faith by giving them more say in the world in which they live. Very few members of this Committee would be so unaware as to suggest that Australia's youth do not have a difficult future in front of them. So many young people today feel quite powerless in a capitalistic, materialistic system that basically encourages unrealistic expectations of career and success in today's economy, that encourages status derived from material wealth, position and power from a rigid adherence to the paid employment ethic as a criterion of social worthiness and really quite a harsh assessment of the values of young people today. Any person who has had any involvement with young people will know that young people will respond enthusiastically to the opportunity to speak out about their lives, to be involved in the community and to participate in decision making because participation itself is a very important word and a very important process. It comes before consensus because one cannot have consensus unless people have been allowed to participate in discussions and the ordering of their lives and to feel part of the decision making process itself. The Youth Affairs Council of Australia has just produced a report entitled ' Creating Tomorrow Today'. Five thousand young people throughout Australia have expressed their views-young people in cities, in rural areas and in disadvantaged communities; young people from wealthy families and poor families. It has not been a simple questionnaire analysis; it has been a consultative process with discussion of issues, with the real involvement of young people. ' Creating Tomorrow Today' is in effect an expose of the attitudes and aspirations of Australian youth. The report proposes directions to us in the key areas of concern to young people. Part one gives us an overview of the situation. Part two details the activities that occurred within each State in the consultative process. This very important area of the report details for us the attitudes of our youth. It details for us in their language, in their feelings, what they believe is happening in their society, in our society. It lays out for us what young people really feel about us and the society we have produced and which we manage. It covers a wide range of subjects. Our young people talk to us through this report about accommodation, education, their own identity, work and unemployment, income security, health, international relations, the law, road safety, the environment, the media, recreation and leisure and human relations. It is there for us to read. It is our children talking to us of their needs, their fears and their hopes. In a nutshell, what it says is that if we are really serious and care about our young people, first of all we need to keep talking with them to develop further our communications in order to shrink the generation gap. We need to be prepared to empower young people, to allow them a role-a new and developing role-in what is essentially a society geared to people much older than themselves. Part of the youth affairs allocation in this Budget will be spent on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development review team which will be visiting Australia from 20 November this year. That review team-an initiative put forward by this Government-is being asked to review government policies and programs in education, training, employment and income support in the light of international experience. The review team will be asked to suggest ways to better meet the needs of young people and to look at the role of income support schemes as incentives to encourage young people to continue education and training. It will be asked to advise whether overseas approaches to providing alternative forms of work and living arrangements for young people, such as co- operatives and community service activities, can be applied successfully in Australia. This review is long overdue and again it is a clear indication of the Government's serious attention to the young people of Australia. Today's young people face problems of a magnitude as great as any generation before them in Australia. This Government's allocation of $1.488m clearly reflects its concern in this regard. As I said before, 1985 is International Youth Year. What will that mean to us? What will it mean to our young people? What will we get for our $2m. Will it be 365 days of tokenism and games or will we really enact laws that will share power with young people, power that bears some relationship to the responsibilities that we place upon them? What we do in International Youth Year will be of vital significance to the wellbeing of our society in the closing years of the twentieth century. The theme of International Youth Year has been set. It is participation, development and peace. I do not think anyone can really complain about that. The participation process has begun and we must not let it fade. This process will be continued. 'Creating Tomorrow Today' issues serious challenges to the Parliament. It issues challenges to government departments, to the non- government youth sector such as the Youth Affairs Council of Australia and other bodies, to the media and to our general community. We have to look at sharing power with young people, communicating with young people, redefining what we call work and what we expect of our young people in a rapidly changing and shrinking world. Our elderly people, who bore the brunt of the depression and the wars, have much to teach us. Clearly our young people of today have much to teach us and I think we should be prepared to learn and also to consult more with young people in a new role, in a new deal for this new generation. We had better do this because, if nothing else, they are going to be pushing our wheelchairs and looking after the switches on our respirators. We also have to look after the people who support and encourage those who are working under very trying conditions with young people. 'Creating Tomorrow Today' gives us the questions and many of the answers. I think I can sum it all up in the words of one of the 5,000 young Australians who expressed their feelings in this report: I wish my parents really cared I just wish people weren't so scared, To listen to us, when we say what we feel, And give us kids a better deal. The allocation of money and the work that is going in to the youth affairs area under this Government will do just that. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(10.09) — I will refer to a couple of matters which were raised by the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr). He referred firstly to the special youth employment training program and suggested that he could not tell the difference between that program, which had been scrapped, and the new private sector assistance program. The reason why he can not tell the difference is that the program has not been scrapped. The special youth employment training program is still being applied and the private sector assistance program, which has been foreshadowed, has not yet been introduced and will not be introduced until 1984. That accounts for the difficulty that the honourable member for Wilmot had in understanding the difference between the new program and the previous Government's program. The private sector assistance program will be introduced in 1984 after there has been a review of training programs. We would like to be sure of the basis on which we introduce it. The objectives are, of course, to make it a sounder scheme than the special youth employment training program. I suggest to the honourable member for Wilmot that his criticism of the PSAP in advance of its introduction and in advance of his knowledge of any detail of that scheme is somewhat premature. In regard to his confusion about the estimates, he referred to the fact that in the White Paper published by my Department at the time of the Budget headed ' Department of Employment and Industrial Relations Programs 1983-84' the total expenditures there as set out in appendix B of the paper showed a total cost of $733m yet Budget Paper No. 1 referred to an expenditure total of $958m. He suggested that there was some inconsistency of a large amount and that it needed to be explained. The simple reason for the difference is that the $733m represents the total allocation on labour force programs, that is, employment and training programs. It represents a very substantial increase indeed on the allocations under the previous Government-an increase of 110 per cent on the allocations in the previous year-for employment and training programs. The increase is substantially, but not solely, accounted for by the introduction of the community employment program and also because of increased expenditure on various training programs. That accounts for the $733m. The difference between that figure and the $958m to which he referred and which is in Budget Paper No. 1 is that the latter figure covers various administrative costs and a couple of other items to which I will refer. The precise breakup of the differences between the $733m and the $958m is that in addition to the expenditure on labour force programs comprising the $733m, there is expenditure of $119m on employment services which relates really to the administration expenditure of the Commonwealth Employment Service. There is also a higher allocation for the wage pause program, representing a portion of the $100m devoted to welfare housing. Honourable members will recall that as part of the wage pause package the previous Government allocated $100m in the calendar year 1983 to welfare housing. Of that $100m, $47.6m remained to be allocated in the second half of 1983 and therefore appears in the Budget under my Department's allocation. An amount of $18.5m is accounted for by the infrastructure support program for the steel regions which we have introduced as part of a comprehensive approach to the steel industry package. Honourable members will recall that the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, has announced details of a protection policy for the steel industry which ensures that we retain such an industry. In addition to that we also announced a $100m infrastructure program for the three steel regions-the Hunter Valley, the Illawarra region and the Whyalla region-to try to boost up their economies which have been utterly devastated by the collapse of the iron and steel industry and the thousands of retrenchments which took place in those regions. That $100m program is over five years. The allocation for this year is $18.5m. Finally, in regard to the difference between the two figures which the honourable member for Wilmot raised, there is $71.6m to cover administrative and other expenses relating to administrative expenditure on employment and youth functions of my Department, including the central and regional offices, and of the Bureau of Labour Market Research. I suggest to the honourable member for Wilmot that there is no cause for concern on his part. The two figures are totally consistent and there is no reason for him to be concerned in any way that we have made a mistake in the Budget Papers. The difference between the $ 733m and the $958m is thoroughly accounted for. Proposed expenditures agreed to. Department of the Treasury Proposed expenditure, $458,586,000. Department of Finance Proposed expenditure, $59,287,000. Advance to the Minister for Finance Proposed expenditure, $150,000,000. Minister for Finance-Special Funds Proposed expenditure, $53,000,000. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(10.16) —In the time available to me I would like to say something about the administration of foreign investment policy under the Hawke Government. I start by saying that I believe that the administration of foreign investment under this Government has been needlessly tightened. This change of policy has been unhelpful to Australia during a difficult economic period. It has given the wrong signal to many overseas investors and it has created unnecessary concern in the minds of potential investors in this country at a time when the Government should be bending its efforts to making this country even more attractive for overseas investment. I do not believe that the change has yet gone so far as to put the administration of foreign investment policy in the same order as that which obtained under the previous Labor Administration. It is still within grasp and the capacity of the Government to adopt a more realistic approach in the administration of foreign investment policy and to prevent its developing a permanent view in the eyes and minds of some overseas investors that foreign investment, having been very welcome in this country on a bipartisan basis allegedly for a number of years, continues to be welcome. I would have thought that in 1983 the arrangements in favour of large-scale foreign investment in Australia were beyond serious dispute. This country simply does not generate sufficient domestic savings to finance the level of investment that is required to provide the rising living standards that are desired by so many people in our community. We must face one simple fact: If we did not have large-scale foreign investment in this country we would have to settle for a lower living standard. We cannot have it both ways; we cannot deny the entry of foreign investment in this country yet expect our living standards to be at the level they are and, indeed, to rise to higher levels. In this context I find it slightly incongruous that a government that on the one hand is adopting a somewhat tighter approach to foreign investment than we did when we were in office on the other hand should take away the tax incentive for the first $1,000 of equity investment that was announced in the last Budget, which would have been an incentive to the generation of a larger level of domestic savings. So I put it to the Committee that there has been a shift in foreign investment policy under the Hawke Government. It has not gone far enough yet to sound a real alarm, but there are some disturbing elements. I hope that in the interests of the maintenance of a high level of bipartisanship in the area of foreign investment it is possible for this tendency to be reversed. I understand that there is outstanding to the House a promised statement from the Treasurer (Mr Keating) about the review of foreign investment policy. I hope the Treasurer takes the opportunity to inform the business community, the public and the Parliament of precisely where this Government stands on the question of foreign investment. In case anybody imagines that the views I am expressing during this debate are mine alone, I remind the House of a number of articles that have appeared in the Australian financial Press from as early as 20 April this year. An article appeared on that date in the Australian Financial Review under the heading 'Foreign equity rules tightened'. Articles were run over the months following that, most of which indicated that there was a tightening of foreign investment policy. Of course, the Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford), in his very roundabout way, in answer to a question I asked in the House the week before last, confirmed that there had been a change of foreign investment policy. He was a little coy about it. He said that there had been a slight shift. But in reality he was a little more honest when he was interviewed by Australian Business when, in answer to a question, he said: . . . and Treasury's Foreign Investment Division are doing a faithful job and are anticipating the political view. In other words, they are anticipating a somewhat different view of the Labor Party towards foreign investment. I think that there are three significant investment proposals which illustrate the point that I am making. The most prominent example of a change of foreign investment policy was the decision of the Treasurer to reject the Citicorp-Grindlays Australia Ltd proposal some several weeks ago. That proposal, which, if accepted, would have resulted in a larger local ownership in the merchant banking sector, was a very peculiar decision. It was very hard to reconcile that decision with the application of foreign investment policy that had gone on under the previous Government. Given that it was in an area where, if anybody has any understanding of the market, it is to be conceded that it will be very hard to find local participants to join in the process of reducing the level of foreign ownership in the non-bank financial institutions area, it was a very strange decision indeed. On that occasion, the Government rejected a proposal that would have created a strong wholly Australian owned merchant bank. It is widely recognised that rationalisation in the merchant banking industry is needed. I might say to the Committee that that state of affairs was recognised to me on many occasions whilst I was Treasurer by the advisers I had then and who have continued as the Government's advisers in this area. The conduct of policy and the precedents clearly provided for approval on that occasion. It was a very strange decision on the part of the Government that it found itself unable to make that particular approval. I think the point has has to be made that, when a Minister has a responsibility to administer foreign investment policy, that Minister is vested with a certain amount of discretion. Foreign investment policy has to be administered according to changing economic circumstances. Quite clearly, when the country is going through an economic recession, when there is a premium on employment maintenance and on rationalisation, the policy ought to be administered in a flexible way according to those requirements. That was certainly the approach that I adopted in the five years when I was responsible for foreign investment policy. Correspondingly, when the level of foreign investment in this country was running at a much higher level and when there was a surge in resource investment in this country, the circumstances allowed-perhaps I can use the expression-a tougher application of the foreign investment rules. I remind the Committee that, during the period when I was Treasurer, the Government did not hesitate to insist very strongly on a 50 per cent local ownership in the two very large coal projects at Oaky Creek and Blair Athol in Queensland, which were recognised by students of foreign investment policy as being acid tests of whether the then Government was prepared to apply the foreign investment rules. I would argue that what is needed at present is a very flexible application of our foreign investment policy. What I fear is happening is that the Government is being a little too doctrinal in the application of foreign investment policy. I do not want to put it any more strongly that that, firstly, because I think it would be unfair to criticise the Government any more strongly than that and, secondly, I do believe very firmly that a bipartisan approach in foreign investment is very desirable in Australia's interests. Whatever our extreme doctrinal views may be about foreign investment, it is very important that potential investors in this country believe that there is a certain continuity of foreign investment policy and that the rules will not change in an ad hoc way when there is a change of government. I conclude my remarks by saying that I do not argue that foreign investment policy has gone back to the days between 1972 and 1975, when it was positively unwelcome, but I believe that there has been a shift. It has been a shift towards a tighter application. It has taken place at a time when, if anything, there should have been a shift towards a looser application. At the moment we are looking for investment. We are looking for decisions that will save jobs, promote rationalisation and, above everything else, encourage investment. As we are frequently reminded in the rhetoric of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer, it is, after all, private sector investment that holds the key to economic recovery and job generation. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke)(10.25) —I want to make some remarks about the Treasury's role in the determination of macroeconomic strategy and also to reply to some of the comments made in relation to that strategy, especially by the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) in a variety of speeches presented to this House. Let me say, first of all, that the claim that the Budget was irresponsible and overexpansionary is obviously nothing more than the familiar selfish, singleminded rehetoric we have come to expect from certain established conservative and relatively privileged people and organisations. The fact is that this Budget has reduced the deficit below that which it would have been without any new Labor Government programs. So, all other things aside, how can this be overexpansionary? But if we look closer, the net injection of government spending amounts to only $650m, which is much closer to the kinds of promises that were made by the honourable member for Bennelong and is certainly a reduction on the total promises that we made. Credit should have been given, by the honourable member for the cautious approach. He appears not to be capable of distinguishing reality from rhetoric in these matters. If it transpires that the Budget does delay our recovery, as the honourable member claims, it certainly will not be because of any overexpansion or lack of importance placed upon a United States of America recovery. It is clear that the honourable member for Bennelong, the shadow Treasurer, looks upon the proposed United States recovery as our potential saviour but gives no specific policies that could maximise the benefits flowing from it other than his familiar belt tightening, low budget deficits and the sort of rhetoric which I noticed dominated the Liberal council over the weekend. That, by the way, will ensure the perpetuation of the Australian Labor Party in power for a long time. The honourable member does not seem to know if the recovery has commenced and for how long it can be sustained. To hinge such a large part of our recovery on something which may never happen-I am talking about a sustained United States recovery-obviously lacks direction and, in my view, is totally irresponsible. Indeed, in my view this Budget has not been expansionary enough to reverse the trend in unemployment, but at least we will not have the 12 per cent to 13 per cent unemployment this financial year which would have been the case if the honourable member for Bennelong had been the Treasurer. In this context it is important to note that generally the strongest argument against increased government expenditure came not from employers but from within the Treasury and from the Federal Opposition. The main argument relates to the effect on domestic interest rates of an expansion of the Budget. An expansion of the Budget does not necessarily mean an expansion of the deficit. This is something which people seem to have confused. This anti-expansionist school of thought is dominant in certain circles including, unfortunately, sections of the Treasury. The main argument states that the larger the Budget deficit, the larger is the government borrowing requirement, the greater the upward pressure on interest rates and so the greater the extent to which public spending will be offset by reductions in private spending. This proposition that private spending reductions will follow increases in public spending in a situation of less than full employment is a purely monetarist claim. It is in direct contrast to the Keynesian tenet that, at less than full employment, increases in government expenditure will necessarily produce multiplier effects which will result in increased national income and private savings. From increased private savings further private investment can be financed so that, at least in the short run, private spending will never be fully crowded out. All empirical evidence supports this. The extent to which crowding out occurs will depend on the sensitivity of the bond market to changes in the interest rates. The monetarist notion that public spending increases will be fully offset by private spending may well be valid in a situation of full employment, but it is all but unqualified nonsense in an environment of high unemployment and rapidly contracting investment expenditure. In this regard, the Treasury's ideology has been proved false. Australian interest rates have fallen , notwithstanding a large Budget deficit of $8.5 billion. There seems little likelihood that they will increase in the foreseeable future because, as Treasury predicts, private sector investment will fall by 14 per cent in 1983-84 and so will place no extra pressure on the financial market. Progress reported. Student Accommodation-Death of Lady Gorton-Prescribed Payments System- Immigration-Queensland Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr FISHER(Mallee)(10.30) —I wish to raise a matter of very widespread concern to country people who have students wishing to further their education in Melbourne. This concern is due to two recent actions, the first by the Victorian Government through its Minister of Education, Mr Fordham, and the second by the Federal Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan). The Victorian Government has proposed the closure of a number of student hostels presently housing tertiary students. The Victorian Minister has wiped his hands of responsibility for this action and is reported as saying that the Federal Government is responsible. Unfortunately, the Federal Government, through the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, has taken a decision that will reduce the small amount of assistance that residential colleges and halls receive at present. It has reduced by 25 per cent the $9 received per student a week which increases the costs of these colleges and halls by $2.50 a week. I call on the Federal Minister to clarify this situation and explain to country people why the Government is attacking students who are already disadvantaged in endeavouring to obtain tertiary education. These residences have provided a necessary transition to urban life for first and second year tertiary students for many years. They provide parents with some security in the knowledge that their children are living in a satisfactory environment with good meals, accommodation and supervision. Such residences allow for friends to be made and relate to new forms and places of education. After a year or two in these hostels, the transition to flats and shared houses can be made with people they know and respect, in the knowledge that such a move is satisfactory to their needs. A recent national survey, by Professor David Beswick of the Centre for Study of Higher Education at Melbourne University, into student finances indicates the seriousness of these decisions by the two Australian Labor Party governments. The survey shows that the majority of students in residential colleges are from country regions; that 80 per cent, of necessity, must live away from home to obtain tertiary education; that more than half of these students come from government schools; and that a quarter of these students come from families where the combined parental income before tax is less than $300 per week. The survey also confirms the view I expressed earlier that these hostels are invaluable in ensuring a smooth transition from school to tertiary studies and results in more people persevering with their studies. These young people from country regions will have few alternatives. The few hostel places available will not be available to many, particularly the important group of first year students. These young people often do not know of their acceptance into institutions until February. Naturally, by then, these hostel places have already been assumed by second and third year students. The other alternative for first year students in the future will be to rent flats or houses in a market that is desperately short of rental accommodation, when what is available is usually sub-standard and rented at excessive rates. As well, it is not easy to find someone to share with or to negotiate such arrangements when people may be living up to 400 kilometres from Melbourne. Country students get very little assistance despite the added disadvantages of distance and separation from their families. The decline in real terms in the real value of the tertiary education assistance scheme allowance following the August Budget and the decision to scrap the former Government's student loans scheme compounds these difficulties. These cuts affect not just those eligible for TEAS but also a large group of students who receive neither a TEAS allowance nor parental support and who must rely on, with some difficulty, obtaining part time employment to complete their tertiary studies. It is, indeed, ironic that governments which engage in a rhetoric that indicates a concern for the educational disadvantaged are reducing support in so many areas. One only has to see the implication of the Federal Budget and now the Victorian Budget to realise the breaking of promises and the injustices being wrought on students and parents in their freedom of choice and their right of access to tertiary education. I therefore ask these two Ministers for Education to stop passing the buck, to tell us who is responsible for this action and to tell us why support to country students is being reduced. Let us hope that, in the name of social equity, this is not another method of changing funding direction that will result in mediocrity in education. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance)(10.35) —I just want to take a moment or two to express my very great sorrow at the passing in Canberra on Sunday of Lady Gorton. When John Gorton became Prime Minister of Australia we found in Betty Gorton a refreshing change in the way in which she saw her role. She resisted the temptation to be seen simply as an extension of her notable husband who himself imprinted a new character on the role of Prime Minister; a character which was much admired by the Australian people. When John Gorton became Prime Minister Betty Gorton became the first Prime Minister's wife who did not conform to the role, too easily assigned, of dutiful consort and shadowy partner. I do not underestimate the difficulty of being a Prime Minister's spouse. But the example that Lady Gorton set made the task very much easier for all her successors. She was also I think part of the beginning of encouraging more and more women in Australia to pursue their traditional interests. I quote from one of the very few Press interviews which Lady Gorton gave on 25 February 1971: Though she has filled a busy, hectic life Mrs Gorton does not see why she should be set up as an example to other women. This is part of her charm. Not dictating from her own experience, she qualifies everything with a generous concern for the individual. 'Every woman must create her interests', she said. But how much she does this outside the home or not depends on her personality. 'If some women put all their talents into their home and this satisfies them, that is how it should be'. But of course this was not sufficient for Lady Gorton. She pursued a wide range of interests in her own right. Lady Gorton was born in the United States of America. She and John Gorton met while both of them were holidaying in Spain in 1935. At the time she was a student at the Sorbonne. They returned to Australia and soon married. She lived the early part of her married life first as a farmer 's wife and then of course she became a farmer when her husband enlisted in the Royal Australian Air Force. After that she followed her husband's career and supported him as he entered the Australian Senate and then became Prime Minister of Australia. Throughout his political career she continued to pursue her own very active interests in studying Asian languages, in undertaking a degree in oriental studies and compiling a dictionary in English-Malay. She was very much a mould- breaker. She was very much a quiet example for all Australians but particularly for all Australian women. She was a woman who was able to develop her own interests very actively but was still able to continue her role as wife, mother and grandmother. She was certainly not afraid to speak her mind. But at the same time she valued her privacy very much and, as a result, we were only allowed very occasional and brief glimpses of this very remarkable woman. Lady Gorton made a very important contribution to the life of the country that she adopted. I express in a very personal way my sympathy for her husband and her family. Mr DRUMMOND(Forrest)(10.40) —I want once more to alert the House to the financial and bureaucratic nightmare that this Government has created with its prescribed payments system. A research paper prepared in the Parliamentary Library has suggested that 900 new positions will be required in the Taxation Office for people to work as field staff and simply to do the paper work. It is well-understood by small businessmen in the south-west of Western Australia that this withholding tax will disrupt cash flows. Even where there was an excess of deductions over tax liability, that cash would not have been available for use in the business. We understand also the attitude of the Government as expressed by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh), who dismissed the effects of the tax by saying: 'Builders are always going to the wall; nothing is new about that'. Let me emphasise, however, that it is not just the reduction in cash flow that affects so many businessmen but the new burden of paper work. It has been reliably estimated that a builder contracts with about 25 sub-contractors on each house that he builds. On average, about 50 separate payments will be made among those 25. If 100,000 homes are built in a financial year, five million deduction forms will have circulated between the building industry and the Taxation Office-never mind the transport and cleaning industries. Just because a business may have been lucky enough to secure an exemption or have a lesser sum deducted from its payments, it does not mean that the paper work reduces. All payments must be reported, and payer and payee each complete a detailed form. Honest taxpayers will suffer this burden as much as anyone. The system will impose costs on time and require extra staff that a small enterprise cannot afford. This nightmare of paperwork will extend to the officers of the accountants who must prepare the claims for reductions or exemptions from the prescribed payments. One accountancy firm in my electorate found that 90 per cent of its contractor clients supplied materials and paid wages, requiring a deduction of 10 per cent. Preparing estimates of cash flow for some 300 clients and typing and forwarding them to the Taxation Office would exceed some 500 hours. A further 50 hours would be needed if 10 minutes per client were to be spent in arranging interviews and explaining the legislation-a conservative estimate. So with the three principals of the firm working a 50-hour week it took four weeks constant work to complete the necessary information after 8 August, when mail could be first sent out. Inevitably, some of this administrative cost will have to be passed back to small business. We must bear in mind also that the prescribed payments deductions of up to 25 per cent will not replace the existing tax obligations of small businesses, particularly quarterly tax instalments based on the previous year's profits. In simple terms, people will pay more tax and a refund at the end of the year will not compensate for the fact that money had to be borrowed to meet the extra costs, both the direct loss of cash and the increased cost of administration. Unlike the provisional tax, which small business understands, this new tax will be levied on gross assessable income rather than net taxable income. It is a significant departure from what was previously considered fair. Any concerned Australian without vested interests in this matter would doubt the ultimate social benefit of eliminating the evasion in the cash economy at the cost of crippling so many legitimate small businesses. The value of the exercise diminishes further when we realise that a loophole has been allowed, exempting building work valued at less than $10,000 from being reported. Contractors who specialise in minor home repairs and improvements enjoy a privileged status. We all know that this is the classic area for cash payments by householders, and no further questions asked. The operation of the prescribed payments system, as developed by the Hawke Government, makes as much sense as the manufacture of buckets with holes bored in the bottom. As an attack on the cash economy it will obviously be ineffective . In its wider context it makes no sense for a government to try to stimulate the housing industry while hamstringing Australia's builders with a drastic reduction in cash flow and a massive administrative burden. Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(10.45) —In this enlightened age of ours anyone might be forgiven for thinking that the right of a daughter to go anywhere to look after her elderly and invalid father is one that should be taken for granted. But it would appear that if this means the daughter changing her abode from one country to another the human factor begins to lose its significance in the face of all kinds of regulations and restrictions. Even so, more often than not I think a way can be found if the need is imperative enough. In most countries even bureaucrats have some scope for exercising some normal human feelings, and most rules can be bent a little. I seem to have come across an exception to this in the case of an elderly citizen of Whyalla, Mr Peter Lacis and his daughter Benita, who lives in the Soviet Socialist Republic of Latvia. Mr Lacis is a paraplegic confined to a wheelchair. He is in his early sixties but looks older. He is a man under stress because for years he has been waging a losing battle with Soviet officialdom to get permission for his daughter Benita to leave the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and join him in Whyalla. At one stage the Lacis family thought they had won. Benita had acquired a passport. The Australian immigration authorities had given their blessing. It seemed all over except for one or two formalities. There was a brief setback when both realised they had been so preoccupied with the bureaucratic battle that they were financially unprepared for the sudden turnabout in fortune. The way Peter Lacis solved this gives some idea of the strength of this desire for this family reunion. Somehow he managed to persuade a credit union to lend him $2,000 on the basis of his invalid pension. He bought the plane ticket and sent it to his daughter. She wrote him a very happy letter. She was looking forward, she said, to her own four-year-old daughter spending her next birthday in Australia. Then, unaccountably, Benita's letters stopped coming. Mr Lacis was frantic with worry, and at this stage he sought my help. Having originally left Latvia hastily after the Russian annexation because he refused to give allegiance to any nation other than his own, he feared for his daughter's safety. In his loneliness his imagination conjured up fears of old scores being settled through the family. I could find out nothing except that there appeared to be nothing left preventing her departure. Then came a very sad letter. Virtually on the eve of completing arrangements to leave, Benita had encountered the final bureaucratic block. Her exit visa had been refused. The reasons given were that her emigration from the USSR to live with her father was neither necessary nor desirable. She had been a baby when he left the country and she had not grown up with him. Therefore, the family tie had become purely a nominal one by this time and did not justify a change of country. I think anyone in this country would hold the view that the best person to make a judgment like that would be the daughter herself. In the more mechanistic society on the other side of the Iron Curtain it seems that those in authority not only have the divine gift of being able to assess the value of everybody's family and personal relationships, but also have the almighty power to put their judgments into effect. When I approached the Soviet Embassy on behalf of Peter Lacis I was told the Embassy could not intervene and I was advised to write to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Latvia. I did so in May and again in July this year. Neither letter has had any acknowledgment. Meanwhile Mr Lacis continues to live for the letters he gets every few weeks from Benita. The anti-climax of nearly winning and then having the Iron Curtain rung down on him has left its mark. He is prone to tears now at the mere mention of his daughter's name. I wonder whether there is any way of getting through to those with the power to make decisions like this that ordinary people also matter. I raise this personal humane problem in this House tonight and I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) to intervene, with all the resources at his disposal in his Department, in order to help Mr Lacis obtain his goal of family reunion. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(10.50) —Mr Speaker, you will recall that last week the Australian Broadcasting Corporation brought to the attention of people in Australia that magnificent victory at Rhode Island. This week those of us who have the opportunity to watch ABC television will be most grateful to the Corporation for allowing us to relive those wonderful weeks in Queensland last year when Brisbane hosted the Commonwealth Games. Those of us who were there on opening day will recall that many distinguished visitors came to the Games. One special visitor and his wife received a tumultuous welcome which was obviously reserved for people who have a special place in the hearts and minds of all decent living Australians. That person was the Premier of Queensland and his wife who is a member of the other place. Quite obviously people are attracted to good solid leadership. They are attracted to winners. They like to get on the band wagon. The praise that was heaped on the Premier of Queensland will be reflected in the voting in the Queensland election on 22 October this year. I am often amazed by the fact that those wonderfully spectacular events are shown on television when equally spectacular events occur which are not brought to the notice of most people. I want to bring to the notice of people in Australia that in Queensland spectacular events occur all the time. As at December last year, Queensland accounted for 16.01 per cent of Australia's population. The growth rate is 3.17 per cent, twice that of the national average of 1.7 per cent and more than twice that of New South Wales with 1.4 per cent. It is approaching three times that of Victoria's growth rate which is 1.2 per cent. Of course, New South Wales and Victoria are led by Labor Premiers. The net migration of people storming up to Queensland from the southern States of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia was, on a yearly basis 42,172; on a monthly basis, 3,500; and on a weekly basis, 800. We find that the sum total of the population losses in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia is considerable. People are leaving those three States to go to Joh Bjelke-Petersen 's Queensland. Last year Queensland gained 28,241 people from these States. New South Wales lost 15,771 people, Victoria 9,317 and South Australia 5,591. People might think that this is just a short term gain to Queensland, but if we look back to three years, we find this trend was being reflected then. People want to come to Queensland to enjoy good leadership, experience stability, and live in a climate where people's rights are respected and acknowledged. In the last three years Queensland increased its population by 201,300. New South Wales , led by Nifty, increased its population by only 192,000, Victoria by 113,000 and South Australia by 29,500. That reflects consistent and steady growth for Queensland. People want to go to a State where there are no shackles, where people can go ahead and make a business investment, secure in the knowledge that they will be living in the lowest taxed State per head of population in the Commonwealth. The Queensland tax figure is $496.51 per head of population. The New South Wales tax per head is an astronomical $652.49. Victoria beats even New South Wales. It is top of the tree with a tax per head of $668.15. The figures for South Australia and Western Australia are $474.46 and $504.25 respectively. Honourable members will understand the position. I do not understand why you, Mr Speaker, a sound, sensible man have not moved up to Queensland where people pay less tax than in any State in Australia. People do not pay gift duties; there is very little land tax; and there are no death duties. The greatest barometer, surely, of any success in a State must be the number of-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WELLS(Petrie)(10.55) —It is very hard for me to listen to the simpering inanities of the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) without making some sort of reply. He referred to the rights of Queenslanders as being respected and acknowledged. A few of them are not. If people go to Queensland hoping for an education their rights will not be respected. Their rights will be delimited by what the Government thinks it is appropriate for them to know- Mr McVeigh —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for the honourable member for Petrie to talk with his hand in his pocket? Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr WELLS —If they wished to have an education their rights would not be respected. If they wished to march in the streets their rights would not be respected. If they wished to cast a democratic vote their rights would not be respected. The honourable member for Darling Downs referred to the faster population growth rate in Queensland. That is one of the very few rights that remains respected in Queensland. He referred to the higher taxes which he said are charged in other States. In fact in the last few years the taxes in States which have Labor governments have gone down whereas in Queensland taxes have been going up. The honourable member for Darling Downs can point in his simpering, incompetent way, to lists of figures which seem to indicate-- Mr Ian Cameron —Mr Speaker-- Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for Maranoa-- Mr Ian Cameron —Mr Speaker, tourism has been one of the main features of the Bjelke-Petersen Government. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Had the honourable member for Petrie concluded his remarks? He resumed his seat. Mr WELLS —No, Mr Speaker. I thought there was a point of order. Mr SPEAKER —There was no point of order. Mr WELLS —Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the simian antics of the honourable member for Maranoa-- Mr Ian Cameron —I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. I believe you gave me the call. I believe that the Bjelke-Petersen Government in Queensland-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! It was on the understanding that the honourable member for Petrie thought that a point of order was raised. I thought he had concluded. I call the honourable member for Petrie. Mr Ian Cameron —On a point of order, Mr Speaker; he has concluded. He does not know what he is talking about anyway. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Petrie. Mr WELLS —Notwithstanding the simian antics of the honourable member for Maranoa , I would like to reply to the points that were made in such a perverse and drivelling way by the honourable member for Darling Downs. He suggests that the State taxes in the southern States are higher than taxes in Queensland. His suggestion missed out on the fact that-- Mr McVeigh —Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. That is not a point of order. His claim should be made at the appropriate time. I call the honourable member for Petrie. Mr WELLS —What the honourable member overlooks is the fact that in those southern States taxes have been going down over the last few years particularly under Labor governments, whereas in Queensland the taxes have been going up. The honourable member can produce lists of figures which show that X is higher than Y-- Mr Ian Cameron —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Bjelke-Petersen people can prove that the taxes in Queensland have gone down. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. That is not a point of order. I should warn the honourable member that he can have action taken against him for making frivolous points of order. I call the honourable member for Petrie. Mr WELLS —Two States in which there have been considerable population increases are Western Australia and Queensland. There has been considerable migration to those States. Of course there has been, because these are the resource rich States. These changes reflect the resource base of this country and the demography of this country. They do not reflect anything whatever about the government of this country. The Government of the State of Queensland is the most breathtakingly incompetent government. These people who posturingly claim that they are capable economic managers are the people who have run the State of Queensland into the direst condition in which it has been for generations. These are the very people who, by trampling upon every democratic right and making a mess of every efficient institution that was established by the previous Labor Government, have benefited from the good fortune consisting totally of the resource richness of the States which they represent. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(11.00) —Mr Speaker, I would like to-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 10.30 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Dawkins to present a Bill for an Act relating to social security and related matters. Mr Dawkins to present a Bill for an Act relating to repatriation and related matters. Mr Hurford to present a Bill for an Act to grant financial assistance to the Northern Territory. Mr John Brown to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Act 1966. Mr John Brown to present a Bill for an Act to provide for the payment of bounty on the production of certain tractor cabs. Mr John Brown to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Bounty (Injection- moulding Equipment) Act 1979. The following Papers were deemed to have been presented on 4 October: Air Force Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 170. Australian Antarctic Territory Act-Ordinances 1983-No. 1-Migratory Birds ( Amendment). Australian Capital Territory Representation (House of Representatives) Act- Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 Nos 177, 182. Australian National University Act-Statutes 1983-No. 168-Convocation Amendment Statute No. 10. Commonwealth Electoral Act and Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act- Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 Nos 176, 181. Companies (Acquisition of Shares-Fees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 185. Companies (Fees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 184. Dairy Produce Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 1975. Dairy Products (Export Inspection Charge) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 174. Dried Fruit (Export Inspection Charge) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 173. Edible Oils (Export Inspections Charge) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No . 189. Eggs (Export Inspection Charge) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 187. Extradition (Foreign States) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 Nos 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169. Family Law Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 192. Fish (Export Inspection Charge) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 172. Grain (Export Inspection Charge) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 188. Health Insurance Act-Statements (3) of particulars of Ministerial determinations authorised under section 106AA. Heard Island and McDonald Islands Act-Ordinances 1983-No. 1-Migratory Birds ( Amendment). Lands Acquisition Act- Land, etc., acquired for Telecommunications Services purposes, Pambula, New South Wales. Statement by the Minister describing land acquired by agreement under sub- section 7 (1) of the Act, for specified public purposes. Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Act-Regulations-Statutory rules 1983 No. 191. Navigation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 180. Northern Territory Representation Act and Commonwealth Electoral Act- Regulations-Statutory Rules Nos 178, 183. Postal Services Act-By laws 1983-Postal (Amendment) No. 2. Public Accounts Committee Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983-No. 179. Public Service Act- Appointments- Department of Health-N. K. Atkinson. Department of Social Security-D. A. Collins, A. E. Meredith, D. J. Smith. Determinations 1983-No. 18. Seat of Government (Administration) Act Determination made under the Sewerage Rates Ordinance. Ordinances 1983- No. 26-Sewerage Rates (Amendment). No. 27-Crimes (Amendment). Securities Industry (Fees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 186 Student Assistance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 171. Wool Industry Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 190. Communications (21) between Mr Hawke (Prime Minister) and Mr Everingham (Chief Minister of the Northern Territory) Joint memorandum from the Premier of South Australia and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory in support of the railway. Notes of meeting with Mr Hawke by representatives of the Northern Territory and South Australian Governments and officials of the Department of Transport, dated 18 August 1983. Planning and Design-Paper by D. P. Smith prepared for International Rail Track Conference, Newcastle, N.S.W., 12-16 September 1982. Submission presented to Mr Hawke by the Lord Mayor of Darwin and the Mayors of Alice Springs, Katherine, and Tennant Creek; dated 22 August 1983. Summary of documents. The following papers were presented: Mr Beazley-Tax payable on lump sum payments-Pilots aged 55 years or over-Tables (3). Mr Lusher-Alice Springs-Darwin railway-Documents- The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 53 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: Will he guarantee that the previous concession, allowing primary producers to write off in full in the year of expenditure the cost of providing dams, bores and water reticulation facilities as a means to protect themselves against drought, will be continued in its present form under the present Government. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No alterations to existing concessions were made in the 1983-84 Budget. Question No. 54 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: (1) Is it a fact that many areas of Australia, particularly in the eastern States, are into their 3rd and 4th year of drought. (2) If so, has the Government carried out its election promise to eliminate the annual base expenditure levels by a State after 2 years of continuous drought. (3) If not, why not. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) Some areas of Australia, particularly in the eastern States, were experiencing their 3rd and 4th year of drought when drought breaking rains began falling last autumn and the need for drought relief eased. Since then the Government has authorised a review of the existing Natural Disaster Relief Arrangements-NDRA-between the Commonwealth and the States. This review, which will be undertaken by the Department of Finance in consultation with Departments of Prime Minister and Cabinet and Primary Industry as well as the relevant authorities in each State and the Northern Territory, is expected to be completed by the end of this year. In addition, the Australian Agricultural Council agreed in August to establish a National Drought Consultative Committee, comprising representatives of the Commonwealth and State Governments and relevant primary industries, to review and develop appropriate policies for drought relief in future. The matter raised by the honourable member will be considered in the context of these two reviews. Question No. 57 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: (1) Further to his statement in his 'Policies for Agriculture', in which he states that a Labor Government will maintain existing drought arrangements and also provide additional measures, first to ensure all types of farmers receive equitable treatment and, second to extend aid after drought breaking rain, what additional drought measures have been provided. (2) Will he extend the Commonwealth Fodder and Interest Payments Subsidies to horse and goat breeders, thereby ensuring that all types of farmers receive equitable treatment. (3) What aid will the Government extend to farmers after drought breaking rain. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I have proposed several initiatives to help cope with the effects of drought. They include development of predictable, equitable guidelines which indicate precise criteria for both drought declaration and the type and level of payment by the Commonwealth and States. These objectives are well on the way to being achieved. The recent meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council, of which I am Chairman, considered a comprehensive report on drought policies which had been prepared by a Working Group of the Standing Committee on Agriculture. The main conclusion of the report was that drought policy should primarily be designed to minimise economic hardship to individuals from drought and encourage an efficient allocation of resources. The Council agreed to the establishment of a National Drought Consultative Committee to comprise economic, technical and administrative expertise from the Commonwealth, States and the Northern Territory and a representative of the National Farmers' Federation. (2) The Commonwealth Fodder Subsidy was terminated on 30 June 1983. It was applicable only to sheep and cattle. It was aimed at preserving breeding stocks of the Nation's two most important animal industries and this need has now been largely overcome. The Interest Subsidy will continue until 31 December 1983. It is available to eligible drought affected bona fide primary producers irrespective of their type of enterprise. (3) There have been general drought breaking rains. The Interest Subsidy Scheme is available to farmers whose properties were drought declared at some stage after 1 September 1982 and will continue to be available until 31 December 1983. All measures under the Natural Disaster Relief arrangements continue to apply in areas which are still drought declared. The Government has also made available $35m under the Rural Adjustment Scheme in 1983-84. This compares with $18.4m in 1982-83. In addition, an amount of $11m was made available under the Rural Adjustment Scheme for carry-on loans to sugar cane growers in Queensland and New South Wales. Question No. 58 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: (1) Given his stated commitment to supporting the research needs of the wool industry, will existing funding for wool research be (a) maintained, (b) increased or (c) decreased in 1982-83. (2) Will funding levels be (a) maintained, (b) increased or (c) decreased in 1983-84. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Finance for the full program of wool research approved for 1982-83 will be available for expenditure by grantees from the Wool Research Trust Fund. (2) On 22 July 1983 I announced grants totalling $20.8m from the Wool Research Trust Fund for sheep and wool research in 1983-84. These grants, recommended by the Australian Wool Corporation reflected an increase of more than 11 per cent on the $18.7m allocated in 1982-83. Question No. 60 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: Under his policies for agriculture, does he require that all meat inspectors under the National Meat Inspection Service-NMIS-should meet NMIS standard and be retrained to that standard at Commonwealth expense; if so, how many meat inspectors will require retraining, and what will be the cost to the Commonwealth of that retraining. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes, it is one of this Government's stated policies that all meat inspectors will be required to meet the NMIS standard and that the retraining will be at Commonwealth expense. My Department has just received a report from a private sector consultancy firm which was engaged during the time of the previous Government to carry out a training needs study of inspection staff in the Export Inspection Service. The report contains some 55 recommendations and includes a detailed assessment of the financial and manpower resources necessary to implement efficient and effective training programs. My Department is presently evaluating the report with a view to the early implementation of many of the training programs recommended. The training will cover inspection staff (both meat and other products) employed by the Export Inspection Service-some 2250 at 31 August 1983. The Government is vitally concerned with the training of the Export Inspection Service's inspection staff and has provided at Commonwealth expense $420,000 this financial year to ensure that essential training needs are met. Question No. 61 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: (1) Has the Queensland Government constantly opposed the concept of a single National Meat Inspection Service-NMIS-in Australia. (2) If so, how does he propose to implement his election promise to create a single NMIS, and will he use similar tactics to those being adopted by his Governemnt in the dams dispute with Tasmania. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) In December 1982, my Department was advised by the Queensland Department of Primary Industries that they felt no substantial progress could be made on this matter until the Commonwealth-Victorian arrangements under consideration at that time had reached the stage where the proposals were more adequately defined. In this context in April this year my department directed to the Victorian Department of Agriculture a Discussion Paper on possible proposals aimed at the achievement of a single National Inspection Service -NMIS. A copy of this Discussion Paper was also sent at that time to the Director-General of the Queensland Department of Primary Industries. Since then discussions have taken place on this matter between officials of the relevant Commonwealth and State Departments. I am pleased to say that the Victorian Government has recently indicated it is prepared to enter into negotiations with the Commonwealth on the subject of a single meat inspection service. I hope that this recent development along with the establishment of a single service arrangement in New South Wales from 1 July this year, will accelerate the establishment of a single National Inspection Service. Question No. 62 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: Does the Government still remain committed to its promise not to introduce a sales tax or an excise tax on wine; if so, over what period does this promise extend. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Treasurer announced in the Budget Speech the immediate imposition of an excise duty on grape spirit used for fortifying wine. Numerous winemakers have raised a particular objection to collection of this excise duty prior to the sale of the wine products in which the spirit is used. The Government is prepared to consider industry views on this matter and to this end I have sought a detailed submission from the Australian Wine and Brandy Producers' Association. Question No. 67 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the decision of the Queensland Government to increase the price of milk to Queensland milk producers to meet higher feeding costs, caused by the drought. (2) Is it a fact that the Victorian Government has not allowed such an increase ; if so, will he ask the Victorian Government to change its attitude on this matter in the interests of Victorian dairy farmers. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) This is a matter for the Victorian Government. Question No. 69 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: (1) Did the Government undertake during the election campaign to provide $4m in the 1st year, rising to a minimum of $20m by the 4th year, for a National Soil Conservation Scheme. (2) If so, when will the 1st payments be made to the States under the scheme. (3) Will payments be made directly to primary producers under the scheme. (4) Who will determine what projects are to be funded under the scheme. (5) Given the Government's often stated sense of urgency about soil conservation, will the scheme be operational, and funds flowing, by 30 June 1983 ; if so, what sums will be paid to the States by the end of 1982-83. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) (3) (4) and (5) A sum of $1m was allocated for the National Soil Conservation Program in the 1983-84 Budget. The Program will be established in co-operation with the States and developed in accordance with land use principles and national water resource priorities. Details of the Program will be announced when I finalise discussions with the States on the matter. Question No. 70 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: Is he able to say precisely what level of funding the Government proposes to provide for wool promotion after 1982-83. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Government announced, as part of its Budget that wool promotion funding for 1983-84 will be $20m. Question No. 71 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: (1) Is it a fact that the Government has a preference for carcass over live exports in most circumstances. (2) If so, will the Government promote the sheepmeat export trade at the expense of the live sheep export trade. (3) Will action be taken to withstand pressure from the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union to ensure that the live sheep export trade with the Middle East continues unhindered. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The considerations to be weighed in assessing how national interests can be best served in the context of this question are complex. The Government appreciates the legitimate interests and strong views of meat workers on this issue but also recognises that the live sheep export trade in present circumstances provides major benefits to sheep producers and workers in other industries. The Government prefers carcass to live trade in most circumstances. However, the Government is not opposed to livestock exports provided that the trade does not affect the renewal potential of Australia's flocks or herds, professional animal welfare standards are met and there are adequate safeguards against disease introduction into Australia. (2) and (3) The Government will continue to work with producer bodies and the Australian Council of Trade Unions to seek the successful implementation of the recommendations of the report of the Australian Sheep Meat Study Mission to the Middle East issued in May 1982. These recommendations include financial contribution by the Government to the sheepmeat market development program. Question No. 72 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to decisions by waterfront workers and stevedores not to ship Australian canned fruits products to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics because the ships involved are not manned by Australian seamen. (2) If so, what action is he taking to resolve this issue and so assist the export potential of the canned fruits industry. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am not aware of any waterfront industrial action inhibiting shipments of canned fruit products to the USSR. (2) Since 1981, the Australian Canned Fruits Corporation through one of its marketers, has been associated with negotiations to sell canned fruits to the Soviet Union. Discussions are continuing. Question No. 73 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: Will the Government retain the Australian Wool Testing Authority as an independent body, or will the Authority be restructured as a Government statutory authority. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Australian Wool Testing Authority Limited performs an essential service for woolgrowers. I regard the maintenance of the quality of that service as of particular importance. The company also has a de facto monopoly in the wool testing field in Australia. I shall never be able to see the rationale or any justification for the sale of the AWTA last year, but while ever the new company's test certificates merit and retain the esteem in which they are held internationally and it continues to provide efficient and reasonably priced services, I would be entirely opposed to submitting it to further disruptive restructuring. Question No. 74 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: (1) Does the grain handling industry wish to be treated as a separate borrowing authority for infrastructure purposes in Loan Council considerations. (2) If so, will he support this proposition in the Loan Council. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) I am not aware of any request either to myself or the Treasurer from the various Bulk Handling Authorities-BHAs-in which they sought to be treated as a single body for the purpose of seeking Loan Council approvals of loans for infrastructure projects. I am aware that these authorities are the responsibility of State Governments. Question No. 75 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: (1) Did he state during the 1983 Economic Summit that some existing social welfare policies for farmers are inappropriate and need to be changed. (2) If so, what policies are inadequate and how will they be changed. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) No. For details of my speech to the National Economic Summit on this matter I refer the honourable member to my media release of 13 April 1983 ( Ref PI 83/55). The question of eligibility for welfare assistance by primary producers experiencing severe financial hardship is currently under consideration. Question No. 76 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the serious commercial disadvantages to which statutory authorities, such as the Australian Wheat Board, would be subject under the Freedom of Information proposals if they gave details of their contracts and sales. (2) If so, will he take action so that these details need not be divulged. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The Government has given full consideration to Freedom of Information matters, including the need to ensure that commercial statutory authorities are not disadvantaged by the requirements of the legislation. Recent changes to the Freedom of Information Act announced by the Attorney-General on 24 May 1983 provide protection to statutory authorities for their commercial information, and do not alter the previous safeguards under the Act. Question No. 78 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the fact that there is a desire by young Australians to return to the land. (2) If so, will he introduce a farm apprenticeship scheme, whereby farmers are given the same incentives to train apprentices as other employers. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Any extension of apprenticeship training to farming occupations would be a matter for the State and Territory Governments who have the responsibility for the detailed administration of apprenticeship. Occupations for which apprenticeship training is required are proclaimed by State Governments. The Commonwealth Government provides financial assistance to employers in respect of apprentices under the Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Full-time Training (CRAFT) Scheme, which is administered by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. The Scheme provides wage related rebates to employers who engage apprentices in proclaimed trades which are approved by the Minister, and release them to attend technical education or other approved formal training . State Government industrial training authorities in New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania have already proclaimed apprenticeship arrangements in farming occupations and employers who train apprentices under these arrangements are currently eligible to receive CRAFT rebates. I am advised that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations is prepared to consider approving CRAFT rebates in respect of similar arrangements which may be adopted in other States and Territories. Question No. 80 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: Will the Government extend the Commonwealth interest payments subsidy for one year beyond the lifting of drought declarations, as promised by the previous Government. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Government has decided to extend the interest rate subsidy for drought affected farmers until 31 December 1983. When a drought declaration is lifted, farmers in that area cease to be eligible for the interest rate subsidy but have twelve months to lodge claims for subsidy which accrued prior to the lifting of the drought declaration. Question No. 81 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: (1) Did the Government during the 1983 election campaign undertake to increase involvement in rural research. (2) If so, will Government contributions in 1983-84 be greater than the $30m promised by the previous Government. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) A provision of $27.9m has been made in the 1983-84 Budget for the Rural Industry Research Funds. This compares with an actual expenditure of $21.9m in 1982-83. Question No. 82 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: What action has the Government taken to utilise the report of the Balderstone Committee on Agriculture in Australia. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The report 'Agricultural Policy-Issues and Options for the 1980's', prepared by the working group chaired by Sir James Balderstone canvasses the issues and choices confronting Australia's rural sector. The report was not intended to provide a package of recommendations which would require immediate or simultaneous implementation. Rather it has established a basis for the development of agricultural policy over the decade. In March this year I discussed the report with Sir James Balderstone and, more recently, I met with the working group as a whole for further discussions. As far as the Commonwealth is concerned, the options put forward in the report and the public discussion of individual issues in it will be fully taken into account as issues are considered on a case-by-case basis. Some have already been considered by the Government and recommendations of the working group accepted, for example on the question of overseas borrowing by the Australian Wheat Board, certain aspects of the taxation treatment of primary producers and the Income Equalisation Deposits Scheme. Attention will be given to the report's recommendations when the Government considers the reports by the Industries Assistance Commission on the Rural Adjustment Scheme and the assistance accorded wheat, sugar and dairy products. The report is currently being studied by the Standing Committee on Agriculture which will report on it to the Australian Agricultural Council at its meeting on 1 August 1983. Question No. 84 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a decision by the grain growing industry to allow grain, irrespective of where it is grown, to be shipped through the nearest port, irrespective of State. (2) If so, will the Commonwealth take the initiative to rationalise the grain industry in the most economic manner. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am aware that the Australian Grains Industry Conference held on 26-30 October 1981 called for grain to be moved by the most economic route (road or rail) to seaboard terminals regardless of State boundaries. (2) The Government is committed to exploring ways in which grain handling can be improved. While wheat is the responsibility of the Australian Wheat Board the provision of facilities for the receival, storage, handling and transport of the grain is a responsibility of the States. Consequently, any initiatives to rationalise and co-ordinate these functions will require close consultations with the States as well as grain growing industries. However, there are complex longer term investment, financial and other issues involved in planning Australia's future grain handling and storage needs and there is a need for adequate information to enable the practical options to be considered and discussed by the various parties involved. My Department in association with the Australian Wheatgrowers' Federation is exploring ways in which this information may be obtained and the options identified. Question No. 88 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: (1) What is the future of the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign . (2) Did he advise States that the Government is not able to provide the additional financial assistance sought for the campaign. (3) Is it a fact that the Government promised additional funding to the campaign as part of its election platform. (4) If so, why has the Government reneged on an important election promise within weeks of coming into office and thereby seriously misleading the Australian cattle industry and particularly that sector of the industry in northern parts of Australia. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) This Government is committed to a comprehensive final program to eradicate brucellosis and tuberculosis from the national cattle herd by mid 1992. (2) The States were advised that the Commonwealth involvement in the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign (BTEC) would be reviewed in the 1983-84 budget context. As soon as the budget was handed down the States were informed that the Commonwealth contribution to the campaign would be increased to $12.445m in 1983-84. This represents a 67 per cent increase over the $7.430m contribution in 1982-83. The Commonwealth contribution for tuberculosis compensation has been increased from 50 per cent to 75 per cent of net costs the same as brucellosis. Total Commonwealth expenditure on compensation in 1983-84 is estimated to be $8 .45m. In addition $4m has been provided for special assistance measures to the campaign in remote areas. These measures are aimed at encouraging producers to implement rigorous property programs to ensure their stock are cleared of both diseases. (3) and (4) This Government had done more than promise to maintain BTEC progress. It has provided special assistance for cattlemen in the remote areas to ensure the final eradication of tuberculosis and brucellosis. Question No. 91 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: Will the Government maintain tax incentives for farmers, enabling them to write off in one year expenditure on soil conservation measures on their farms. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No alterations to the existing concession were made in the 1983-84 Budget. Question No. 115 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 11 May 1983 : (1) Does the Government intend to provide export licences to facilitate sugar cane production on the Ord River. (2) If not, will the sugar grown on the Ord River be sold on the domestic market only, and thereby undermine the viability of the established Australian sugar industry. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) A firm proposal for the establishment of commercial sugar production in the Ord River region of Western Australia has not been advanced for consideration by the Commonwealth Government. I understand the Western Australian Government has chosen a consortium of companies to prepare a detailed feasibility study of a crystal sugar industry. In the event that the Western Australian Government decides to go ahead with the project, any specific development proposal which involves foreign investment would, in the normal way, need to be submitted to the Foreign Investment Review Board. The Board would submit a report to the Government for decision and the Government would make its decision in the light of that report. Likewise, should commercial sugar production seem likely to become a reality the Commonwealth will then be required to consider questions relating to both export and domestic marketing arrangements. Question No. 190 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 19 May 1983 : (1) Has he lifted the export ban on meat from the Protean Company's Richmond, Victoria works, for the United States of America market; if so, why. (2) Are conditions attached to the lifting of the ban; if so, what are the details. (3) Was agreement to the lifting of the ban sought from United States authorities; if so, was such agreement forthcoming; if not, why not, and have United States authorities subsequently been advised of the lifting of the ban and what has been their reaction. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. Est 140, the Protean Company's Richmond meatworks was relisted for the export of product to the United States of America market on 18 April 1983. This decision was taken as a result of the action of the Receivers and Managers, who are currently managing the Company, which was directed towards the conditions announced by the previous Minister for Primary Industry on 27 August 1982. (2) Yes. The United States listing of Est 140 will automatically cease when the Receivers and Managers relinquish their control of the works. (3) No. The decision to relist Est 140 or any export meatworks, is the prerogative of the Australian Government. The United States authorities were advised of the decision. They indicated their concurrence with the decision following the clarification of a number of points associated with the relisting. Question No. 192 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 19 May 1983 : (1) Is it a fact that (a) positive traces of antibiotics have been found in some rinded varieties of imported cheeses and (b) the National Health and Medical Research Council prohibits the use of antibiotics in Australian made cheese or its rind; if so, what action will be taken to ensure that these imports are banned. (2) Should Australia place stringent conditions on those countries exporting cheese to Australia, similar to the very strict conditions that importing countries place on Australian meat exports; if so, will he move to have these conditions introduced as a matter of urgency. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Yes. Natamycin has been detected on some rinded varieties of imported cheese. (b) Yes. The National Health and Medical Research Council is currently considering an application by Australian cheese manufacturers for permission to use Natamycin on rinded cheeses. This, however, does not alter the legal status of the antibiotic which remains prohibited until and unless approved by the Council and subsequently adopted into State and Territory food legislation. (2) It is agreed that imported cheese should comply with those regulations applied to domestically manufactured foods, as required by State and Territory food legislation. This is essentially a matter controlled by State and Territory food law and is not within the jurisdiction of the Department of Primary Industry. Question No. 196 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 19 May 1983 : Did he state in a Press statement of 17 January 1983, that a rural adjustment scheme needed a major injection of funds right now; if so, why has the Government not provided that injection of funds, particularly as its policies for agriculture undertake to restore rural adjustment funds to at least those levels existing prior to the Review of Commonwealth Functions. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: On 7 June 1983 I announced that the Government would provide $35m for the funding of Parts A and C of the rural adjustment scheme in 1983-84. In addition, the Commonwealth has agreed to provide Queensland and New South Wales with up to $11m in 1983-84 under Part B of the rural adjustment scheme as carry-on assistance to cane growers. The 1983-84 allocation for rural adjustment assistance contrasts with an average annual expenditure of $16.9m in the previous four years by the former Government. Question No. 251 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: Will the Special Broadcasting Service television network be extended to (a) all the State capital cities, (b) Canberra and (c) large regional cities; if so, when in each case. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Government's timetable for extending transmission of multicultural television nationally was announced in conjunction with the Budget. Canberra, including Tuggeranong, will receive the service in October of this year. Extension to Cooma and Goulburn will occur soon after. Further extensions will occur as follows: Adelaide, Brisbane, Newcastle and Wollongong, Second Half 1984 -85; Hobart, Perth and Darwin 1985-86. Extension to regional cities is a matter to be considered in the future; no decisions have yet been made. Question No. 356 Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: Is the Minister able to provide an analysis of claims for compensation resulting from repetitive strain injury in the Minister's Department for each of the years 1978 to 1983. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Department of Aboriginal Affairs. 1978: Nil, 1979: Nil, 1980: Nil, 1981: Nil, 1982: (a) Two claims lodged, (b) Liability accepted in both claims, (c) Female claimants, (d) One clerical duties, one typing duties. 1983: (a) One claim lodged, (b) Liability not yet accepted, (c) Female claimant, (d) Typing duties. (2) Aboriginal Development Commission: Nil. (3) Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies: Nil. Question No. 397 Mr Wells asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 25 August 1983: (1) What are the activities of the Australian Information Service in Indonesia. (2) How many contacts were made with the Australian Information Service centres outside Jakarta, including the names of contacts such as universities, press and other organisations, between 1 January 1975 and 30 June 1983. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Australian Information Service supports all aspects of Australia's relationship with Indonesia through its public information program. The program aims to achieve an accurate and continuing portrayal of the Australian nation and its people, to increase general knowledge, awareness and understanding in Indonesia of Australia and so foster favourable conditions for the achievement of Australia's foreign policy objectives. The program explains, supports and promotes specific Australian policies, attitudes and viewpoints on international issues. The program relies largely on media outlets through print, film and radio material produced specially for Indonesia. The majority of this material is in the Indonesian language. The media program is supported by direct contact with influential people such as government officials, academics and journalists throughout Indonesia. The program has been conducted by the Australian Information Service (AIS) for the past 18 years and achieves a high rate of acceptance in Indonesia's national and provincial media. (2) There are two AIS officers in the Information Section of the Australian Embassy in Jakarta which is the only AIS centre in Indonesia. In the course of their activities the AIS officers travel regularly and widely outside Jakarta making contact with Indonesians of various media, administrative and educational interests. They visit Bandung, Jogjakarta, Semarang and Surabaya in Java; Medan and Padang in Sumatra; Denpasar in Bali; and Ujung Pandang in Sulawesi. Contact is made with the publishers of major daily newspapers, television and radio stations and government departments in these cities. They also contact institutions such as universities, teachers' colleges and libraries. Other centres visited periodically but less frequently include: Palembang and Banda Aceh in Sumatra; Surakarta, Malang and Cilicap in Java; Pontianak and Banjarmasin in Kalimantan; Menado in Sulawesi; and Ambon in the Maluku. The frequency of these visits is regulated by the availability of travel funds. There are practical difficulties in providing precise information in answer to the question about the number and names of contacts, not only because of the time span, changes in AIS staff at the post and the ready availability of records but also that during the period 1 January 1975 to 30 June 1983 AIS officers made contact with several hundred organisations throughout Indonesia with a list of contacts running into thousands of names. Question No. 414 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 6 September 1983: (1) Is there a threat to the viability of Aussat by the continued refusal of the Government to allow private up-links to the satellite. (2) Will he undertake to inform the Aussat Board that such up-links will be allowed so that private users will have the confidence to lease transponders, and simultaneously reduce the capital cost of the total project to Aussat. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Government decided on 13 July that the project would proceed. There are a number of issues yet to be decided, including ownership of the overall system and specific matters such as private ownership of up-link facilities. (2) Any such undertaking would pre-empt Government consideration of the issue. Question No. 449 Mr Spender asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 6 September 1983: Will he (a) provide details of the extent to which trade qualifications required in any of the 3 branches of the armed forces are recognised in the various States and Territories of the Commonwealth and (b) to the extent that such trade qualifications are not recognised, give the reasons for this non- recognition. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Although the matter is of concern, the question goes beyond the scope of my portfolio which does not have responsibility for these broader civilian workforce-related matters and the associated mechanisms for consultation with State authorities. I have, nevertheless, provided answers to the question as I understand the situation. Should a more definitive answer be required, I suggest that you refer the matter to my colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. (a) Four categories of armed service apprentices and trainees can be identified : (1) Army apprentices in Victorian proclaimed trades are registered with the Victorian Industrial Training Commission and receive the same trade certificates as civilian apprentices. (2) Navy apprentices and adult trainees in New South Wales proclaimed trades are registered with the Apprenticeship Directorate in New South Wales and receive the same trade certificates as civilian apprentices. (3) Air force apprentices are not registered with any apprenticeship authority and consequently do not receive the same apprenticeship certificate as their civilian counterparts. Recently arrangements have been made under the Tradesmen' s Rights Regulation (TRR) Act to issue tradesmen's certificates to ex-RAAF apprentices in certain metal and electrical trades provided that they meet established criteria. Apprentices in trades which are not TRR Act trades but which are proclaimed trades in certain States may also gain recognition. (4) Army and Air Force adult trainees are not registered with any apprenticeship authority. It is worthy of note that recognition as a tradesman by one State is accepted across the Commonwealth. Army and Navy apprentices and Navy adult trainees, because of registration of their indentures with State authorities, have full recognition in civilian life. The other two categories, ie Air Force apprentices and Army and Air Force adult trainees, can gain formal recognition through the TRR Act where the Act applies. The TRR Act provides for central and local trade committees which represent unions, government and employers. The committees grant accreditation in the form of a tradesman's certificate which indicates acceptance for employment at trade level by virtue of the agreement of employers and unions that the tradesman's certificate is equivalent in standard to a completed apprenticeship contract or indenture. The TRR Act deals only with specified metal and electrical trades. In trades outside those covered by the TRR Act, there is no national recognition machinery. However in proclaimed apprenticeship trades in some States, ex-servicemen may be able to get a form of tradesman accreditation under recently enacted legislation. It is understood that Victoria, New South Wales, and Queensland have such legislation. In trades which are specific to the armed services, no civilian equivalent to the Service certificate exists. (b) There are several reasons why a particular Service trade is not recognised formally in civilian industry; for example: (1) The Service trade may have no equivalent in civilian industry; (2) The Service trade may not be sufficiently similar to the nearest civilian trade to enable an equivalence to be determined; or (3) There may be no machinery at Commonwealth or State level for providing formal recognition in the trade concerned. This would apply equally to servicemen and to civilians such as newly arrived migrants or refugees. The TRR Act is concerned with certain electrical and metal trades only. In general formal recognition of trade qualifications obtained outside the apprenticeship system in Australia is the exception rather than the rule. In preliminary meetings between officers of my Department, the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and the Public Service Board it was agreed that further joint investigation to facilitate and improve civilian recognition is warranted and that the more immediate problem was centred in the middle level (TAFE Certificate) area. Since all three Services are involved any comprehensive investigation would require considerable effort and co-ordination. Recently I wrote to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations requesting that an Interdepartmental Working Party be set up for this purpose. Question No. 470 Mr Blanchard asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs , upon notice, on 7 September 1983: (1) How many (a) World War I veterans and (b) dependent spouses are currently receiving pensions. (2) How many (a) World War II, (b) Korean/ Malaysian/Far Eastern Strategic Reserve and (c) Vietnam, (i) veterans, (ii) dependent spouses and (iii) dependent children of the veterans are currently receiving pensions. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) For World War I there are 7,456 veterans and 25,046 dependent spouses currently receiving pensions. (2) For World War II there are 243,781 veterans, 247,282 dependent spouses and 9,027 dependent children receiving pensions. For Korean/Malaysian/Far Eastern Strategic Reserve there are 4,579 veterans, 4, 006 dependent spouses and 1,673 dependent children currently receiving pensions. For Vietnam there are 7,108 veterans, 5,706 dependent spouses and 9,228 dependent children currently receiving pensions. These figures are as at 30 June 1983. Note: Dependent spouses and children include widows and children of deceased veterans. The Vietnam figures represent 97 per cent of pensioners eligible under the Special Overseas Service Act. Question No. 531 Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 14 September: (1) Is the Government considering representations to have Antarctica declared a world park exempt from mining. (2) Will he consider the alternative that mineral and other polar resources be administered by an international trust of the kind proposed for control of the high seas and seabed resources, with any mineral royalties going to a world development fund. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Government is aware of proposals to declare Antarctica a world park, but is not yet certain about the content and implications of the concept. The Government is committed to ensure the greatest practical protection for the Antarctic environment; and it will pursue this goal through measures drawn up directly under the Antarctic Treaty, as well as through the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources and the negotiations which are being conducted by the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties to draw up an environmentally acceptable minerals regime. (2) The Government does not believe that an analogy can be drawn between the resources of the high seas and seabed beyond national jurisdiction on the one hand and Antarctica on the other. Antarctica, unlike the deep seabed or outer space, has been subject to man's activity and sovereignty claims for a considerable time and is now the object of successful international co-operation and management under the Antarctic Treaty. Question No. 502 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Science and Technology, upon notice, on 13 September 1983: (1) Did the Government include a provision for upgrading the Australian Landsat Station in the recent budget; if not, why not. (2) Does the Government intend to upgrade the station and allow Australia to fully participate in resource satellites in the future; if so, when will this happen. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Government fully recognises the benefits that can be obtained from high resolution data from the Landsat series of satellites but, in view of some present uncertainties as to the performance and reliability of the present satellites and the extremely difficult budgetary constraints it was unable to fund the upgrade this year. (2) The Government has fully funded the Australian Landsat Station to process data available from the current generation of satellites at the present level. At the same time it is concerned at the level of recovery of operating costs and has directed that my Department, in conjunction with the Department of Finance, develop a plan for progressively increasing the level of cost recovery. This may lead to further consideration by the Government of an upgrade to the station. Question No. 507 Mr Hodgman asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 13 September 1983: (1) Is it a fact that as at 12 September 1983 the State of Tasmania had not received 1 cent in compensation following the action of his Government in stopping the Gordon-below-Franklin Power Development Scheme. (2) Has he said that no compensation monies will be paid to Tasmania until the draft agreement is approved and executed. (3) Does he dispute the claim that 377 Tasmanian workers have been displaced from their employment as the result of the action of the Commonwealth Government in stopping the Gordon-below-Franklin Power Development Scheme. (4) In view of the Budget appropriation of $30m compensation to Tasmania for 1983-84, will he now ensure Tasmania is paid the $30m ''on account'' and, on the basis that the State of Tasmania will properly apply these monies in payment of the wages of the 377 workers displaced, and other compensation payments, thereby relieve Tasmania from the current budgetary pressures presently imposed upon it by the actions of the Government. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) & (2) On 31 August I presented to the Premier of Tasmania for his signature an Interim Financial Agreement, which establishes the mechanism for Commonwealth payments to Tasmania (including advances) in respect of certain alternative work projects, income maintenance for Hydro-Electric Commission employees, and assistance to contractors formerly engaged on the Gordon-below-Franklin Power Development Scheme. This Agreement is the product of negotiations between Commonwealth and State officials. The State has understood since early July, when a first draft of the Agreement was provided by the Commonwealth, that an Agreement would need to be completed before payments could begin to flow to the State. From the beginning of the negotiations on this matter, it has been the Commonwealth's aim to conclude appropriate financial arrangements, including the normal information and audit arrangements appropriate to the expenditure of Commonwealth funds, that would enable payments to Tasmania to commence as quickly as possible. Given that the projects to be funded have already been agreed in principle by the Premier and myself, and that the draft Agreement makes provision for review of its terms as necessary, it is difficult to understand the reason for delay on the State's part. The fact that payments have not yet commenced cannot in any way be attributed to lack of action or good intent on the Commonwealth's part. (3) I understand that the number of persons directly employed on the Gordon- below-Franklin project as of 1 July 1983 was of this order. (4) See (1) & (2) above. Question No. 86 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: Did the Government undertake during the 1983 election campaign to reduce fuel excise by 3 cents per litre: if so, when will the reduction be made. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: During the election campaign, the Government undertook to cancel the previous Government's 1 January increase of $3.23 a barrel in the price of Bass Straight crude because we believe the OPEC market price, on which the Australian price was based, did not reflect a realistic market price. The subsequent $US5 a barrel reduction in price by OPEC confirmed our judgment. The full effect of the OPEC price cut of $US5 a barrel was included in the reduction in the import parity price which came into effect on 1 April 1983. However, as a result of the 10 per cent devaluation forced on the Government, the price cut was less than that which would otherwise have applied to Australian oil since import parity pricing sets the price of Australian produced oil at a level equal to the cost of replacing that oil with imported oil of a similar quality. Since devaluation increases the cost of importing oil, it also increases the import parity price. Had no devaluation occurred the Australian price would have fallen by about $5 a barrel. As a consequence of devaluation the Government was only able to cut the price of Australian oil by about $2 a barrel. Question No. 120 Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 11 May 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a report in the Weekend Australian, 23-24 April 1983, page 5, that a quarter of the Mornington Island community suffers from hepatitis B. (2) Has his attention also been drawn to the availability of a new vaccine from Commonwealth Serum Laboratories to reduce the severity of hepatitis B. (3) If so, will he engage one or more of the field workers experienced with the trachoma survey in Queensland and officers of an Aboriginal-run health service to (a) discuss with Mornington Island people their wishes with regard to a survey of measures to reduce infectious diseases, (b) provide audiovisual material in their own language on nutrition, hygiene and cultural stresses and ( c) invite visitors to the Island to participate in any vaccination plans as a pilot program for eventual control of health services by Aboriginals. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) announced its recommendations on the use of the vaccine on 17 August. (3) (a), (b) and (c). Public health measures are primarily a matter for the State Health Department, which has been contacted about the issues raised in the Honourable Member's question. Since the announcement of the NHMRC's recommendations, I have also written to the State Minister. It is open to the Mornington Island Council to seek assistance if it wishes to engage personnel from an Aboriginal Medical Services or other experience in the Trachoma Program, in addition to existing health services. Question No. 143 Dr Charlesworth asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 12 May 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to an article in the Australian of 29 April 1983 in which he is reported to have said that he would be holding talks soon with the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism about the problems posed by cigarette companies sponsorship of sport. (2) If so, has he held these talks; if so, what has been the outcome. (3) Has there been any change in the attitude of the government towards tobacco advertising arising out of the recent conference of Health Ministers in Hobart. (4) Will he give priority to taking action in the field of tobacco advertising. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes, informally. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism is aware of my opposition to tobacco sponsorship of sport-it is a definite form of advertising and it is incongruous that a product known to be harmful to health should be associated with a healthy pursuit such as sport. Equally, I am aware of his concern, as the Minister for Sport, that many sporting groups' viability may be jeopardised by a sudden withdrawal of readily available tobacco company funds. I share his concern in that regard. However, I do not believe the matter is insoluble. Discussions between our respective Departments will continue in an effort to develop options that will accommodate health concerns and ensure the continued development of sport in Australia. (3) I see no need for a change. The Government's attitude is reflected in the ALP 1982 Platform, Constitution and Rules-it is committed 'to take further action to inhibit the promotion of cigarettes'. However, because of the complexities of the issues surrounding tobacco advertising, no government can act precipitately. Nevertheless, I believe I can assure the honourable member that Government decisions on tobacco advertising will accord with its stated policy. (4) I recognise, as do my State counterparts, that for any smoking control program to be effective it must address the wide range of complex issues involved, of which advertising is one. Accordingly, I shall continue to do what I can to inhibit the further promotion of tobacco products, having regard to those broader dimensions. Question No. 149 Dr Charlesworth asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 17 May 1983: Does the Government intend to provide funding for the completion of the north block of the Royal Perth Hospital; if not, are there any contingency plans for this. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No. There is no program administered within my portfolio under which the capital works funding of hospitals is possible in the States or the Northern Territory. Development of any such program would be dependent on future priorities in the health field, and the resources available to the Government. Question No. 292 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce , upon notice, on 26 May 1983: (1) What is the present level of tariff or other form of import protection for telecommunications equipment, including cable and telephone handsets, purchased by (a) Telecom Australia and (b) private users. (2) Is the level of protection being reviewed or intended to be reviewed in the next 12 months. Mr John Brown —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Most items of telecommunications equipment are classified within item 85.13 of the Customs Tariff Act 1982. A General rate of duty of 30 per cent is applicable to this item. Entry at concessional rates is available for imports of New Zealand or Developing Country origin. Goods that, at the time of importation, are owned by Telecom Australia are exempt Customs duties. (2) There is no review currently underway of assistance to cable or telephone handsets or to the bulk of the telecommunications equipment industry. There is a current inquiry by the Industries Assistance Commission into assistance for computers which extends to computers used in conjunction with telecommunications equipment. Consideration is currently being given to the scope and timing of a possible reference to the Commission on the question of assistance to the Australian telecommunications equipment industry. Question No. 293 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce , upon notice, on 26 May 1983: (1) What is the present level of tariff or other form of import protection for radio, television and general broadcast transmission and receiving equipment. (2) Is this level of protection (a) being reviewed or (b) intended to be reviewed in the next 12 months. Mr John Brown —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Most items of radio, television and general broadcast transmission and receiving equipment are classified within item 85.15 of the Customs Tariff Act 1982. Rates of duty applicable to this item are: (i) radios 35 per cent General (ii) televisions- in respect of colour television tubes-2 per cent General in respect of the remainder-35 per cent General (iii) burglar alarms-15 per cent General (iv) other equipment of the item-30 per cent General (20 per cent Canada) Entry at concessional rates is available for imports of New Zealand or developing country origin. Local production of colour television receivers began in the early 1970s. Since then, the policy of successive Australian governments has been that the bulk of the domestic market for large-screen sets should be provided from local production. In contrast, almost all small-screen sets are imported: in the early 1970s the then Government encouraged the removal of certain commercial restraints which would have severely limited such imports. The Japanese industry has traditionally provided the great majority of Australian imports of colour television receivers and also has a heavy investment in the Australian industry. Regular discussions have therefore been held between Japan and Australia which have helped the Japanese industry to operate in a manner consistent with the Australian Government's policy. These have included discussions on the expected size of the Australian market and the expected level of imports from Japan. (2) Assistance to the local production of radio and television receivers is currently being reviewed by the Industries Assistance Commission-IAC. The reference on certain consumer electronic equipment which includes these goods was forwarded to the IAC in February 1983. The IACs final report is due to be submitted to the Government in February 1984. Consideration is currently being given to a reference to the IAC including, inter alia, the question of assistance to the local manufacture of other general broadcast transmission and receiving equipment. Question No. 343 Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: Is the Minister able to provide an analysis of claims for compensation resulting from repetitive strain injuries in the Minister's Department for each of the years 1978 to 1983. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Three compensation claims have been lodged by female secretarial staff in the years 1981-82-one claim-and 1982-83-two claims. Two claims have been finalised; one remains outstanding. Question No. 400 Mr Wells asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 25 August 1983: (1) Is it a fact that diabetics and other sufferers who are able to get insulin and similar preparations on the National Health Scheme have to buy their syringes separately; if so, does this cost a diabetic, who requires frequent medication, up to $300 per year. (2) Will he consider changing the National Health Scheme so that those who obtain such drugs as insulin are able to obtain their syringes on the same scheme. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. Insulin dependent diabetics are not supplied with their syringes and needles under the National Health Scheme. The cost of syringes and needles varies depending on the place of purchase. There are no reliable data available on the costs of these items to diabetics. The costs could vary widely, depending on their usage and price. However, I understand some hospitals and diabetic associations are prepared to supply needles and syringes free of charge or at a reduced rate. (2) The Government is sympathetic to the needs of diabetics and recognises the substantial costs faced by people with diabetes in the management of the condition. Additional programs such as assistance to diabetics with the cost of equipment could have considerable expenditure implications. Consideration is being given to such matters by the Government but it may be some time before it is in a position to announce the outcome of this consideration. Question No. 411 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 6 September 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the concern amongst Australian potato growers that importers of New Zealand potatoes may be breaching the strict quarantine requirement that imported potatoes be immediately processed. (2) What checks are made by his Department to ensure that quarantine standards are maintained. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am aware of the concern expressed by Australian potato growers that New Zealand potatoes imported for processing do not breach the strict quarantine conditions under which importation is permitted. The conditions do not include a specific requirement for immediate processing, however commercial considerations ensure that the imported potatoes are processed as quickly as possible. (2) Quarantine officers exercise control by inspecting and approving storage and processing facilities before importation is permitted and subsequently by regular visits to monitor operations and audit quantities of potatoes processed. All residues and packaging materials are sterilised or incinerated under quarantine control. Question No. 447 Mr Wells asked the Minister for Defence Support, upon notice, on 6 September 1983: What Commonwealth funds, listed by purpose, in the form of (a) grants, (b) subsidies, (c) special purpose grants, (d) dollar for dollar contributions or (e ) other contributions have been partly or totally (i) received or (ii) returned or refused by the Queensland Government, from December 1972 to August 1983. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Nil.