Thursday, 6 October 1983 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. 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 Adermann,Mr Cadman,Mr Ewen Cameron,Mr Steele Hall,Mr Howard,Mr Humphreys,Mr Lusher,Dr Theophanous,Mr Wells and Mr Wilson. To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: We urge the Government to declare a moratorium on uranium mining and treatment in Australia; We urge the Government to repudiate any commitment of a non-Labor Government to the mining, processing or export of Australia's uranium; We urge the Government to not permit the mining, processing or export of uranium pursuant to agreements entered into contrary to ALP policy; and We urge the Government to discontinue the Roxby uranium mine development. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hand,Mr Milton and Dr Theophanous. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to stop the commercial exploitation of the kangaroo. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House re-apply the ban on the export of kangaroo products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fry and Mr Les Johnson. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the 1983 Budget imposition of the excise on grape spirit used in fortifying wine places at risk the future of the fortified wine industry in Australia. That the requirement to pay the excise within 7 days of the fortification occurring is inequitable. That the excise will be reflected in increased costs to the consumers of fortified wines of up to 100 per cent and consumer choice will be restricted. That this will cause reduced fortified wine sales which will result in reduced intake of grapes from grapegrowers. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will reconsider their previous decision and either withdraw this tax or modify its method of application and collection. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Andrew. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That an airport in the north-western region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. An airport would destroy 2,000 households and impose upheaval, noise and pollution on one million people presently unaffected. 3. The cost of an airport in the north-western region is greater than the alternatives, whilst fog and close proximity to R.A.A.F. Base Richmond would make operations impractical. 4. It would destroy the historic village of Pitt Town, environmentally important wetlands, and their unique adherent wildlife. 5. Your petitioners reject these proposals and call for endorsement of the MANS Committee findings. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia that the Motor Vessel Krait remain as a Dedicated Operational War memorial in the care and maintenance of the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol as has been the case for the past 19 1/2 years, on behalf of the people of Australia; and that: Your petitioners consider that the moneys raised in the recent public appeal have been so raised for restoration to ensure the continuing seaworthiness of the Krait for the purposes of it remaining afloat and continuing to be used in the community service. Your petitioners therefore pray that the current proposal to remove the Krait from the care and maintenance of the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol to the National War Memorial in Canberra A.C.T. would, if implemented, seem to represent a breach of faith upon which the aforesaid moneys were raised. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Carlton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. Whereas Commonwealth Government funds are paid to Hare Krishna schools and whereas such schools are sexist, discriminate against females and deny democratic rights, your petitioners most humbly request that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled respond to our plea that funding to schools such as the Hare Krishna schools should cease. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Dawkins. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: Your petitioners pray that a non-official post office be established in the Karawara Shopping Centre, corner Manning Road/Kent Street, Karawara 6152. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Gear. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. The continued use of cruelly derived animal ingredients in cosmetic products , and the inhumane use of animals in scientific research for cosmetic products is adhorrent and barbaric. 2. That no central records exist on such inhumane use of live animals for experimentation purposes, yet research institutions in several Australian States engage in such a practice. 3. That there exists no uniform legislation between the States concerning responsible standards of research conduct, indeed in some States, there is a complete lack of legislation altogether. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that House of Representatives will enact legislation to require: (a) The Australian Bureau of Statistics to produce annual statistics on the number of live animals involved in research, and provide information as to research purposes; and (b) The Government bans the use of L.D.50 Tests in animal research, in a spirit of co-operation with British scientists who are calling for an end to this test; and (c) That not less than 20 per cent of government funding, currently allocated to animal research, be devoted to developing alternative research methods, not involving the use of animals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, your petitioners, humbly showeth: That permitting kangaroos to be commercially exploited when permissible cropping rates are unknown and the means of enforcing controls or protective laws are completely ineffective in this land is allowing this unique animal to follow the path to rarity or extinction along which all wild animals have gone when subjected to exploitation in similar circumstances. We Australians have the right to see kangaroos in reasonable numbers on the landscape: we find the commercial slaughter of the kangaroo to be abhorrent and unjustified. Commercialisation of wildlife should be stopped, particularly as exemplified by the kangaroo industry. We your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will. 1. Ban the export of products made from kangaroos. 2. Take action to see that State Governments prohibit the commercial killing of kangaroos. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That (a) the export of live animals for slaughter overseas and (b) the shipment of live horses to Japan sentences such animals to cruel and inhumane treatment in the export process and at the hands of foreign importers. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will request the Government to ban the export of live animals for food and allow only carcass trade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. 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 the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (TEAS Allowance) has been progressively reducing in real terms throughout the 1980s, and is no longer at an adequate subsistence level; 2. that the situation where the independent TEAS allowance is substantially below the single, no dependant, unemployment benefit is inequitable and not supportable by cost relativities; 3. that the low level of TEAS allowance is detrimental to maintaining the proportion of students currently partaking in tertiary education; 4. that effective immediately the TEAS allowance should be increased to the same level as the single unemployment benefit and thereafter be maintained in line with changes in said benefits. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. Since the Australian Whaling Protection Act 1980 provides for the banning of importation into Australia of all whale by-products and 2. The Prime Minister has stated that he and his Government support the international banning of whaling. 3. Then consistent with (1) and (2) this Government should immediately legislate to ban the importation of all marine mammal by-products including the harp seal of Canada and 4. Through the Australian delegate in the United Nations General Assembly the Prime Minister should state his Government's support for an international ban on the slaughter of any marine mammal for commercial reasons. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: Consistent with legislation on whaling this Government should ban the importation of marine mammal by-products, and support an international ban on the slaughter of any marine mammal. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: (1) That the Macedonian language be used by Government departments in multi- lingual publications. (2) That the petitioners urge the introduction of the Macedonian language as a Higher School Certificate (HSC) 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia, believing that men and women are equal but different, That Australia can provide equal opportunity for all citizens without foreign treaties, That the UN Discrimination Convention would give a communist-dominated international committee the power to judge Australia's laws, Humbly petition that your Honourable House will not support the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 or the Commonwealth laws to achieve its aims. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Porter. To the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: Women continue to suffer discrimination in many areas of employment. In traditional 'male' industries such as steel, the denial of equal rights and opportunities has resulted in disproportionate numbers of women being hired and fired. We therefore humbly request that the government of the Commonwealth of Australia: Introduce, extend and implement anti-discrimination legislation which includes affirmative action policies to effectively remedy this injustice. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Steedman. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the present hunt for harp seals in Canada is carried out in a cruel and inhuman manner. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government formally call on the Canadian Government to end the harp seal hunt and use its constitutional powers to halt the importation into Australia of products derived from the harp seal Pagoghilus groenlandicus. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Theophanous. 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 Wells. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas the Government of Australia has signed the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states that ''The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the State'', and whereas the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women would violate the above Article 23 (1), we humbly pray that the Government refrain from ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; believing that its implementation would result in- (1) Undue cost to the nation at this time. (2) 'The elimination of any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women at all levels' as described in Part 3 Article 10 (c), being a disruption of traditional parental roles, is likely to result in emotional disturbances of childhood. (3) The strong encouragements to mothers to join the work force, with the provision of networks of creches and child care centres as outlined in Article 11 of the convention is likely to result in maternal deprivation and psychological disturbances among children with an increase in childhood psychiatric illnesses. (4) The sexual role changing as recommended in Part 3, Article 10 (c), is likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our nation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Wells. 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-Holden's, respectfully show. 1. That the management of General Motors-Holden's 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-Holden's to retain its operations at the Woodville plant. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Scott. Petitions received. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with dismay- (a) the necessity for the Northern Australia Development Council to cancel the 1983 Conference due to be held in Mackay, Queensland, on 6 and 7 October 1983; (b) the resultant loss of effort and money to the organisers of the Conference and to those 400 delegates who were attending; and (c) the greater loss in motivation and enthusiasm of the whole Council created for the movement over a period of the last 7 years; (2) condemns- (a) the Air Pilots Association for the 2 day strike that was the reason for the cancellation; (b) the Government for its ill-conceived, heavy-handed and piece-meal treatment of the taxation of superannuation lump sums, this being the reason for the air pilots strike; and (c) the Government for breaking its firm undertaking not to change the taxation of lump sum payments; and (3) requests the Government to meet the costs and outlays of the cancelled conference to the Northern Australia Development Council. Mr GEAR(Tangney) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth) will second: That this House- (1) congratulates the Government in Western Australia, on establishing the Women's Advisory Committee; and (2) deplores the comment by the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party in Western Australia, Mr Hassell, for calling the recently formed Women's Advisory Committee a bunch of hobos. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House expresses its grave concern at persistent reports that the Government intends to effectively destroy the Oath of Allegiance by striking out any reference whatsoever to Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and her other realms and territories, Head of the Commonwealth, as provided in the Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 introduced into this Parliament by the Whitlam Government. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House expresses its deep concern about the inclusion of a pornographic photograph in the Northern Territory Government's tourist promotion publication Outback Australia. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House requests the Prime Minister to convey the admiration of all Australians to the Premier of Queensland for his efforts over many years in creating the right atmosphere of stability and freedom of individual rights which has seen at least 800 people a week arrive in Queensland from the Labor- governed States of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) Notes with pleasure that Mr Lech Walesa, leader of the Polish trade union, Solidarity, has been awarded the 1983 Nobel Peace Prize for his contribution to ensuring workers' rights to establish unions; and (2) Congratulates Mr Walesa on his award. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House calls on the Government to define its policy in the area of old age persons nursing home care, particularly in respect of volunteer fund raising organisations in the Electoral Division of Maranoa and in Queensland generally. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) congratulates the Government on its important initiatives in the housing industry; (2) recognises the important part played by consultations with the States, the Housing Industry Association, the Master Builders Association, financial institutions, unions and the industry generally; (3) urges that where possible further reductions in housing interest rates be considered by the financial community; (4) urges moderation on price and wage movements by employers and unions; and (5) supports modifications in the prescribed payments system designed to simplify paperwork in the payment of withholding tax. Mr SIMMONS(Calare) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that in the historic Foundation Stone Ceremony which took place at the new Parliament House building 4 October 1983, the Christmas Bush Red Granite used in the foundation plaque was quarried near Oberon, N.S.W.; and (2) congratulates the Parliament House Construction Authority, not only on the excellence of the total project to date, but also for their recognition of the fine qualities of the quarried material from the Oberon district. Mr KATTER(Kennedy) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House notes- (1) the dramatic development that has occurred in Queensland in a manner that has attracted people of all ages and classes to that State; (2) the international reputation which has been so developed that Expo '88 will be held in that State; and (3) that despite this progress and this new generation development and sophistication, family standards have been retained which cherish a true Australian moral patriotic tradition which would be in grave jeopardy should the announced policies of the Australian Labor Party see light of day. Mr WELLS(Petrie) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) will second: That this House- (1) notes that- (a) according to Australian Bureau of Statistics figures, foreign interests own 59.4 per cent and control 73.4 per cent of mining interests in Queensland; (b) foreign interests own 70.2 per cent and control 81.8 per cent of mining processing in Queensland; and (c) in the financial years 1980-1 to 1981-2, according to the report of the Foreign Investment Review Board 631,000 hectares of rural land in Queensland were alienated to foreign interests; and (2) condemns the Queensland Government for the wholesale abandonment of the heritage of Australians. Dr Klugman having given notice of a motion-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! On the standards I have applied, the honourable member's notice of motion would be seen as frivolous. I rule it out of order. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —If the honourable member is seeking to make a personal explanation, he may proceed. MR BRAITHWAITE —Early in August, statements appeared in the Cairns Post under the name of the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) and another appeared in the Townsville Daily Bulletin under the name of the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) asserting that when in Western Australia, I had urged the Western Australian Government to apply for an export licence for sugar production on the Ord and inferred my full support for a sugar industry on the Ord. These assertions, or perhaps misrepresentations, I denied by releasing a public statement of my own at that time. On Monday of this week on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program Morning Extra and again on Tuesday over radio 4TO Townsville, the Queensland Opposition Leader, Mr Wright, made the same statement. This statement is a deliberate misrepresentation. I have not, at any time, urged the Western Australian Government to apply for that licence. Again, in a Press release of the Federal Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) of yesterday's date, the same deliberate lie is repeated even though I was only a Parliament phone call away to explain the proper position to him. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I think the honourable member ought to reflect on the use of the term 'deliberate lie'. I ask him to withdraw it and use a parliamentary term . Mr BRAITHWAITE —Mr Speaker, I will use the word 'misrepresentation'. Mr SPEAKER —I thank the honourable member. Mr BRAITHWAITE —The same deliberate misrepresentation is repeated even though I was only a parliamentary phone call away to explain the proper position. The misrepresentation has been calculated to raise doubts about my credibility both within the electorate of Dawson, which I represent, and in the State of Queensland where sugar producing is an important industry. I wish to refer to certain things that appear in the Minister's statement; I will refer to them one at a time. First, as shadow Minister for northern development I was reported to have said that sugar can successfully be grown on the Ord. This is true. Sugar cane- incidentally, not sugar-is being grown and has been grown in the Ord River region for the last seven years. This is a fact. Secondly, the Press release stated that I urged growers to get an export licence. In fact, I never spoke to any member of the Western Australian Government or any growers during that visit . I did not and have not urged anyone to apply for an export licence. Thirdly, I am reported as saying: If an export licence is not granted (for Western Australia sugar), Ord sugar would flood the domestic market at possibly reduced prices. I said that, if the Western Australian Government was determined to grow sugar on the Ord, it would do so irrespective of what the Commonwealth felt. If Western Australia subsidised sugar to the extent of the millions of dollars that would be necessary then, if denied an export licence and, with the same determination of the Western Australian Government to subsidise sugar production further, sugar could be sold on the Australian domestic market at considerably reduced prices under section 92 of the Constitution. Quoting these statements out of context, as the Minister did, amounts to a very shabby attempt to separate the edited comment from the truth and honesty of my full statement. The Minister's statement goes on: Does Mr Braithwaite not realise that Australia is party to the International Sugar Agreement, that we are presently trying to negotiate a new international sugar agreement and that any move to put additional sugar on the export market would prejudice our chances of negotiating that agreement and would result in existing sugar producers exporting less. What I have said in my statement in no way prejudices the International Sugar Agreement talks because I gave no support to the Ord sugar industry. I pointed out to Western Australians that a coalition government in Canberra would not help fund an industry on the Ord. I pointed out also that the major problem in the sugar industry was the world oversupply of sugar and the fact that the world is holding excessive stocks. The Minister, in his Press statement, asked for an explanation. I ask for an apology. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests : Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1983 Television Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1983 Barley Research Levy Amendment Bill 1983 Ombudsman Amendment Bill 1983 Ombudsman (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1983 Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(10.19) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This is a Bill to amend the Family Law Act 1975 to enable regulations to be made prescribing a scale of costs, which I shall refer to as the new legal aid costs scale, regulating payments to private legal practitioners acting in legally aided matters arising under the Family Law Act 1975 and the family law regulations. The Bill also enables the Commonwealth to make payments to the States and the Northern Territory, and to relevant legal aid bodies, subject to certain conditions, being conditions relating to the provision of legal assistance in respect of matters under the Family Law Act and regulations that are referred by legal aid bodies after 1 November 1983. I will more fully explain the operation of the Bill later in the speech. The Bill is a Budget measure designed to enable steps to be taken by the Commonwealth to contain the substantial increases in legal aid expenditure that are being experienced. Honourable members will be aware that, on numerous occasions since this Government assumed office, the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has made public statements expressing his very real concern at how expensive legal aid is proving to be. While Commonwealth payments to private legal practitioners acting in legally aided matters have risen from $14.679m in 1979-80 to $32.426m in 1982-83, which represents a cumulative increase of 64 per cent in real terms, the cumulative increase in the number of legal aid cases referred to private legal practitioners has been only 28 per cent in the same period. The actual figures for expenditure in 1982-83 have only just become available, and it is acknowledged that the 64 per cent increase in cost is less than the figure of 80.2 per cent which the Attorney-General had foreshadowed earlier this year, based on the then estimated expenditure for 1982-83. Nevertheless, the amount of $40.144m appropriated in the present 1983-84 Budget for payments to private legal practitioners does represent an estimated cumulative increase in payments in real terms of 82.1 per cent since 1979-80, notwithstanding that this year there will be no further increase in the number of legal aid matters able to be referred to private legal practitioners. In short, while the number of referrals has not increased by much in the past three years and is not now increasing at all, expenditure on referrals continues to grow. In the light of these trends, and against the background of the pre-eminent role that family law matters play in Commonwealth legal aid expenditure, this Bill is brought forward with the express intention of restraining the rapid increase in that expenditure. It is an essential measure. Without it, the Commonwealth will very soon confront an impossible task in even being able to sustain the funding for the existing number of legally-aided matters handled by private legal practitioners and for which it is responsible, let alone being able to meet the ever-growing need for legal aid. Honourable members may be aware that under the agreements that exist between the Commonwealth and the States of Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia, the Commonwealth has a continuing obligation to provide funding that will enable the legal aid commissions in those States to provide a level of legal aid activity equal to that carried out by the Australian Legal Aid Office in the respective States prior to the operations of the Office being taken over by the commissions . In the present Budget, the Government has increased legal aid funding by 15 per cent in real terms in order to meet an expected growth of 12.5 per cent in the level of demand for legal aid in 1983-84. In making this increase, the Government has managed to maintain at its existing level the number of legal aid referrals that may be made this year to private legal practitioners. Provision has also been made for the appointment of extra salaried staff in the Australian Legal Aid Office and legal aid commissions. Preliminary figures indicate that approximately 54 extra salaried lawyers may be able to be employed throughout Australia, together with approximately 43 support staff. These initiatives reflect the Government's commitment to ensuring that within available resources opportunity is given to as many persons as possible to obtain access to the law. They also reflect a redressing of the balance in the proportion of legal aid work done by private and salaried practitioners respectively, while clearly recognising the central and continuing role of the private legal profession in the delivery of legal aid services. The Government's problem is simply and starkly this: The demand for legal aid is outstripping the capacity of the Commonwealth to fund legal aid in the Federal area. In these circumstances, the spotlight inevitably falls on the cost of family law matters. In 1982-83, when $32.426m was expended by the Commonwealth in payments through the Australian Legal Aid Office and the legal aid commissions to private legal practitioners, $20.3m or 63 per cent of those funds was expended in connection with family law matters. Family law is the biggest single consumer of legal aid and as such necessarily becomes the first priority in a review of legal aid expenditure. While this Bill will enable the Commonwealth to restrain the growth of legally aided family law expenditure, it should not be thought that this represents the sole response to the critical burdens placed on the legal aid budget. Since assuming the portfolio of Attorney-General, Senator Evans has initiated a general review of legal aid and the role of the Commonwealth in the delivery of legal aid services. As announced following the Budget, the Government has approved the establishment of a small legal aid task force to explore cost- effective methods of legal aid delivery throughout the country. One important question to be addressed is whether all the family law cases which currently receive legal aid funding really require lawyers and legal advice for their resolution, or whether instead there is not a more cost-effective method of resolving family law disputes. In seeking answers to this question, the Attorney -General has set in train an examination of the various options available for possible alternative advice and dispute resolution facilities. The Attorney- General has asked the Family Law Council and the Commonwealth Legal Aid Council to assist with this examination. Returning to the cost of legally-aided family law matters, material provided to the Attorney-General's Department by the various branches of the ALAO and by the legal aid commissions, shows a clear discrepancy between the average cost of a family law referral depending upon which body has funded the matter. For instance, in 1982-83, the average cost of a family law referral funded by the ALAO was $469 in New South Wales and $429 in Tasmania. By contrast, the average cost of a family law referral funded by the Legal Aid Commission of Queensland was $593, while matters funded by the Legal Aid Commission of Western Australia had an average cost of $858. From information provided by the Legal Aid Commission of Victoria the relevant figure is estimated to be $834. Most of the State commissions have adopted family law costs scales based on the scale of costs payable for family law matters under the Family Law Regulations, with the rate of payment set at 80 per cent of that scale. Practitioners in Queensland and Western Australia also have the alternative of submitting lump sum accounts to the commissions. The implication of these figures is strong and clear: One method of restraining legal aid cost increases in the family law area is for all relevant legal aid bodies in Australia-and not just those in the ALAO jurisdictions, namely New South Wales, Tasmania and the Northern Territory-to apply the ALAO family law legal aid costs scale. It has been estimated that, if the ALAO scale were to be adopted by all Commonwealth funded legal aid bodies, savings to the Commonwealth would be at least $4m per annum after three years operation of the scale. Honourable members may be aware that earlier this year the Attorney-General gave notice that he was considering such a move to a uniform scale. He wrote to the State Attorneys-General, the legal aid commissions, the Law Council of Australia and associated legal professional bodies seeking their comments on the proposal. In response, he has received extensive comments, both written and oral , from those persons and bodies and also from a number of private legal practitioners. In addition, officers of the Attorney-General's Department attended a meeting with the Law Council's Family Law Committee in July 1983 to facilitate discussion of the proposal. All comments received have been carefully examined and considered by the Attorney-General and by his Department. A detailed response to the comments was given by the Attorney-General in his second reading speech in the Senate on 15 September 1983. This Bill will enable the incorporation of the ALAO costs scale, with certain modifications, into the Family Law Regulations. The new scale is to apply to all family law matters referred by legal aid bodies on and from 1 November 1983, but not to work done after 1 November in relation to matters referred before that date which will be subject to the pre-existing scale. For the benefit of honourable members, I will outline the basic differences between the ALAO scale and the scale of costs currently payable under the Family Law Regulations. The first noticeable difference is that the ALAO scale has a broader definition of the basic composite amount that covers all work ordinarily involved in the preparation of an application for hearing. This includes all attendances, preparation of documents, perusing relevant documents furnished by the solicitor's client or documents in reply, all necessary attendances at court or at the office of the court, including attendance at court on the hearing of the matter for one hour, and furnishing the solicitor's client with copies of any decree or order obtained. The ALAO scale allows payment for additional work not included in the basic composite amount to be made where that work has been reasonably and necessarily performed for the purpose of the conduct of the matter. Other essential respects in which the ALAO scale differs from the Family Law Regulations scale are that it provides for payment of a basic composite amount for work done in courts of summary jurisdiction; applies an hourly rate of payment for professional work, with no regard to Schedule 3 of the Family Law Regulations-under the Regulations scale, it can happen that solicitors achieve a rate of costs far in excess of the prescribed nominal $62 per hour; does not ordinarily allow for payment for the first two hours waiting at court; does not allow for payment in respect of time spent travelling to and from court; and provides for reduced hourly rates when the solicitor is instructing counsel. I point out to honourable members that the Attorney-General has closely examined the ALAO scale and he has approved certain modifications to it. The first modification will enable a clearer definition to be given of the scope of work covered by the term 'basic composite amount', as it is defined in the legal aid scale, when assessing whether additional fees might be payable in a particular matter. Secondly, the fees payable to solicitors appearing in court as advocate, but not when instructing counsel, will be calculated now at the standard rate of $56 per hour instead of the reduced rate which operates at present. Thirdly, in those instances where the legal aid body would otherwise approve the briefing of counsel and the solicitor representing the legally aided person chooses to appear as advocate in lieu of counsel, the higher rate of $70 per hour will be payable in respect of the time the solicitor appears as advocate. The experience of the ALAO scale as it is currently applied has been evaluated and an assessment made of the likely impact that the new legal aid scale will have in the commission States and in the Australian Capital Territory. The Attorney-General is aware that introduction of the new legal aid scale may give rise to unforeseen difficulties and it is in any case desirable that a new scheme be reviewed once it has been in operation for some time. In the case of legal aid referrals, a clear picture of new trends does not become apparent until at least two years after commencement of operation of a new scale, due to the time that must elapse before a sufficient number of accounts are rendered. Accordingly, it is proposed that a review of the operation of the new scale be commenced at about 1 November 1985, when approximately 70 per cent of accounts will have been rendered. This review will, of course, be facilitated by the ability of the national legal aid computer system to provide comprehensive information in relation to all legal aid matters. As to the specific provisions of the Bill, it will amend the Family Law Act 1975, but has been introduced separately from the Family Law Amendment Bill 1983 , which may still require a good deal of time for its parliamentary passage. The present Bill is a Budget measure and the Government is obviously concerned to ensure that the estimated legal aid savings are achieved as soon as possible. This Bill does not provide for any new amounts to be appropriated, as the relevant funds are contained in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1983-84 currently before the Parliament. The Bill effectively contains three parts. First, in proposed new section 116A it enables the Commonwealth to make payments to a State or the Northern Territory by way of financial assistance for the provision of legal assistance in connection with matters arising under the Family Law Act 1975 or Regulations, on conditions specified by the Attorney-General that relate to the provision of legal assistance in connection with family law matters. This is the legislative framework that would enable the Commonwealth to make section 96 grants to the States for family law legal aid purposes. If the specified condition is not fulfilled, the Attorney-General may require repayment to the Commonwealth of a specified sum. This is the usual provision accompanying tied section 96 grants. Secondly, in proposed new section 116B the Bill enables payments made by the Commonwealth in connection with the provision of legal assistance under the Family Law Act 1975 or the Regulations to be made to legal aid bodies subject to conditions determined in writing by the Attorney-General relating to the provision of legal assistance in family law matters. The reliance here is on the section 81 appropriation power of the Constitution. The Bill also provides that where a legal aid body pays to a legal practitioner acting in a family law matter an amount in excess of that permitted by the legal aid scale, or where a specified condition attached to funding from the Commonwealth has not been fulfilled, the Attorney-General may determine that the relevant legal aid body or other person, authority or body to whom the payment was made is liable to pay or repay to the Commonwealth a specified amount. Thirdly, the Bill enables regulations to be promulgated that prescribe the amounts that shall be paid by Commonwealth funded legal aid bodies to private legal practitioners acting in legally aided matters arising under the Family Law Act 1975 and the Family Law Regulations. The constitutional heads of power primarily relied on here are those which support the Family Law Act itself, namely, sections 51 (xxi) and (xxii) relating to marriage and divorce. The amounts will, of course, be those contained in the new scale which I have already described. The Government believes there is ample constitutional power to support the implementation of the new scale by means of the regulations. If, however, this were to be the subject of a challenge, the Government would move immediately to the section 96 mode of funding to ensure that the new scale was enforced. More generally, funding by means of conditional payments to the States has been sought by the legal aid commissions as a means of reducing the administrative inconvenience of the present system, which requires a series of advances and adjustments to be made quarterly each financial year. Although the format of section 96 grants has not yet been finalised and will not be introduced at this stage, the Government will be considering a move in the 1984-85 Budget to the funding of the commissions by way of section 96 grants. The Attorney-General will be giving further consideration to the mechanics of the funding process and procedures under which the grants would apply, prior to the next financial year, should that course be adopted. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Ruddock) adjourned. Reference of Work: Public Works Committee Act Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(10.36) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of accommodation for the National Institute of Dramatic Art, Kensington, New South Wales. The proposal is for the provision of new facilities on a site on the western campus of the University of New South Wales, Kensington. The elements of the work comprise rehearsal rooms, teaching and performance studios, outdoor performance space, landscaping and parking, a sound studio and workshop, student facilities and administration, library and exhibition space. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $4.45m at August 1983 prices. I table plans of the proposed work. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(10.38) —The Opposition fully supports the announcement of the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford). As he knows, the improvement of facilities at the National Institute of Dramatic Art has been a long-standing commitment of governments of both political persuasions . It is fair to say that both the parties of the Opposition and the Australian Labor Party are fully aware of the need to give top facilities to NIDA. For too long the people who have laboured there have had to put up with what we might term intolerable conditions. The office of the Administrator, Elizabeth Butcher, was a jockeys changing room at the old Kensington racecourse. The fact that the Institute, despite having to use facilities which are part of a racecourse, has been able to turn out world class actors, actresses and technical people, is a tribute to all those people who have participated in NIDA since its inception. I pay a great tribute to John Clark, the Director. Very importantly, the operations of NIDA are a blueprint for the rest of Australia. On the one hand, as I see from the Estimates, the Government allocated it $4.4m this year for capital works. But NIDA has shown enough interest and enthusiasm to have arranged a fund raising program headed by Mr Bruce Harris which aims to collect $1.3m so that the building when completed will be functional. Those people deserve congratulations. They are not prepared to sit back and wait for government to fund the total enterprise. They are prepared to help themselves. While I do not want to use this chamber to discuss commercial propositions, I make a special appeal that as many Australians as possible participate in that program to raise $1.3m. Donations to it are tax deductible. NIDA has contributed in a meaningful and significant way by training some of the great names who are known world wide-people such as Helen Morse who in Far East gave the best acting performance that I have ever been privileged to witness. All of us will remember with great pride Angela Punch McGregor's contribution in We of the Never Never. Last week, of course, Wendy Hughes was awarded the supreme prize for an actress in an Australian production. Other great names are Tom Burlinson, Mel Gibson, Judy Davis and the incomparable Robyn Nevin. It is great to see that the Government is progressing with this building. Those of us who have visited the present facilities could not but be impressed with them. When I was the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment it gave me a great deal of pleasure to be able to bring together so many loose ends and to arrange with the University of New South Wales for NIDA to lease a piece of ground generally recorded as the parade area. On behalf of the Opposition I offer congratulations, particularly to the Minister, for progressing this matter very early in his period of stewardship. We hope that it will be completed very quickly because these people, who play a great part by performing on the stage and in the theatre in helping other people come to grips with their lives, certainly deserve the best possible facilities that can be given to them. I conclude on this note: Often in Australia we sell ourselves short. There could be no better director or teacher of actors and actresses than John Clark. I salute him as a gentleman and as a dedicated professional. Question resolved in the affirmative. Reference of Work: Public Works Committee Act Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(10.43) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Provision of navigational aids, Hydrographers Passage-Great Barrier Reef. The proposal is for the provision of maritime navigational aids to mark a deep water channel through the Great Barrier Reef known as Hydrographers Passage. It will enable ships operating between Central Queensland ports and the north Pacific and Asian regions to safely use the passage with resultant savings in shipping costs due to reduced steaming times. The proposal will comprise four major lighthouse towers, each equipped with automatic lights and a smaller structure surmounted by a radar reflector. The total estimated cost of the proposal is $4.75m at September 1983 prices. I table plans of the proposed work. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(10.44) —On behalf of the Opposition-I know my colleague the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) is particularly interested in this proposal as it is very close to his electorate-I again congratulate the Government on its positive move in this area and the fact that it has moved very quickly. The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford ) deserves congratulations for spelling out in detail the problems that have occurred and undoubtedly will occur. But I would like the Minister to take on board the deep feelings of many people who are concerned not only in the environmental area but also those who realize that the Great Barrier Reef belongs not just to Queensland and Australia but to the rest of the world. Notwithstanding the installation of the navigational aids there could very well be further environmental risks. Enormous boats come into this area and there will be great savings in both time and costs. I would like to think that the Government will make sure that the risks will be kept to an absolute minimum and that part of the proposal, when the beacons are eventually installed, will be compulsory pilotage through the paths. We must never do anything which will set at risk this great wonder of the world-the Great Barrier Reef. I seek an assurance from the Government that, notwithstanding these initiatives, these safeguards, the matter of compulsory pilotage will also be looked at because this is a very essential part of the world heritage. I know that the Government and the Opposition are united that it must not be damaged. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(10.46) —I join my colleague the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) in congratulating the Government on going ahead with the provision of navigational aids. We should reflect on the great amount of work that has been done by many people over the last three or four years in opening up the Hydrographers Passage, in spite of what has been an area of grave environmental risk, an area of high tides. As has been said, it is an opportunity to open up the eastern coast of Australia to the trade of the Pacific Islands. I understand that about four navigational aids will be installed. These will save, I understand, up to one day's steaming time. They will give automatic and direct access to the coal ports of Abbot Bay, Hay Point and Dalrymple Bay, all of which are situated in the electorate of Dawson. Between them they probably export one-half of Australia's coal and also the sugar that comes from the Mackay port. Again I say how pleased I am that the Government has provided these aids. I also extend my congratulations to the people, both within the Department of Transport and those doing the investigations, for the work that they have done. They have received close support from land-based groups. Perhaps it is fitting to suggest that once the Passage has been properly fitted with navigational aids it will be an appropriate place to defend the next America's Cup. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 4 October. Schedule 2. 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. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke)(10.49) —In the first part of my speech which I made on Tuesday I referred to the domination of economic policy by certain one-sided views held in the Department of the Treasury. I said that the Budget, in my view , erred on the side of caution because alternatives existed-they still exist- which could have provided a means of increasing revenue and hence a larger stimulus consistent with Labor philosophies. This could have been done within the limits of the predetermined Budget deficit, to the tune of about $1 billion or more, and so allowed the Government to achieve more of its general goals. I will consider some of the options which were available to the Government. Large sections of many churches have recently added their voice to the mounting calls for a real and workable capital gains tax. Such a tax will not only redistribute income but also channel resources into productive areas, such as the manufacturing industry, and away from speculative opportunism in property. Furthermore, despite calls from large sections of the Australian Labor Party, there was no mention in the Budget of a national death duty which is capable of being implemented and operational relatively quickly and which is possibly the most consistent with egalitarian principles. It is also a tax which exists in every other advanced Western industrialised society. It is a great disgrace that there is no such tax in Australia. Unfortunately, such an expansionist approach has been strongly resisted by conservative ideologues in Treasury. By pressing for a continuation of quasi- monetarist economic policies, which in the Fraser period worsened our economic crisis, these dogmatic bureaucrats are seeking to thwart the Government's redistributive economic policy. If they continue to be allowed to have such domination in the framing of future Budgets, unemployment queues will grow longer and the Government will be seen to be inept in carrying out its promises and objectives. This domination cannot be tolerated for much longer. There are many economists well qualified and able to supplement those who are now dominating Treasury policy. This would create a very desirable situation in which Treasury advice would be the result of a broad cross section of differing economic policies. Action is necessary in this area and I will continue to urge the Government to take this matter on board. The benefits flowing from a more expansionary approach have been seriously underestimated. These benefits are both political and economic. The economic benefits are important. A greater fiscal stimulus would have provided an opportunity to create a substantially greater number of jobs, indeed enough to substantially decrease the number of unemployed during 1983-84. Extra funds may have been allocated to public works projects. Who could deny that there is still a very great scope for further expenditure in this area, especially in the inner parts of the large capital cities where many public facilities and amenities are already in a state of serious disrepair. Job creation in the private sector could have been expanded further. Longer term initiatives are needed to complement and strengthen the effect of short term job creation measures which, in isolation, can have only a limited impact. I have already mentioned the seriousness of the projected decline in private sector investment projected by Treasury in 1983-84. The private sector will not suddenly increase its investment and employment in the face of sagging demand unless it is given some incentive to do so. This incentive could have been forthcoming via government investment, in conjunction with private enterprise, in our most seriously affected manufacturing industries. The recent post-Budget capital injection of $50m, given to the Australian Industry Development Corporation, is tacit recognition, in the face of objections from Treasury, that industry could and should have received more. I wonder whether even this is enough, given that investment expenditure from the private sector will be up to $3 billion less than last financial year, according to Treasury. This Budget has not dramatically increased expenditure to assist industry. The assistance which has been squeezed out of Treasury can hardly be described as the Labor Government stifling the private sector, as the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), shamefully claims. Furthermore, the Government had to act against the objections of Treasury to provide venture capital assistance to new high technology, which was the worthy proposal of the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones). Tax incentives are a good start to stimulating private investment in new industries but they are unlikely to succeed unless there is an expansion in demand. If there is no market for domestically produced goods all the incentives in the world will not be enough to ensure viable long term industries. Government action to stimulate demand substantially is absolutely crucial. A more expansionary Budget could have substantially stimulated demand. For example , there could have been greater increases in certain social welfare payments. These could have been accommodated within the preferred deficit with an expansionist approach. The most needy would benefit more. Rather than just redistributive measures, such initiatives provide a simple and effective way to directly stimulate aggregate demand as the most needy cannot afford to save. They can only spend, thereby stimulating economic activity. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(10.55) —In the brief time allotted to this debate, I want to speak on two matters relating to the economy. I wish to point to the problems facing Australia, particularly job creation. We all recall the promises made by the Labor Government to provide half a million jobs. On top of that, I want to look at the economy to see where it stands at the moment. There has been a very substantial destocking. Stock levels in the nation are very low indeed at the moment. However, we will see some recovery in this area in the calendar year 1984. On top of that, we can expect a substantial improvement in the amount of money which will come from the rural sector, which will make a very substantial contribution to the economy. The financial sector will also make a substantial contribution. But, beyond that, job creation will be hard to achieve. The Government should be looking at two aspects of the economy. They are money supply and exchange rates. At present, growth in the money supply in the Australian economy is very rapid indeed. The money supply is growing at a rate which must be causing some concern to those in authority who have the responsibility of bringing it under control. It is caused in the first place by a substantial government deficit. This money is being pumped into the economy at a rapid rate. It has been supplemented by a substantial capital inflow. This is having an effect in the capital markets of Australia insofar as interest rates, particularly at the short end of the market, have decreased dramatically. This has stretched the yield curve into a more reasonable shape than it has been in for a number of years. This is just as well, because the length of the Australian Government debt has shortened dramatically. Unless investors can be forced into taking five year to 10 year bonds, the Government will be faced in the next three years with the massive problems of redeeming substantial amounts of government paper which will almost be in a cash position. The advent of this substantial capital inflow has altered the yield curve and has made prospects of investment in the five year to 10 year bonds far more sustainable. On top of that, intermediaries, particularly the merchant banks, have been taking a very great interest in arbitrage in terms of borrowing abroad and funding into the Australian market. As a consequence, we have seen the funds of well known investments such as the cash management trusts sink below the levels at which they have been for the last 18 months to two years. Indeed, these levels have sunk below the Australian savings bond rate which has been the bench -mark of ordinary household collection. At a time when the domestic use of money is appalling, domestic savings are high. As a consequence, the Government must find ways of getting those savings into the system to finance the huge deficit it faces not only this year but also next year and the year after. There has been no attempt in this Budget to alter the structural balance of the economy. Because of that I can assume that there is no will by the Australian Labor Party to attempt to do so. At the moment, we can expect the prospect of a substantial growth in the money supply and sharp alteration in the yield curves and a determination by some to look at the question of investment in Australia. That brings us to the question of the exchange rate. It is in that area that most leverage can be imposed on foreign investment. We all noticed that when the Labor Party came to power it devalued the dollar by 10 per cent. The winner was the smart money which move beforehand and which was rapidly brought back into Australia within a matter of weeks. Since that point the American dollar has changed its perspective in terms of the international monetary markets. As a consequence, the American dollar has started to depreciate against world currencies. The reason for that is that the United States Federal Reserve has substantially tightened the growth in the money supply in that country. At the same time we have seen the effect of the very large balance of trade deficits that the American economy has been running. Because of that, pressure from within America will bring down the exchange rate of the American dollar and will attempt to make its currency more competitive. This will have the effect of forcing up the exchange rate for the Australian dollar. Of course, higher exchange rates for the Australian dollar will once again affect the job market and the profitability of corporations in the export field. The Australian manufacturing scene will feel the increased competitive pressure and so pressures on jobs in that area. On top of that, I suggest that we look at the level of foreign reserves which are currently being run by the Reserve Bank. They are of the order of $11 billion to $12 billion. I suggest that it might be wise for an exchange rate position to be taken which would allow some of these reserves to run down which would take some of the excess liquidity out of the system. Failure to do this in the next three months to six months will lead only to increased inflation and prices within the nation. A monetary policy which is allowed to run unchecked- particularly in view of the very high levels of liquidity that we have at the moment-will inevitably lead to higher prices which will in turn inevitably lead to higher wage demands. These will bring about a very sharp impact on the prices and incomes accord on which the Government places so much importance. In summary, I point to two critical factors at present. The first is the excess money supply within the system and the need to ensure that this is taken up and certainly met by the $4 billion that is yet to be raised by the semi-government borrowings and the $3 billion to $4 billion yet to be raised by the Commonwealth sector and the sheer fortune that the Government has, in that area, through very limited corporate demand. The other factor is the exchange rate, which will inevitably push upwards as the American dollar falls and the effect that that will have on the Australian economy in terms of its competitiveness, its ability to create jobs and its ability to pull itself out in terms of international competition. Given those warnings, I think that there is a lot to be done in terms of management of the Australian economy. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(11.03) —As we are now considering the allocation of funds to the Department of the Treasury it is appropriate-albeit within very severe time constraint-to consider briefly the role that this Department has come to play and, in particular, the nature of the economic advice that it is giving the Government. The allegation has been made for some time now that, far from being a relatively neutral instrument amenable to and equally co-operative with governments of different persuasions, Treasury has a definite 'line' of its own where economic policy is concerned. It is said that the Department of the Treasury, or at least that part of it charged with the responsibility of formulating advice on economic policy, is wedded to certain strong views about economic reality and that, when governments diverge too much from this, unpleasant consequences can follow. Allegations of this type were made in respect of the relationship between Treasury and the Whitlam Government. But, interestingly enough, matters also came to a head with the Fraser Government when it decided to move away from severe macro-economic contractionism in last year's Budget. That Budget, of course, saw some abandonment of ideological principle on the part of the Fraser Government- luckily for the people of Australia. The rhetoric about winding back the deficit was ditched to some degree in preparation for the coming election. If the Valder report of the Liberal Party Committee of Review released last week setting future directions for the Liberal Party is to be taken seriously- and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) has apparently embraced its main recommendations-we can expect to see the application of a much more doctrinaire line from the Opposition in future on such matters. This spells grim times ahead if it ever succeeds in regaining government. We all remember the episode after last year's Budget when the Secretary to the Treasury, the redoubtable John O. Stone, wrote a critical letter to the journal Australian Business pointing to the unfortunate consequences that befall governments that 'stop listening to the Treasury' with special reference to the fate of the Whitlam Government. This was a clear warning to Mr Fraser to toe the line. Even the former Treasurer, now Deputy Leader of the Opposition, was moved to say on 31 August last year at a National Press Club luncheon-this quote is from a transcript available in the Parliamentary Library: . . . they tend to see things in terms of only one option, and occasionally a few shades of grey would achieve a better result, and they occasionally don't like any breaking down of the monopoly on advice. Despite all this, Mr Howard concluded: . . . but I retained a very warm regard for them. All this precipitated a major debate about the role of Treasury and Mr Stone in particular. As a consequence, when Labor took office it was widely suggested that Mr Stone be replaced with someone less hostile to the broad thrust of Labor 's economic strategy. The economics editor of the Sydney Morning Herald, Ross Gittins, for one, expressed the view that failure to replace Mr Stone in the immediate post-election period when there was a general public expectation of such a move would, in future years, be regarded as one of the most serious errors made in the early period of this Government. I frankly concur with that view. I referred above to the existence of a Treasury line on macroeconomic policy. The Department of the Treasury, of course, has no line in the sense of an official policy. That is supposed to be the prerogative of the Government of the day. Furthermore, there obviously exist some differences of view among individual Treasury officers. Nonetheless, I maintain that it is appropriate to talk of a Treasury line. The nature of this can be ascertained by looking at the views on policy matters expressed by John Stone. I do not believe that this overstates the importance of one individual. The personal intellectual dominance of Mr Stone in the Department is generally recognised. This view is confirmed by an examination of Budget Statement No. 2 'The Budget and the Economy'. While this document supposedly reflects the policy of the Government of the day, it is drafted in the first instance by Treasury, and Treasury's central obsessions, particularly in respect of the importance of inflationary expectations and the role of monetary policy, come through loud and clear. Views on these matters lie at the heart of Treasury's aversion to expansionary fiscal policies as a means of stimulating real output and reducing unemployment. Mr Stone's views on these matters are set out in a paper 'The Budget Deficit and the Economy' published in a volume of articles on this subject by the Centre for Applied Economic Research at the University of New South Wales in 1979. His paper begins: The view to be put in this paper is that, in current economic circumstances in Australia, a policy of expanding the Budget deficit, whether by increased government spending or by reduced taxation, would not achieve the ends to which it would presumably be directed. That is it would not lead to expanded output and employment and reduced unemployment, at least in any sustained sense, but rather would darken prospects in those areas. He concedes the existence of conventional Keynesian multiplier effects from a fiscal stimulus. He then argues: . . . in present circumstances such analysis does not tell the whole story. The additional factors which must be taken into account, and which would, in aggregate, more than offset any narrowly defined multiplier effects are the monetary effects of the deficit, effects on the balance of payments, effects on wage determination, and the effects-both direct and through these channels-of the Budget deficit on confidence and expectations in the economy at large. In this latter regard the rate of inflation and changes therein are seen as having a key role. Mr Stone contends that heightened inflationary expectations engendered by large Budget deficits lead to reduced consumption and investment expenditures. These are highly controversial propositions in regard to which there is considerable economic literature. All that I can do in the space of a short speech is to indicate this by quoting from another respected Australian authority in the area of fiscal policy, Professor John Nevile, of the University of New South Wales. He prepared for the Parliamentary Library earlier this year a paper that refers to these matters: 'Macroeconomic Issues and Policy Options'. I will give a couple of quotations to contrast Professor Nevile's views with those of Mr Stone . On the linkage between fiscal expansionism and inflationary expectations Professor Nevile says: Stone's argument that expansionary fiscal policy will cause expectations that the rate of inflation will rise is speculation not fact. Any effect on inflationary expectations will only be in this direction, but there is no evidence that this effect is large. On the further link between inflationary expectations and investment expenditure , he says: However, if the past can be taken as a guide to the future, actual inflation, let alone expectations of inflation, will not reduce investment by anything like the extra expenditure induced by expansionary fiscal policy, unless the expansionary fiscal policy is accompanied by a very substantial rise in interest rates. The strength of any link between deficits and interest rates-insofar as one asserts the existence of a strong link-hinges crucially on the monetary policy stance being pursued. Labor has traditionally taken the view that a more liberal monetary policy will attenuate any adverse interest rate consequences of fiscal expansionism. Treasury opposes this on the conventional monetarist ground that this will be inflationary. Again, the link between monetary growth and inflation is one of the points on which monetarism has been attacked, and this is a major economic controversy in itself. It is clear that the type of thinking in the above quotations from Mr Stone has exerted a major influence on the economic analysis in Budget Statement No. 2 'The Budget and the Economy'. I will quote from page 57 of this statement: In reality, fiscal policy can affect the economy through a variety of channels in addition to direct income/ expenditure effects. It can influence interest rates, exchange rates, the money supply, the balance of payments, expectations- notably, inflationary expectations-confidence and uncertainty. These additional transmission mechanisms are, for the most part, extremely inconvenient to handle analytically and often impossible to quantify. They are, however, no less real for being empirically and often even theoretically intractable. A comparison of this quotation with the second quotation above from Mr Stone's paper shows an almost identical appraisal of the role of inflationary expectations and their importance for the efficacy of fiscal policy. The main point of difference is that Mr Stone's paper makes no bones about asserting that the overall effect of fiscal stimulus on real output would be negative, whereas the quotation from Budget Statement No. 2 talks vaguely about how the expectational effects are 'difficult to quantify' but are 'no less real' for that. In respect of monetary policy, likewise, a monetarist line emerges. I will quote again from Budget Statement No. 2: . . . excessive monetary growth does, over time, result in incresed inflation; thus the mere threat of increased monetary growth can rekindle inflationary expectations . . . To recapitulate, I contend that it is meaningful to talk of a Treasury line in economic policy. This is most clearly set out in the writings of John Stone. It is a conservative line, hostile to fiscal expansionism and based on a view of economic relationships that is vastly contentious and, I believe, false. The influence of this thinking is clearly evident in Budget Statement No. 2 which is drafted by Treasury. I say these things because it is imperative that the Government is at least aware of the sort of ideological bias that can creep into the advice it receives. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(11.13) — The time limit of 10 minutes when speaking to these estimates restricts me to highlighting just one or two issues. I will commence by referring to Budget Paper No. 5 which sets out the average employment over all Commonwealth departments. The interesting factor is that in spite of a fairly drastic cut-back in armed service average employment the figure has risen from 217,507 in 1982-83 to 223, 964 during the current year, an increase of 6,457. Omitting the decrease in numbers in the armed services, which will be in excess of 1,000, the actual increase in numbers in the Australian Public Service is 7,501. The further interesting factor is that these are only average figures. At the end of the year-that is, by June 1984-the increase will be greater still and Public Service numbers will probably stand at record figures. An assessment of where the major increases in staffing will occur indicates where the economic thrust of this Australian Labor Party Government will be directed. The Departments affected are Social Security and Health. In fact, Social Security has an increase in staff of 2,446. In the Department of the Treasury, particularly the Australian Taxation Office, there is an increase of 1 ,109 in staff. Therefore, the economic thrust is towards more centralised control, certainly higher taxes with the numbers of staff who will be employed in the Taxation Office and a greater number of unemployed to carry the burden of the greater interventionist policies of this Government. The thrust in taxation is twofold. In spite of an electoral understanding to rely less on indirect taxation, we find a substantial increase by this Government in that area. For instance, there is a 14 per cent increase in sales tax, a 31.7 per cent increase in excise duty on petrol, tobacco and beer. This is assuming the Labor Party believes that these commodities are not necessities of life. But there is a 575.7 per cent increase in bank account debit tax and an overall increase of $1.821 billion from $12.76 billion in indirect taxation in 1982-83, or an overall increase of 14 per cent. This does not include in any shape or form the effects of the Medicare levy, which will be an indirect tax. Of course, this is only part of the story. The increase in Taxation Office staff, the capital cost of computerisation and other ongoing costs are made necessary to a large extent because of Labor's introduction of the 10 per cent withholding tax, a measure not really closely related to the measure mentioned by the previous Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), in the 1982 Budget. In spite of changes to this measure that were mentioned in this place as late as yesterday, the measure is seen as government and bureaucratic intervention in the market-place in the most disruptive way possible- intervention in that, in spite of the Government's massive cost of collection, it will still involve private businesses, small and large, in the front line collection of the taxation at very heavy expense. In fact, since the tax's introduction I have heard that some businesses will be employing separate staff and providing appropriate programs for the collection, at the businesses' cost, of a Commonwealth tax. The tax has been described as an initiative for the collection from tax evaders . Nobody is at loggerheads with that. Really, the honest taxpayer has been the target of the Government's wrath because, by the Government exempting contracts under $10,000, the tax evasion industry has not been influenced except to the extent of the addition of 16,500 registrations for taxation, additions which may have been the result of some normal and legitimate registrations. That is the amount that was claimed by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford ) in the chamber the other day. I hope that, in the computerisation of the Taxation Office and in the arrangement of this extra staff, the initial intention of this measure, when included in the Budget Speech of 1982, will be achieved. That intention was to mop up on the cash evasion industry. The question I ask the Treasurer (Mr Keating), who is in charge of the Taxation Office, is: Will this computerisation , with the employment of the extra staff, be sufficient to record the earnings- particularly in rents, interest and dividends, wages and contracts-in a manner easily retrievable and able to be taxed at the appropriate point of delivery? The Budget figures disclose the broken Labor promises to decrease direct taxation and not to expand indirect taxation. In fact, the Budget changes completely Labor's initial response to the economic ills of the nation as it saw them prior to the 5 March election. As a direct result of the Budget, inflation will increase as the indirect charges feed into the consumer index prices. The extent of the deficit at $8.3 billion will certainly, in normal circumstances, have this effect as the Commonwealth goes into the loan market. One must also be careful in examining the effects of the Medicare levy of $390m for this year in artificially reducing the consumer price index to 7.56 per cent , the Government's estimate. It acknowledges that this artificial reduction will amount to 1.5 per cent in 1983-84 and a further 1.5 per cent in the following year. This should be firmly understood by those who wish to have a fuller understanding of the economic policies of the Government. One must ask again why a Medicare levy is any less a charge against earnings than an excise tax. I have objected before and will continue to object to this form of taxation affecting the determination of the CPI. For the ordinary man in the street a direct taxation charge such as the Medicare levy, which takes the place of a medical insurance premium, makes no difference to his net pay packet because normal medical insurance premiums would have been deducted in any case. This artificial reduction will have an effect on wages claims and indexation of pensions. All will be caught short because of a shortfall in the CPI, which, as I have said, has been artificially reduced, on the Government's estimation, to 7.5 per cent. I want to look particularly at how local government will be caught in the double squeeze. The Labor Government promised local government that its share of personal income tax collections would be no less than the real value of the previous year's share. Already we have seen that promise broken, in that 8.2 per cent was applied instead of 11.2 per cent. But what about the future? Local government will face an increased labour cost following the 4.3 per cent increase granted at the last national wage case hearing. That will add substantially to costs. I estimate that increased fuel excise, higher sales tax on fuels and lubricants and rising costs of road construction and maintenance will cause local government to suffer no less than a 10 per cent increase in costs next year. Therefore, the real increase in local government's share of personal income tax collections for this year will be less than the estimated consumer price index increase of 7.5 per cent. There will be a decrease in real values in the amount going to local government because of actions which the Government has taken in this year's Budget on top of the 2.5 per cent decrease in real values following the 3 per cent reduction in the previous year. Apart from this we have also to look at the situation of the unemployed and pensioners , who rely on a proper indexation of their benefits and pensions so that they keep their real values. Another aspect of the Budget is the payment of $300m to the community employment program. At all times I want it understood that I have encouraged the authorities in my area to look at this scheme. But let us just look at the facts . During the next six months 70,000 people will be taken from the dole queues of this country. They will then have to rejoin those queues. One might say that there will be a temporary and artificial reduction in unemployment figures. This contrasts with the policy that the Government could have adopted and maintained in providing permanent employment in the construction of capital projects. The decision not to proceed with the Alice Springs to Darwin railway line, for instance, has had the immediate effect of reducing employment opportunities in construction. It has also had a secondary effect on all our steel industries and subsidiary suppliers which would have needed to employ additional Australians to supply that project. In addition to the effective cancellation of the project- the Northern Territory will not have the wherewithal to do anything about it by itself-we have seen the toning down of the international airport at Brisbane. We will miss out on more permanent job opportunities there. The Government has said that the Northern Territory should be able to afford 40 per cent of the cost of the Alice Springs-Darwin railway line. It cannot. It requires the assistance of the Commonwealth if it is to achieve proper statehood status. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Hunter)(11.23) —Prior to the last election, as part of the total policy package which was presented to the Australian people by the Australian Labor Party, a document was issued called 'National Recovery and Reconstruction Plan'. Contained within that document was the statement: We- that is, the Labor Party- reject the policies which have led us into depression and which prevent sustained recovery. That statement went on: The principal thrust of Labor's economic strategy will be to reject the policies of contraction and embrace the policies of expansion. The first significant opportunity which the Labor Government had to honour that undertaking was the presentation of the Budget for the current financial year. I know that some quite extraordinary statements have been made by the conservative forces in the Australian community concerning the general strategy which was contained within that Budget and the possible success which that Budget will have in achieving its clearly determined, clearly defined and clearly articulated objectives. The criticism of the Budget has been contained largely within the Liberal Party and the National Party. All other responsible commentators in Australia have generally applauded the Government's intention and the very effective way in which the Government was able to realise its intentions and pursue its objectives. But we have a responsibility to the Australian electorate at large to convince it not only that that policy undertaking we gave prior to the last election has been honoured as a result of the details of this current Budget but also that the Budget represents a more expansionary policy by the present Government and a rejection of the policies of contraction which were pursued by the previous Government over a period of seven years often incoherently and inconsistently, and certainly without any significant success-in fact, with very great continuing and accelerating damage to the Australian economy. I believe that the Budget can be shown to be expansionary and certainly more expansionary than the alternatives may have been. A very significant aspect of the Budget is the fact that to a very large extent it is also redistributive. But it is not sufficient for us to claim that the Budget is expansionary simply by looking at the aggregate amount of the Budget deficit. We need to indicate that the Budget is more expansionary than a Budget provided by the Opposition would have been had it been in government. Despite the fact that the previous Government did not remain in government, we know now that the projection of its deficit, with a continuation of existing programs into 1983-84, would have resulted in a Budget deficit of between $9.6 billion and $10.4 billion. That fact is well known. It has been well canvassed and it is well understood by the Australian people. But the former Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), for whom I have some personal regard, on the AM program on 6 July this year said that had his Party been in government its Budget deficit would have been between $6 billion and $7 billion. He established that $7 billion as a very firm ceiling. That is absolutely incredible. It is absolutely incredible that the honourable member for Bennelong, in a quite uncharacteristic, dishonest comment in relation to that Budget, should have made such a declaration. The Opposition has not addressed itself to the way in which it would have sought to reduce a projected Budget deficit of between $9.6 billion and $10.4 billion to a ceiling of $7 billion. Mr Simmons —Just rhetoric. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Exactly, it is just rhetoric. It has been exclusively rhetoric without anything more substantial to substantiate that rhetoric. Had the previous Government been able to bring about a ceiling of $7 billion in its Budget deficit that would have represented further cuts in expenditure of between $2.6 billion and $3.4 billion or, alternatively, an increased rip-off from the Australian taxpayer of between $2.6 billion and $3.4 billion. The Opposition has not adequately explained the approach it would have taken in order to reduce that projected Budget deficit from at least the $9.6 billion to the $7 billion ceiling which it claimed it would have pursued. It was an attitude which was quite uncharacteristic of the honourable member for Bennelong . As the Treasury spokesman for the Opposition, he has the responsibility to take the opportunity to come into this chamber and explain how the Opposition proposed to reduce the deficit to that extent. If we compare our Budget deficit with the Budget deficit the Opposition claims it would have pursued, we find that we have honoured our undertaking to the Australian electorate by providing a Budget which is significantly more expansionary to the extent of $1.5 billion than the Budget for which the Opposition would have been responsible had it been in government and attempted to pursue that absurd proposition about a maximum deficit of $7 billion which it has canvassed around Australia. As I have said, however, it is not sufficient to look just at the aggregate amount of the Budget deficit. We also need to examine the proportions of that deficit which represent the domestic deficit-that is really the expansionary component of the deficit-and the overseas deficit. In 1982-83 the domestic deficit was $2,482m. Of course, that deficit resulted to a large extent from a reversal of the approach which had been made by the previous Government. That Government had, in fact, budgeted for a domestic surplus which is itself contractionary. It had budgeted for a surplus of something in excess of $200m. As a result of the blowout in the defict last year, we finished up with an expansionary domestic deficit component for that financial year of $2,482m. This year we have provided for a domestic deficit of $5,744m, a significant increase in the expansionary approach in fiscal management. To determine the expansionary nature of the Budget we also need to examine the proportion of that Budget which is structural and the proportion which is cyclical. The cyclical component of the Budget is that proportion of the Budget deficit which results from the cyclical downturn in the level of economic activity. The structural component of the deficit is the amount which represents a positive discretionary approach to expansionary policy by the Government responsible for that Budget. Of the total roughly $8.5 billion deficit the cyclical component is about $5,000m and the structural, discretionary and deliberate component is about $3,500m. So $3.5 billion represents the deliberate intention on the part of this Government to be more expansionary and to honour that undertaking given to the Australian electorate before the last election which was overwhelmingly endorsed by the electorate. Also, we can look at the proportion of gross domestic product represented by this proposed deficit. The deficit represented 2.8 per cent of GDP in 1982-83. This year it will represent 4.7 per cent. That is again a very clear and firm indication of the fact that this Government has honoured its commitment to the Australian people to be more expansionary which, I repeat, was overwhelmingly endorsed by them in the decision they made on 5 March. The estimated increase in total outlays for this year is 15.8 per cent, with an anticipated inflation rate of 7.5 per cent. That is further evidence of the expansionary nature of that Budget. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr DRUMMOND(Forrest)(11.33) —Reaction to the 1983 Budget has centred very much on its effect on individuals and interest groups. This is very understandable but, in the process, we lose sight of the economic overview. This Budget has been praised largely for what it does not do. We have indeed been spared the vicious and disastrous forays into capital taxation that the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) continues to advocate. In return, the electorate is expected to overlook the dishonouring of the promise to cut taxes made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). The lack of reduction in personal income tax, together with the present and future rises in indirect taxes, cannot but increase the taxation burden on the ordinary family. Perhaps it is a measure of public cynicism that people expected this promise to be broken anyway. In passing, however, I note that the voters in the south-west of Western Australia and the nation as a whole will be far less forgiving if this Government breaks its promise to avoid new taxes on capital. While the Treasurer (Mr Keating) may deserve some credit for resisting the demands of the lunatic Left, the fact remains that he has given us a Budget which shows a lack of imagination that is not matched by true fiscal responsibility. In making this statement I commend to the attention of the House page 70 of Budget Paper No. 1 which is the final page of the Budget's economic overview. We are all aware that this is not the work of the Treasurer but of his chief secretary. Quite clearly, this shrewd, able servant of the Australian people has little faith that this Budget will work. He spells out that only the private sector can generate recovery and that an expanding public sector will put pressure on interest rates. Wage rises above the 7 per cent so confidently assumed by the Government will affect corporate profitability and cause unemployment. Mr Stone is obviously sceptical that the increased Government borrowing needed to support the Government's projected deficit can be financed without pressure on interest rates. Unlike the Treasurer , he knows that economic recovery will result in an increased demand for private finance that could in turn inhibit this very recovery. Mr Stone notes also that even the most optimistic inflation forecast of this Budget puts Australia above the inflation levels of its major trading partners and makes us economically uncompetitive. It is sobering to realise that only two years ago our inflation rate was significantly below that of other Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development countries.That one page of honest observation shows up the hollowness of the Hawke Government's rhetoric. John Stone has told us that we are flying on a wing and a prayer, totally dependent on the goodwill of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and on the strength of Ronald Reagan's United States recovery. For all the rhetoric of spending restraint, we are faced with a Budget deficit of $8 billion, or 4.7 per cent of gross domestic product. This is the highest ratio of deficit to GDP since 1975. Despite the overrun caused by worsening depression, the 1982-83 Budget deficit was held to 2.8 per cent of GDP . Moreover, this projection of 4.7 per cent depends on a favourable outcome. Should receipts fall and unemployment rise further than the enormous level of 680,000 so casually predicted in the Budget Papers, the deficit will explode and recovery will be torpedoed. The Hawke Government cannot say that it has not been warned, and in its own Budget Papers. The same warnings are echoed in an equally sober assessment by the Economic Department of the Westpac Banking Corporation. Its September review questions the wisdom of a large deficit when private sector activity is increasing in response to the Western world's recovery. This will lead to the private and public sectors bidding up the price of financial resources. Again, the point is made that this will push up interest rates and inflation. The Westpac analysis makes the point that the Government is trying to conceal the fact that the forecast rise in the consumer price index of 7.5 per cent results from an artificial reduction in the CPI by three percentage points because of Medicare. Health care costs will no longer be counted, even though the taxpayer will still be meeting them. The rate of inflation will thus be understated, and in real terms will be at least 10 per cent in 1983-84. When the Budget predicts a 14 per cent growth in our nominal gross domestic product but a three per cent growth in real terms, we do not have to be brilliant mathematicians to work out what the real inflation rate is likely to be. Like John Stone, the Westpac report questions a strategy so dependent on the accord with the unions. We have seen how some unions in building, oil, petrochemical and food processing industries have obtained actual or disguised wage increases outside the system. The report states that, should this be the start of a process whereby wage rises outstrip the seven per cent prediction: the biggest danger is Australia's recovery will be of the Hot-house variety, narrowly based on stock turnaround, higher rural incomes and exports, force-fed by government spending and excessive wage growth, and intrinsically unstable. In relation to the growth in outlays and consequently in the deficit, the report goes on to say: By deliberately setting out to force-feed economic growth in the year ahead, the Government may well have truncated Australia's longer-term growth prospects. In short, the Treasurer may deserve some marks for his sense of political and social reality in rejecting the socialist Left's solutions for the present, but he has failed sadly in the task of far-sighted economic management. It looks to me as though he has got it all wrong. I must reiterate the fact that this is a big spending Budget with outlays up by 7.2 per cent in real terms, or 15.8 per cent in raw figures. This is the highest jump in any one year since spending went up by nearly 20 per cent in real terms in the lunatic exercise of the second Whitlam Budget of 1974-75. Federal government expenditure has been raised to a new height of 31.6 per cent of gross domestic product. As Mr Stone has pointed out, this is the sort of big spending that simply crowds out the private sector. The Government's lack of imagination in its first and vital Budget will contribute to the pressures likely to upset its projected outcome. The indexing of excises, especially as regards petrol, will produce an understandable demand for wage rises when they are not offset by reform of income tax. The sleight of hand over the CPI, with the artificial removal of the health care component, will not remove the ultimate cost to the family budget. Again, there will be pressure for wage increases as Medicare becomes established. Moreover, the fiddling of the CPI will be felt by age pensioners who will find that their pension rises next year will be smaller although overall living costs may be up by substantially more than the nominal CPI. This negative Budget will, I believe , prove positively detrimental to the sustained recovery needed to make Australia truly competitive and to get Australians back into real jobs. I believe that any recovery that this nation is experiencing and the enthusiasm held by big business and others for the future relate to action taken by the previous Government, world events and the elements. The previous Government's decision and the nation's response to the wage pause, which has helped dramatically over the last few months, the Western world's apparent gradual recovery and the breaking of the drought are three key elements as to why we are enjoying a far happier economic situation that we were 12 months ago. I do not believe that this Budget, which the Government claims has led to the enthusiasm and the optimism that is apparently abroad today, has much to do with it. The responsible actions taken by the previous Government have led to this present healthy situation. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(11.43) —I have been listening with interest to the Opposition's comments on the Budget in this debate on the Estimates. I attempted to find out during the debate what the Opposition's alternative was. I am afraid that the contributions of Opposition members to the debate have been totally devoid of any constructive comments on this Budget. What we have seen consistently is just criticism of the Budget presented by the Government. No alternative has been presented. What would the Opposition's deficit be? How would it increase revenue? The problem with members of the Opposition is that they are not being constructive at all. They have not outlined to us from where they would get their revenue. If the size of their deficit were to be low, where would the money come from? I do not think the Opposition has looked seriously at that question, nor has it presented an alternative view to the electorate generally. I wish to relate my comments specifically to the Department of Finance. In Parliament one very rarely has the opportunity to make some constructive comments about the role of government departments and the relationship between a government department and parliamentary committees. As a member of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts I commend the work done by the Department of Finance in its assistance to that Committee. The Committee has a permanent observer from the Department of Finance and we get considerable backup support from that Department in the compilation of our numerous reports. A number of parliamentary committees-the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory is one-do not always take advantage of the expertise that is available within government departments. I know that that is going to be a new direction for the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. It will use more expertise that is available in departments, as the secretariat of the committee, which has such wide ranging responsibilities, has limited resources. I think it is important that committees get a quick response to their reports. Unfortunately, there has been considerable delay in getting responses in the form of the Finance minutes. I congratulate the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins ). He has been aware of the delay in getting responses to the Public Accounts Committee reports and has given this matter a high priority in his Department. We are now seeing a much quicker response to Public Accounts Committee reports. I also congratulate the Minister for Finance on the work that he has done in regard to budgetary reform measures. He recently tabled a document entitled ' Program Presentation of Appropriations and Outlays-Departmental Estimates 1983- 84'. I think this is very important because it lays the basis for a total reform of the way in which the Budget is presented. The aim of this change is to present a Budget which the public will understand more easily and which will provide much more information. I believe that is a step in the right direction. The Minister, in his program presentation, provided tables on individual programs which are intended to assist Parliament in the examination of the 1983- 84 Budget. This document provides a cross reference to data in the Budget Papers and contains an explanation of budgetary concepts, including the relationship between appropriations, expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and outlays. There is no doubt that a great deal of work goes into the presentation of budgetary papers; but for so long it has been very difficult to get a breakdown of actual cost estimates of programs. If we as a parliament are to exercise proper review procedures of government programs it is essential that we have detailed cost estimates. Of course, this is only the first step, and this presentation will be subject to further development and refinement on the basis of this year's experience with a view to the improved presentation of this information in future years. In circumstances such as we have had to date in which economic performance has been the poorest for 35 years, and especially bearing in mind the importance that we place on strict attention to efficiency and effectiveness of tax expenditure in outlay programs, this new review outlined by the Government is to be commended. Another major reform which I think is significant is the financial impact statement. In future all second reading speeches will include a statement of the financial impact of the legislation. These statements will include estimates of any significant costs. The Government is taking this action because it believes the community has a right to know the financial and economic effect of government policies and programs, and this reform will give effect to this belief. This is to be commended, and I believe we will see further development in this area over the next few years. Also, I commend the Minister for Finance for the work that he is doing in relation to the machinery of government. This matter will overlap with the responsibilities of the Department of Finance and the Public Service Board. Last week the Minister for Finance announced certain matters in relation to the reform of the Public Service, and a task force will be set up assisted by a group of public servants from the Department of Finance and from the Public Service Board. Over the next few months we will see an enhanced role for the Department of Finance, in co-ordination with the Public Service Board, in looking at the machinery of government. I think this is also an important step forward with the involvement of the Department of Finance. The Federal Government concedes that we just cannot relate management techniques principally to the Public Service Board without considering the financial implications. I believe we will see much greater co-ordination between the Board and the Department of Finance under the responsibility of the Minister for Finance. I now refer to the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund as it is within the domain of the Department of Finance. I believe that in Australia there is a general misunderstanding of the Commonwealth superannuation scheme. When we were conducting a review of superannuation benefits it was drawn to my attention that many people believe that public servants are very well off through their superannuation scheme. There are many misunderstandings of the facts. The situation is that public servants contribute to their superannuation scheme throughout their working lives. All the arrangements entered into on retirement are strictly controlled by the Government scheme. In other words, one cannot have any schemes for payoffs in the last few years of work. The superannuation scheme is controlled rigidly, unlike some of the private superannuation schemes where people are not paid salaries in the last few years but rather gain huge lump sums on retirement. The other factor that I think is important is that the Commonwealth superannuation scheme prevents double dipping. Because a large majority of public servants elect to have superannuation payments made over the remainder of their lives many of them are not eligible for age pensions. As a result there is no way in which they can gain double benefits. That matter has not been given due consideration by the public at large. Public servants make a contribution to a superannuation scheme all their working lives. In fact when they elect to take a graduated payment throughout the remainder of their non-working lives they are excluded, in a majority of cases, from gaining age pension benefits. Many of my constituents, particularly widows who are receiving the balance of their husbands' entitlements, would be much better off by giving that back-if they could-and getting all the benefits such as the age pension and all the other benefits of that entitlement. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(11.53) —I wish to draw attention during this estimates debate to three of the most damaging and incredible decisions made by any government in regard to raising taxes which affect substantial numbers of people within our community. I deal first of all with the proposed assets test for pensioners. The proposal to tax pensioners is completely selective and unfair. The Government's proposal will allow those people with large homes, paintings, antiques, boats, cars and jewellery to continue to be eligible for a pension. Those who do not have those assets but assets of a different type will be seriously disadvantaged. They have expressed their concern about this matter and have rejected these proposals in recent public meetings which the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) has had to face. He is starting to realise, I believe, the incredible depth of feeling on the part of these people against, and the damage that has been done by, the assets test proposals. Mr Hodgman —He got a thrashing in Sydney. Mr CADMAN —He did indeed get a thrashing in Sydney, and justifiably so. I do not know any government can claim to stand for the well-being of people in their retirement and devise such a damaging, all-embracing proposal. I believe the Australian Labor Party, through this proposal, has lost touch with real retirees who have completed their working lives in Australia. Having reached the end of their working lives, they retire and wish to enjoy the benefits of their hard work and their own thrift. Many of them have made investments in all forms of assets which will now be valued. The battler from the western suburbs of Sydney, early in his working life, put aside money for land at, say, The Entrance or on the north coast. Mr Robert Brown —You do not know where the battlers are. Mr CADMAN —I see that I can generate a response from Government members. They know how damaging this assets test is. They have been getting letters and representations from pensioner groups. They realise that this proposal has to be wiped if they are to survive in government. That is how critical this decision has been. How can the Government justify comparing holiday homes and large homes at Vaucluse? How can Government members say in honesty that they stand for the benefits of those who retire and for the benefits of pensioners? They cannot justify this decision. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Social Security are finding just how strong are the feelings of the battler and of the genuine Australian who has worked hard and planned his retirement and who suddenly finds most of those benefits whipped away by an unfeeling government, by a silvertail Treasurer who does not understand the position of the average retiree in Australia. He grew up in that environment and has turned his back on the very people who elected Labor to government-the grass roots of the Australian Labor Party and the Australian community. What a dreadful thing it is to see a man diverted from the high ideals which the Labor Party supposedly stands for and then, in his first Budget, turn his back on the very people who put the Australian Labor Party into office. I think it is the most damaging and incredible decision ever made by an Australian government. The next matter I would like to deal with is related to this; that is, the tax on lump sum superannuation payments. This is another proposal which will act in conjunction with the proposal I have just mentioned, the assets test. On the one hand, the Government will tax those people who have built up assets over many years and, on the other hand, it will tax those people who have saved in a different form. What has it got against people who are retiring? Why does it hate pensioners and retirees in Australia? It is putting down, attacking and vilifying the very people who try to help themselves. Leaving aside the gross anomaly in the lump sum tax proposal for the defence services, the combined effect of the Government's decisions on the assets test and the tax on lump sum superannuation will be to discourage people from saving and preparing for retirement, to discourage thrift and to discourage genuine efforts made through a working life. The Australian community will gradually adjust their views in this way: 'We need not look after ourselves. We will depend on the Government. We will fritter away our funds. We will not conserve our funds. We will not work hard. We will not set aside funds and forgo income for benefit at a later date'. That is what superannuation is. They will say: 'We will not prepare for our own future by building up assets which we can enjoy and perhaps pass on to our families. The Government will look after us'. They will sit back. So, instead of 40 per cent of the community being superannuated, that figure will be whittled away so that more and more people will be dependent on government expenditure. First of all, on the lump sum proposals, the Treasurer said: 'We have to stop double dipping'. He did that effectively with the assets test, but he is sticking with the lump sum tax. Then he used the argument of the $2,000m subsidy to superannuitants provided by the Australian community. Let us look at that. To encourage 40 per cent of our community to invest in superannuation schemes costs $2,000m. We meet the total bill of $6,000m for the remaining 60 per cent. It seems to me that a half price approach to encourage people to prepare for their retirement does not involve a subsidy at all. It is a fallacious argument. The Government should be genuinely looking at retirees and saying: 'How can we encourage people to do the very things they have been doing-preparing for their own retirement by investing in assets, bonds, building societies and superannuation funds?' That has to start now. It should be started by this Government which calls itself a reforming government. Actually it is a penalising government. The Treasurer does not understand; the Government does not understand. What is the Government's objective? It has removed completely the incentive which people need to prepare for their retirement. It has removed the incentive for superannuitants. It is all right to talk about the airline pilots. I inform the Committee that every outside member of staff of the Hawkesbury Shire Council , which is in my electorate, has signed a petition against these proposals. They are people on ordinary wages preparing for their retirement. They object thoroughly to the Government's approach to lump sum taxes. If the Treasurer wishes, I will produce the petition. I have it with me. The Government has succeeded in panicking every pensioner but its crass, crude and unfeeling decision on the taxing of assets. I would like to mention briefly a third decision which I think is incredibly bad; that is, the prescribed payments tax and the way in which it has been implemented. I had a few words to say about the tax yesterday. It is a tax on the capital of Australia's most important and hard-working sector-contractors and those who are trying to survive in their own, generally small business. In the recent adjustments that the Government has made there is no provision for paying back that working capital if there is an overcharge or if a business turns bad. The Government will be taxing these people as employees, and they are also paying provisional tax. The tax will be paid whether or not there is a loss on a particular job or the year's trading is bad. The exemption provisions are far too narrow, even with the current adjustments. All in all, this Government, by various techniques, has attacked those people who are extremely important in our community and who comprise a very large proportion of the community. It has attacked retirees and their benefits. It has attacked pensioners and their assets. It has also attacked the people who provide the wealth and the capacity to meet the bills that the Government is running up. In this process it will create unemployment and dissatisfaction and eventually will lose government. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LUSHER(Hume)(12.03) —There is an assumption in Australia that the United States recovery will flow on to our economy. I am one who has no desire to be bearish about Australia's prospects, but equally I believe we must be realistic and keep our feet on the ground about our prospects. There are few direct linkages between the Australian and United States economies. Our trade with the United States is two to one in its favour. Our total exports to the United States are valued at around $2 billion. This represents about 10 per cent of Australia's total exports. About half of these exports to the United States are agricultural exports, mainly beef. The United States buys little of our mineral production. Even if Australia could expand its beef exports after the drought, it is another question whether they would be welcome in the United States, especially in an election year. The United States recovery is based in a number of areas. Housing, motor vehicles and consumer spending are very strong although rising interest rates are being felt in the housing sector. The traditional smokestack industries are improving even though they are not expected to achieve their earlier economic dominance. The sectors which are showing the most rapid growth are what have become known as high-tech. These include communications, computers and point of sale/stock control equipment. Most reasonable analysts expect the growth rate in the United States economy to come back to a sustainable four per cent level after the initial post-recession activity. The other factor on the horizon is an inevitable increase in inflationary pressures. Money supply has been allowed to blow out in order to ensure the recovery is not choked off. This has had the effect of holding nominal interest rates down but also implies inflation at higher levels next year. Nominal rates are now rising as the Federal Reserve Board has been attempting to bring the money supply back under control. Real interest rates have remained very high all through the recovery phase, indicating that the market is anticipating higher inflation levels and also demonstrating a distrust of the ability of Congress, the Administration and the Federal Reserve Board to come to grips with the huge deficit and its economic effects. From Australia's viewpoint, the other big factor in the United States recovery is the persistent protectionist attitude that prevails. Not only could this have implications for our beef exports; it is having a serious effect on Japan, and that could affect us. During the recession, the Japanese have accepted voluntary restraints, particularly in motor vehicle exports to the United States. Despite the recovery, these restraints are still in place and the Japanese are accepting the voluntary regime rather than increasing the flow of exports and having the restraints institutionalised in the form of tariff and quota action. Japan is apparently accepting that its growth in share of world trade is slowing down and that its recovery will have to be primarily a domestically based recovery. The obvious consequence of this is that Japan will require less of the natural resources that we provide, or at least, an increasing amount, but at a much slower rate of increase. Australia is confronted with a world different from that which went into the recession. The next growth phase will be built around high technology rather than steel and ships. High technology is not a big consumer of iron ore, coal and bauxite. As Japan moves more into the high-tech area and countries such as Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong take over Japan's role in the heavy, basic resource consuming industries such as steel and shipbuilding, so Australia's markets will tend to move away from Japan to those countries. Australia's continued growth will depend to a large degree on increased sales of our minerals to these countries. These countries in turn depend on increasing sales to the United States and Europe. It is difficult to see Australia dramatically increasing agricultural exports because there are finite limits in that area that do not really apply to most of our mineral exports. Overlaying all of those concerns is the direction that world trade will take over the next several years. Perhaps critical to this is the position of the less developed countries. It seems most likely that until the debt problem of the less developed countries are resolved those countries will have to restrain their imports from the developed world. This will delay the movement out of recession in the West, particularly western Europe, where exports to lesser developed countries are vital to reverse the negative growth experience. High real interest rates lead to a strong dollar, which discourages exports and encourages imports, so that the United States will run a massive trade deficit. The benefits of this to the rest of the world are offset by the flow-on effect of high United States interest rates, which dampen recovery in other countries. Similarly, the strong protectionist feeling in the United States will have a restraining effect on the growth of world trade as countries bid up their own interest rates in order to stop funds flowing out to the United States. These higher interest rates are counterproductive to domestic economic recovery and increased growth. The importance of the United States economy is all pervasive. But its effects at the moment are confusing. No doubt, there is strong domestic recovery but interest rates in real terms are very high and are likely to go higher as the Federal Reserve Board attempts to slow down the rate of growth of the money supply. The message for Australia should be clear. Despite many favourable signs , our economic recovery may well be further down the track than we at present imagine. Our recovery depends more on developments in Japan, and Japan depends heavily on what happens in the United States and Europe. It seems clear that the United States recovery may not be immediately beneficial to Japan and that European recovery is well behind that of the United States. The bleak outlook for many lesser developed countries will tend to dampen trade growth even further. Japan and Europe are looking at much slower recovery and, in Japan's case, the recovery is looking more and more like a domestically based recovery not relying too heavily on exports. In Europe, the Commission of European Communities is anticipating a growth rate of 0.4 per cent for 1983, although the second half growth should be at an annual rate of 2 per cent. Australia must therefore concentrate rigorously on recovering international competitiveness and getting its own house in order. This will enable Australia to share in what recovery there may be in the short term and to be well positioned for major world expansion if and when it comes. If we do not follow this course, Australia is condemned to mediocrity, lost opportunities and declining relative levels in our standard of living. This Budget does not come to grips with those realities. Proposed expenditures agreed to. Department of Home Affairs and Environment Proposed expenditure, $152,989,000. Department of Territories and Local Government Proposed expenditure, $141,997,000. Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism Proposed expenditure, $43,600,000. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(12.10) —The Department of Home Affairs and Environment is not one of the major expenditure areas covered in this Budget. It has an overall allocation of $167.6m, an increase of 18.3 per cent, which relates to home affairs aspects of the portfolio as well as specifically to the environment . Nevertheless, I am pleased to say that the funding for environmental matters has shown an increase in a number of areas. I refer firstly to the grants to voluntary conservation organisations. There has been an increase in the Budget of 78 per cent in this area. I point out, however, that in 1980 the then Opposition spokesman for the environment, the honourable member for Robertson ( Mr Cohen), had promised an increase in funding of $750,000. He also promised a further emergency grant of $350,000. Notwithstanding, of course, that the attitude of the Australian Labor Party over the period 1980-83, clearly changed, nevertheless there are a number of major questions about which the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) has not as yet advised us in the context of how the funds should be appropriately allocated to voluntary conservation organisations. For example, it was his view previously that it would be more appropriate for funding to be allocated to organisations throughout Australia for specific use by regional bodies to finance projects such as rainforest preservation in northern Queensland. The intention presumably was that, when objectives were finally met, the funds would be withdrawn and allocated elsewhere. The Minister has not advised us whether this is still his attitude or whether he proposes to allocate funds, as the previous Government did, to specific umbrella organisations which would then be responsible for allocations throughout their associated organisations. This area is of particular importance because in the environment field the role played by voluntary conservation organisations is of immense importance in giving the Australian people the opportunity to gain comprehension and understanding of the close relationship which must always exist between development on the one hand and sensible, sane conservation, environmental control and protection on the other. However, in the area of policy in a federation such as Australia, it is abundantly clear to all of us, particularly in relation to the recent problems in Tasmania, that we need to maintain the very highest level of co-ordination between the Commonwealth and the States in the preparation of environment and conservation policy. In that field I refer to the budgetary provision of $500,000 for environmental quality protection programs. That is obviously not a large sum of money and one can only hope that in future Budgets we will see a more significant provision of funds on the basis of a range of programs which have yet to be developed by the Department and the Minister in this field. Three specific subjects were referred to: Hazardous chemicals, marine quality assessment and air quality. In regard to hazardous chemicals, there is no doubt in my mind that there are a number of major problems which must essentially be dealt with through the co-ordination of both Federal and State policy. The three areas of specific concern to the Commonwealth and the States should be controls over the importation of chemicals, the distribution of those chemicals throughout the Australian economic system and their appropriate identification. It is clear that a range of very dangerous toxic chemicals have been permitted to be imported into Australia from various countries without adequate identification and the provision of protection for those who must deal with the chemicals at the docks, in their transportation and, ultimately, in their utilisation at the factory level. Those matters are to a large degree State responsibilities but I must emphasise that the importation of chemicals is essentially a Commonwealth responsibility. In Opposition, we will expect to see the Government develop a range of more specific policies in that area. I refer again to air quality. The three major elements in the spectrum of environmental protection which can never be ignored are air quality, water quality and the conservation of our soils. It has always been a matter of great concern to me that at the Federal level we have lacked the capacity to co- ordinate our policy between departments to ensure that those three elements-air, soil and water-are adequately covered in our total environmental and developmental policy consideration. For example, in the past there has been a tendency-I regret to say that it is obviously still part of the Government's policy-for matters such as soil conservation to be seen essentially as a primary industry problem. The previous Government saw it in terms of national development, a major national resource. I think that was a much more sensible approach than seeing it purely in terms of primary industry. While it can be argued that those who utilise a resource should necessarily be responsible for maintaining it, I regret to say that the record of the last 200 years of human settlement in this country demonstrates quite clearly that short term economic considerations often take far more importance than they should in terms of the long term protection of a resource for future generations. Nevertheless, I am concerned that the Department of Home Affairs and Environment, as it is currently structured, does not have the structure available to it to ensure that it is able to co-ordinate with other departments, such as the Department of Primary Industry, to ensure that the point of view of the Department is adequately incorporated in all government policy, for example, in areas such as the protection of the Murray River system. I refer briefly to the question of South West Tasmania which is still one of major importance to many Australians, particularly to the Government and people of Tasmania. So far in this Budget $28.5m has been allocated for employment projects for those whose jobs were lost as a result of the Federal Government stopping the construction of the dam. This amount has been allocated for a range of specific projects which can best be defined as work replacement projects. According to the Tasmanian authorities some 8,500 man-years were lost and thus must be replaced. Unfortunately, to date, the Commonwealth has agreed to compensate Tasmania on the basis of only $44,000 for each worker involved. It has failed to take into account support and ancillary staff. If they were included the level of compensation should be in the vicinity of $76,000 per person. For obvious reasons the Commonwealth would prefer a lump sum settlement because it would see that as a much cheaper way of getting out of a settlement which the Prime Minister promised the Australian people at the time of the last election. It was a commitment the Labor Party made to the people of Tasmania at the time of the last election and on various occasions since then. It is particularly depressing to see the Hawke Government at present trying to negotiate itself out of a deal for which it has a moral requirement to meet. Within two months the tourist season and the summer months will commence in Tasmania. At present the level of protection for the South West is simply unsatisfactory. All the Commonwealth has offered is 12 additional rangers. It has not offered any ancillary support of housing, accommodation, facilities, equipment, transportation or anything else. It is a simple fact of life that in that area where there is such a very sensitive eco-system, if fires break out in the world heritage area, the level of destruction will be something for which all Australians will have every reason to blame the current Federal Government. It is not adequate simply to say that the Tasmanian Government has to take the responsibility. The Commonwealth Government, as a signatory to the world heritage convention, is required to maintain the South West to the appropriate standards of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature agreement. Therefore those standards must be funded and the source of those funds must come primarily from the Commonwealth. It is a matter of great concern to me and to various environmental groups, whose interests are quite clearly directed at South West Tasmania, that it is not good enough to talk in aggregate terms; it is not good enough to say we are offering $2m for tourist development this year and $3m next year without having proposals as to exactly how those funds will be spent. As the months go past the risks to the South West are increasing. I must emphasise in the House that if disasters occur this summer the blame will rest with the Hawke Government. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(12.20) —I will make a few observations on the Department of Home Affairs and Environment and later, if time permits, on tourism. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has its headquarters at Townsvillle. Its principal task is the control, care and development of the Great Barrier Reef region. The Authority was established in 1975. From that time unitl March 1983 only 14 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef region was included in the Marine Park. In August 1983 three further sections of the Marine Park were proclaimed resulting in an increase of some 80 per cent, or a total of 280,000 square kilometres in the Great Barrier Reef Marine park. The areas included the far northern area and off-shore parts of the central and southern areas of the region in the Marine Park. To have the entire Great Barrier Reef included in the Marine Park as soon as possible is a high priority of the Hawke Government. However, this Government will not unnecessarily interfere in the responsibilities of the State and local government authorities. The Authority will not become involved in activities such as jetties, coastal structures and minor waste-discharges. These are the responsibility of either State or local government. Co-operation and common sense are Hawke Government qualities and they will be extended to State and local governments. It should be noted that from 1 September 1983, regulations were introduced which prohibit oil drilling in parts of the region not yet included in the Marine Park. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act prohibits oil drilling in the Marine Park. The Hawke Government-an authentic Australian government-recognises the national importance of the work of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. To that end, total expenditures by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority are estimated at almost $5m this year, up from just under $3m actual expenditure last year. These amounts include contributions from Queensland for day-to-day management, cash carried forward, and capital works and services. Actual appropriation under Division 343 is $3,665,000, an increase of 38.5 per cent from last year. It will be recalled that the first section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park-the Capricornia section-was proclaimed in October 1979 and the zoning plan for that section and the regulations which implement the plan, came into effect in July 1981. The second and third sections, the Cormorant Pass and Cairns, were proclaimed on 21 October 1981 and the 19 November 1981 respectively. The zoning plans for these sections were tabled in Parliament on 25 May 1983 and are expected to come into effect later this year. The Hawke Government has declared the Far Northern Off-shore Central and Off- shore Southern sections of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park which, as I have said, brings the proportion of the total region within the Marine Park up to 80 per cent. The Authority has been directed by the Federal Government to provide reports on the remaining in-shore areas of the region not later than last month. With reference to estimates for Authority programs as set out in table 14 of Budget Paper No. 5, there are small increases for administration of the Authority and the Great Barrier Reef Consultative Committee. The increase in general administration for the office of the Authority reflects an increase in full time staffing levels from 38 in 1981-82 to 44 in 1982-83, and 52 for this year. The salaries and allowances item shows an increase from just over $1m to just under $1.5m, an increase of 30 per cent. The item for park management shows the largest individual increase in the Authority's estimates which reflects the expected additional management responsibilities. Recurrent costs for the management of the Park are shared 50-50 by the Queensland Government and the Federal Government, with 100 per cent of the capital works and services item being supplied by the Commonwealth in the first three years of the program for each new section. Total expenditure in this area for 1983-84 is estimated to be just under $2m which includes salaries and allowances. One item that has changed between this year and last year is the reallocation of expenditure of the coastal surveillance program for the Great Barrier Reef to the general Department of Home Affairs and Environment expenditure item. Costs of the coastal surveillance program are shared among the departments of Home Affairs and Environment, Primary Industry and Transport in the ratio of 50 per cent, 22.5 per cent and 27.5 per cent. This reflects a decision that more benefits are gained from this surveillance operation than those that accrue to the Marine Park alone. Last year expenditure was $467,393. This year the estimate of expenditure is $444,000, a variation of 5 per cent. This operation is the subject of a comprehensive review of needs and extent of coastal surveillance protection in peace-time. The review team's report to the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) is expected to be available during the current Budget session. Increases in recurrent costs for park management reflect the proposed appointment of additional marine parks officers to the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service for both the Capricornia section and the Cairns and Cormorant pass sections. The estimate for the latter sections provides for the staggered recruitment, some travel costs, hire for vessel and aircraft, office rental and other administrative costs necessary to establish the day-to-day management program. Another area which shows an apparent large increase in expenditure is that of planning. A large part of this is the reallocation of $100,000 to this item for the statutory public participation programs which were previously located under the education-information program item. These programs are managed co- operatively by two sections. The costs provide for the design and production of explanatory materials, displays, media presentations and hire of venues for public meetings. It is expected in this year that there will be two public participation programs. One has already been announced for the far northern section. One has yet to be announced for one of the remaining sections. The education-information program shows a minor increase in funds, although there has in fact been a significant increase of expenditure proposed in most areas of this program. In particular, some $20,000 has been added to the community education program, while formal education systems have gone up slightly and extension programs to user groups in the region have also been increased. Research includes four projects in ocean- ography. There are five projects in marine geo- sciences which include work on processes of maintenance of coral cays such as Heron, Wilson and Green Islands. There are six projects in bathymetry and survey which involve the use of satellites and other traditional methods of survey and twenty-five research projects in marine biology which include research into recolonization of coral and methods of farming coral. There will be 19 research projects in analysis and use; for example, fishing industry economics. There is one research project in management strategies, two in data-bases and two on the mechanics and processes of information transfer. The Marine Park Authority has placed considerable emphasis on education and information as it appreciates that an area of this size cannot effectively be policed, at a reasonable cost, 100 per cent of the time. The Authority has, therefore, determined that an emphasis will be placed on education and on information materials to enable the public to participate in, and to understand the need for, management programs. Budget provisions for research and monitoring costs will increase some 35 per cent from $485,000 to $655,000. In the current year by and large research work is carried on by contracts and agreements with other institutions, such as James Cook University of North Queensland, the Australian Institute of Marine Science and Universities in Brisbane and Sydney. With the accelerated declaration program, major resource surveys of fish and coral needs of the new sections are required. Also, with the management of new marine park sections coming into effect, research can provide guidelines on the management of specific activities , for example, erosion and maintenance of reefs and cays, development of guidelines for fishing for specific fisheries, methods for the re-establishment of hard corals in denuded reef environments, marine park users and attitudinal surveys, impact of garbage and waste disposal and for monitoring of these activities. The program announced in the Federal Budget with respect to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority encompasses a package which fully recognises the Hawke Government's commitment to the preservation, protection and development of the Great Barrier Reef-this unique, natural, internationally acclaimed wonder of the world. Indeed, as I said earlier, it is the first time that a Federal government has taken to task the issue of the development and protection of the Great Barrier Reef. I see that the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) is in the House today. I know of his great concern with respect to the Australian Institute of Marine Science which is also involved with investigation and scientific research work with respect to coral reefs and mangroves along the Queensland coast. Mr Barry Jones —In the electorate of Herbert, too. Mr LINDSAY —Thank you. In the one or two minutes left I would like to make just one brief observation with respect to tourism. Honourable members will notice that in the Estimates there has been a major increase of $7.5m with respect to the Budget allocation to the Australian Tourist Commission. This is a magnificent achievement of the Hawke Government. I also pay tribute to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) and his commitment to the development of tourism, particularly in the wet belt of northern Australia. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(12.30) —I want to address some comments to the Estimates, particularly the estimates of the Department of Territories and Local Government . I am pleased to see that the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) is here. I am also pleased to see present the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), the estimates of whose particular department are being discussed. I notice, of course, that the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) has some responsibilities in this area. I do not want to comment on the Minister who is not here because I do not know the reason for his absence. Mr Barry Jones —He is overseas. Mr RUDDOCK —I understand. I thought that the honourable member for Lalor was here in his capacity as Minister for Science and Technology, and not to look after the environment. It is particularly pleasing that the Minister for Territories and Local Government is here because the questions that I would like to raise are questions that I have raised on a number of previous occasions and to which I have not had any response from him. I am particularly desirous today, as I raise some of those questions, that he take the opportunity at the conclusion of the discussion of these estimates to reply to these matters. When I spoke during the Budget debate I mentioned that there were aspects of Canberra's future I wanted to address but that I did not have the time to do so. I would now like to take up those matters briefly. There are important questions in relation to Canberra's future. I think that the question of employment, of course, is uppermost in the minds of most people. Notwithstanding the report in the Canberra Times on 3 October, which indicated an improvement over recent times in the position of Canberra vis-a-vis the rest of Australia in the area of employment and unemployment, there are still quite marked problems in the Australian Capital Territory that need to be addressed. I would like to draw the attention of members of the House to the employment context. I think it is important to understand that employment opportunities in the public sector that have previously been available in Canberra will not be available in the same way in future years. I think that it was evidence of some of the foresight of my parliamentary colleagues, Bob Ellicott and Michael Hodgman, that when they were Ministers for the Capital Territory they set out to enhance Canberra's role for new business and as the national capital. I want to mention a number of projects that they commenced and concluded. A number of major government office blocks were built and completed: Benjamin, McLachlan and Robert Garran. Transfers of the remaining department head offices from interstate were completed. Of course, the National Sports Centre, which is of interest to Ministers here today, was developed to the point that it has reached at this time. Of course, more importantly-and it had a significant impact in the shape of this Budget-was the commitment that was made to the building of the new Parliament House and the new Australian Defence Force Academy. All of the major capital expenditure involved in the Budget which has been brought down largely revolves around those two very important projects which were initiated by the previous Government. I think it is important also to recognise the previous Government's role in the establishment of the Canberra Development Board and the commitment in its last Budget-that is, the last Budget of the Fraser Government-which for the first time offered financial incentives to attract business investment in Canberra and to encourage the private sector. Of course those incentives were important because Canberra lacked the sort of incentives for decentralised development that are so often available in the States of Australia. I should mention on the side, of course, that the new Government has retained that incentive program but did not increase the funds and, I understand, has placed a limit on forward commitments. I have some concern in that respect. Mr Uren —That is not right. Mr RUDDOCK —The Minister says there is no limit on forward commitments. If that is the case, I am pleased to have his confirmation. In this context, I want to speak about the importance of Canberra as a place for investment and new business ventures. While a number of initiatives were taken by the previous government and have been welcomed by the new government, honourable members ought to be aware that there are some problems on that front. It is important that Canberra be diversified. I think the Minister has acknowledged that. He said so on a number of occasions, particularly in his address at the National Economic Summit Conference. I will quote him briefly in case honourable members were unaware of what he said. Mr Uren stated: With the completion of the major infrastructure for the national capital over the next few years the Canberra community will need to build its economic future . The physical planning of Canberra has been largely successful. Canberra is entering the era when diversification of its economic base is the priority- diversification through new forms of economic activity: Diversifications through a bigger private sector. I very much agree with those words, but I think one needs to look at whether the Government evidences that sort of commitment. It needs to be understood that the public sector will not provide opportunities for young people in this city in the future. Not all children of Canberra's public servants will be able to find employment where their parents have been employed in the Australian Public Service, not all will be called for the time being while selection criteria demand appointment on merit and not all who want employment in that area will be able to find it. Only a private sector and a significant private sector will hold out those opportunities. If the Minister's words were enough, I could say no more. It is not enough to welcome the private sector: One has to create an environment in which prudent businessmen will want to be partners in Canberra's future. I have said this before in relation particularly to the White Industries Ltd project. That was a project approved by the previous Government for a much needed convention centre in Civic associated with an hotel, an office block and a complementary park development. Reports have suggested that this important project may not go ahead or, even worse, there have been calls for the renegotiation of the agreement. I have said before that those calls seem to be based more on pique than on logic. Whatever one thinks of those calls, the fact of the matter is that many months have elapsed without clarification from the Government as to its intention in relation to that important development. This matter could have been clarified months ago. What would any other private entrepreneur think about that sort of delay when he is contemplating investment in this city? I think it would make any prudent investor pack his bags and go away. That important development would create significant employment for Canberra. I am told that 600 jobs in construction are at risk if it does not go ahead and a possible 1,500 long-term jobs both directly and for support industries will be lost if the project is not completed. I think it will be a national disgrace if that project is lost. I will hold the Government fully accountable if it is lost , having regard to the delay that has occurred. As I understand it, all obstacles in the path of that project have been removed. Reports in newspapers have suggested that funds are available. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory has approved all necessary works planned for the project. If this project were lost, a great deal of money that has been spent not only by the Department but also by the National Capital Development Commission in preparing for the project would be lost. I would regard that as being terribly unfortunate. I have mentioned in that context the situation in relation to employment. There are other matters that I would like to raise also in that context. I refer particularly to the loss of the development proposed for the Australian Federal Police. There was intended to be a development of a computer centre for the police in Weston Creek for the maintenance of important records on criminal activities Australia-wide. It was to be an important part in combating organised crime. As a result of a number of black bans imposed by the Builders Labourers Federation and other unions in Canberra, that project was not proceeded with. Recently the National Capital Development Commission has announced the abandonment of that project and the cancellation of the contract. Questions have been asked in the local assembly about this matter. On information made available in the Assembly it appears that 30 jobs involved in the construction of that project have been lost. I have to ask: Where is the human face of the people who would lose those sorts of opportunities? A very important report was prepared by interested people in the Australian Capital Territory on employment problems in the Territory. The report is entitled 'ACT Employment Task Force'. While announcements have been made by the Government in relation to the community employment program-I acknowledge that that is an important program and the Minister has appointed a local advisory committee to assist with it-the fact of the matter is that the very important report of the Task Force has not had a formal response from the Minister detailing how the Government intends to deal with its recommendations. Admittedly it is a substantial document, but the Minister when he tabled the report of the White review in relation to the NCDC was able to indicate some of the Government's intentions on that report. Yet here we have this very important report and it has not even had the courtesy of a response in that form. The most regrettable comments I have seen at any time appeared recently in the Canberra Chronicle. They were from a member of the House of Assembly who said that it was not the Government that was showing any shortcomings with unemployment; it was voluntary organisations in the Australian Capital Territory that did not seem to be responding sufficiently quickly to the Government's community employment program. I think that is one of the worst exercises in cynicism I have ever seen. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable gentleman's time has expired. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory)(12.40) -The Department of Home Affairs and Environment is responsible through the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service for the Kakadu and Uluru National Parks in the Northern Territory. An amount of $4.152m has been allocated in this Budget for the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. Uluru and Kakadu National Parks are unique and beautiful areas of the Northern Territory. Kakadu is on the World Heritage List at present and is of international significance. Over the past years, the Northern Territory Government has repeatedly claimed that both Kakadu and Uluru should be handed over to the Northern Territory Government. Of course, the Territory Conservation Commission currently manages the Uluru National Park. There is some justification in the Northern Territory Government's argument. Basically it claims that national parks in all States are operated by State governments and, therefore, as a quasi State government it should operate the national parks in the Northern Territory. However, I believe Kakadu and Uluru are in a very special category. Kakadu is inextricably linked with the uranium issue. I will come back to that matter in a moment. As I said, Kakadu is on the World Heritage List. I hope in the very near future Uluru will be placed on that list. Both areas incorporate large tracts of Aboriginal traditional lands and are major national tourist attractions. For those reasons I believe it is important that a special form of management structure be set up to manage the two national parks. It cannot just be left to the Northern Territory Government or, for that matter, the Federal Government. I suggest a management authority should be set up in each area. This authority would be something like the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. It should contain representatives from the Northern Territory Government, the Federal Government, the Aboriginal traditional owners and the tourist industry. With a management structure like this I believe that the future development of these very significant world class areas will be assured. As a consolation prize, I hope the petty politicking that has been emanating from the Northern Territory Government over this issue might then cease. I mentioned earlier that the Kakadu National Park is inextricably linked with the uranium issue. The main concern of the Australian Labor Party with uranium mining revolves around nuclear waste. Whether the waste is used to make nuclear arms or is dumped in the Pacific Ocean, our major concern is still nuclear waste . Last week I suggested to the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) that a fund should be established to finance research and development into nuclear waste disposal technology. I suggested that the existing producers should contribute towards this fund on a levy basis. I also suggested that those companies which wished to exploit Australia's uranium reserves should also put forward money to the fund to find a solution to this very serious problem. I am pleased to say that the Minister reacted very favourably to my suggestion. I think that the suggestion will allow the mining companies to demonstrate their real concern for the world-wide serious problems associated with their industry and also associated with this resource. It is a resource of which Australia has a major part of the world supply. The mining companies want to exploit it and make a large amount of money out of it. In other words, my proposal offers them an opportunity to show how responsible they are and to put their money where their mouth is. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is adjourned in accordance with sessional order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr PEACOCK —Does the Prime Minister agree with the assessment attributed to the honourable member for Prospect on this morning's AM program that his Ministers do not seem to be able to fill in a pecuniary interests form correctly although they demand correctness from everyone receiving the dole? In light of the fact that more than one-third of his Ministers have so far submitted amendments to their original statements of pecuniary interests, could the Prime Minister give an assurance that the statements by all these Ministers are now in conformity with the requirements he outlined to the House on 22 September? Mr HAWKE —I have no comment to make on the observations of my good friend the honourable member for Prospect, who is well known as a source not only of erudition but also of good humour. I want to address myself, however, to the more important part of the question by the Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that it is inevitable when a new set of arrangements are brought in-- Mr Peacock —Ha! Mr HAWKE —The Leader of the Opposition can laugh, but he will not be laughing at the end. It is inevitable that some mistakes will be made. These mistakes were obviously made in good faith. I regret that they were made, but they were made in good faith. It will be clear from the amendments that they do not include anything that could lead to a potential conflict of interest. Let us get down to the guts of this matter. Let us get down to the unrivalled hypocrisy of the people on the other side. This Government has taken action unparalleled in the history of this Parliament. We have brought in a situation where Ministers will make a public statement in which there is a declaration of their interests so that it can be quite clear, not only to members of this Parliament but also, through this Parliament, to every person in this country, what their position is and whether there is the possibility of any conflict of interest. What does the pathetic crew on the other side do? When members of my Ministry honestly make a mistake or are guilty of an oversight, come forward, not under any pressure from the media or from members on the other side, and correct their mistakes honourable members opposite criticise them for these mistakes. What is the position of honourable members opposite? They refuse to participate . They are expressing as much opposition as they possibly can to exposing their positions. If they are critical of my Ministers because some of them have made mistakes why do they not have the intestinal fortitude to face up to the logic of their position and be prepared to state openly before this Parliament their interests and whether they have any conflict of interest? Any reasonable person in this country witnessing the Opposition's performance on this issue will come to the only conclusion to which it is possible to come-that is, that members of the Opposition will not participate in a public register because they have something to hide. Mrs KELLY —Will the Prime Minister confirm that he has complete confidence in the integrity of Commissioner Grey and the Australian Federal Police? Mr Sinclair —That point has never been in question. Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the honourable member for Canberra for her question, but not as much as I am indebted to the honourable member opposite who interjected that that has never been in question. Mr Speaker, I remind you and the House of the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition in this place on Tuesday, 4 October. The Leader of the Opposition had this to say: 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? Let members of the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition himself face up to the fact which is recognised by everyone in this country that, of course, the Leader of the Opposition deliberately impugned the integrity of the Federal Police. I ask a simple question: Is it possible for the Prime Minister, the Special Minister of State or the Attorney-General to take off taps? The Leader of the Opposition knows that, under the legislation of his Government, not mine, the only person who can authorise the taking off of taps is the Commissioner of Police. The Leader of the Opposition's question, therefore, inevitably as a matter of logic, means that he is saying that the Commissioner of the Federal Police would be a party to pressure from either the Federal or the New South Wales State Government or both in having telephone taps taken off. His question was: Did it happen? It could happen only in circumstances where the Commissioner of the Federal Police was party to pressure either from the Federal Government, the State Government or both. I know that every reasonable person in this country will be nothing less than appalled by this attack by the Leader of the Opposition-propped up as he is each day in his tactics by those who sit behind him-upon the integrity of the the Commissioner of the Federal Police and members of the police. I was so appalled that I made arrangements yesterday for the Leader of the Opposition to meet in my office with the Commissioner of the Federal Police, Commissioner Grey. In my presence the Leader of the Opposition was confronted with the facts. He knows the facts. He knows that the attack that he made upon the integrity of the Commissioner of Police, the Federal Police and, of course, upon this Government is-- Mr Peacock —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. As the Prime Minister has raised the question of a meeting in his office, I would like him to give a detailed appraisal of what transpired and the conclusions that were reached. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition knows that that is not a point of order. Mr Peacock —There is no impugning of the Commissioner of Police as he well knows . There was an impugning of members of his Party. Mr SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr HAWKE —The fact is that, in the meeting in my office, the Leader of the Opposition was shown, as he knows, a confidential letter which set out the times of the imposition, the taking off, the reimposition and then the taking off of the intercepts. He knows, as he has now invited me to give the details, he was told unequivocally that, in respect of each of those actions, the decision was taken by the Commissioner. He was told unequivocally that these decisions were taken by the Commissioner himself without any influence from anyone else. In respect of one point of the imposition the Commissioner said-this is in the letter-that it was in response to a request from Mr Justice Stewart. In respect of the specific question, any political influence by government is completely repudiated by the Commissioner of the Federal Police. The imputation in the Leader of the Opposition's question which I have read out was that action was taken by the Commissioner of Police in respect of phone tapping as a result of pressure by government. That proposition was specifically and unequivocally repudiated by the Federal Commissioner of Police to the Leader of the Opposition . That was followed up by a letter this morning which is now in the possession of the Leader of the Opposition. The facts are simple; they are indisputable: The Leader of the Opposition, in the depth of the misery in which he finds himself and in which, in some way or another, he has to perform, has descended to the most miserable form of abuse. Nothing more dangerous can be done by a person in a position of responsibility than to suggest that the Federal Police, when engaged in a major narcotics detection exercise-that is what is involved-would bow to political pressure from this Government or any other government. That was the unsubstantiated charge made by the Leader of the Opposition-that the Federal Police, engaged in an investigation of a major narcotics matter, arranged the imposition of their intercepts, their removal and the putting on of them again on the basis of pressure from this Government or the New South Wales Government. The Leader of the Opposition was assured yesterday in my office by the Commissioner of the Federal Police that there was no basis for that charge and that, in the action taken, he had acted without any pressure at all from the Federal Government or the State Government. I repeat that there is nothing more despicable that a Leader of the Opposition in this country, or any other person in a position of responsibility, could do than to say that the Federal Police, engaged in a narcotics investigation, would act in regard to intercepts under the pressure of government. That was repudiated yesterday. It has been confirmed by writing today and the Leader of the Opposition is in possession of that repudiation. If he has a skerrick of decency he will withdraw and apologise. Mr MACPHEE —My question is also directed to the Prime Minister. Having regard to the Prime Minister's commitment to consultation and consensus and to the fact that all Labor Premiers have broadly based women's advisory councils, why has the Prime Minister abolished the National Women's Advisory Council? How does he now propose to receive direct advice from women outside the bureacracy and the Labor movement? Mr HAWKE —I appreciate the sense in which the question has been asked by the honourable member for Balaclava, because I know that, as distinct from many of his colleagues, when he asks a question he has a genuine interest in the matters to which he directs his attention. In regard to this issue, I was advised that the existing process of consultation had not been working satisfactorily. We decided to attempt another method of providing for consultation. Very fortunately, as distinct from the Opposition, we on this side of the House have many women members, and may I say what an excellent representative body they are . It has been suggested that an effective way of arranging for consultation through to the community-I say this very sincerely to the honourable member for Balaclava-would be for the women members of Caucus to constitute a group which would have the responsibility for this process of consultation. I hope and I believe that that process will prove effective. If we find that that process is not as effective as the previous method and that there is room for improvement, of course that improvement will be undertaken. Mr GEAR —Has the Acting Treasurer seen a recent media report that, according to a recent United States of America survey, Australia's credit rating has been substantially downgraded? If so, will he advise the House as to the accuracy of this survey? Mr HURFORD —Yes, I did see this report. I was so surprised by it that I took some notes about it and received some advice on it too. To say the least, I am a little more than just surprised that the financial journal printed the article, let alone gave it the prominence it did on its front page. The article is misleading. There is a need to put it into perspective, although I pay tribute to the rest of the media in this country for not taking it up. It is important that the article be put into perspective because one or two members of this Parliament have been misled by it and have drawn attention to it. In short, the article is totally inaccurate. The report is not based on any official credit rating. It is based on information from a poll of bankers conducted by the United States financial magazine Institutional Investor. The poll has been described to me as a popularity contest. It has also been described to me as a sort of beauty contest. I will come back to that in a moment. The second point I need to make is that, of course, the report is based completely on out of date information. It relates to the Fraser Government years . For the benefit of the honourable member for Tangney, let me quote some of the things it says. It states that this country is passing up its chance to establish a substantial manufacturing base. That applied to the previous Government. We are reversing that trend, and have done so to an extent. The article states that the Budget deficit is $10 billion. That was the Liberal Party's deficit, not this Government's. It states that the balance of payments deficit is $2 billion. That was the National Party's deficit. The article even went on to say that we are suffering from the worst drought in 200 years and, with the supreme being on our side at present, we have even done something about that too. In other words, it is yesterday's news of a past, discredited Administration and it has nothing to do with this Hawke Labor Government's performance. I said that I was going to say something about beauty contests and I think I might indulge in a little immodesty. Mr SPEAKER —That might not be relevant to the question, of course. Mr HURFORD —There is no doubt that if the good looks of the present Treasurer had been involved instead of old baldy, indeed, we would have done a lot better. How on earth we got into the top 10 last time, I do not know. Actually, there is less of an adverse nature to be said about the Deputy Leader of the Opposition than there is about the Leader of the Opposition. There is no doubt that the reprehensible conduct of the Leader of the Opposition at the time of the election, when he speculated about our currency, may have had something to do with that poll of bankers. Let us look at what is the fact about our credit rating. This needs to be put into perspective. As recently as July we have confirmed a triple A rating. Two official institutions do these ratings. They are Moodys and Standard and Poor. Both of them have confirmed a triple A rating for this country. The news of only two days ago of the terms of current Australian borrowing in United States dollars in the European market confirms our position. The terms are below those of the United States Treasury. The weighted average length of the maturities offered was 11.6 years and that is well in excess of that achieved in the Euro- dollar market for borrowings of a comparable size in recent years. In short, the article is totally misleading and under this Government our country's rating is superbly high. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Special Minister of State. I say in passing that the hysteria displayed by the Prime Minister today is akin to the hysteria with which he conducted himself yesterday. The ludicrous expression of absolutely fabricated moral outrage which flowed through his statement yesterday was the same as that produced today. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition should address his question. Mr PEACOCK —I come to the question addressed to the Special Minister of State. Were there not discussions and communications relating to the New South Wales prison release scandal between members of this Government and members of the New South Wales Labor Government and the New South Wales Labor Party other than the former Minister's discussions with the Acting Premier? In his haste to dump the matter on the New South Wales Government and before giving his further answer to the House on Tuesday night, did he discuss such allegations with his predecessor or with other members of his Party to check the veracity of the allegations? Will he now advise the House who held such discussions both before and after his predecessor's meeting with the Acting Premier? Mr BEAZLEY —I do not know of any discussions that have passed between Ministers of this Government and Ministers of the New South Wales Government about this matter aside from the discussions that I referred to in the answer that I gave in the House. If the honourable gentleman has some advice for me in that regard I would appreciate his giving it to me, but I am not aware of any discussions that have passed between a Minister of this Government and a Minister of the Government of New South Wales on that matter since that time. I have certainly had none myself. I must admit that the line of questioning mystifies me. If the Leader of the Opposition can assist me in this regard I would be pleased if he would do so. Dr CHARLESWORTH —I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Do the Government's decisions to tax lump sum superannuation payments and to impose an assets test on pensions provide a sound and equitable basis on which people can plan for their retirements with confidence? Mr HAWKE —The measures mentioned are major initiatives by the Federal Government to achieve fairness and equity in the pension group. The Government is very pleased to see how widely those measures have been welcomed by a wide range of informed commentators throughout the community. These retirement policy initiatives will be long standing. It is important for the community to appreciate this so that people can plan for the future with confidence. The task of ordinary Australians in going about that-- Mr Cadman —What about the promise? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Mitchell is a persistent interjector. Mr Cadman —He is telling lies. Mr SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Mitchell. He will not get away with that sort of interjection. He may take it that he is warned. I call the Prime Minister. Mr HAWKE —The very important task facing ordinary Australians of trying to plan for their futures and their retirements is certainly not helped by the negativism and disarray of the Opposition. The only result is further to confuse people who have to undertake these important tasks. The Leader of the Opposition says that he will repeal the assets test legislation-of course, it is entirely hypothetical because he will never get the chance-and he says it more than a year before the legislation has been put into place. He says he will also-this is equally hypothetical-repeal the superannuation taxation legislation. The problem, of course, is that the Opposition simply has no policies at all with which to address the basic issues to which this Government has addressed itself by these initiatives. The Opposition says it will repeal this legislation so that it can then have a totally co-ordinated retirement policy. The fact is that the Opposition has no retirement policy at all, let alone a totally co-ordinated one. It has nothing at all. By suggesting at this stage that it will repeal these measures, it is locking off absolutely the possibility of ever having a totally integrated policy in this area. It is as well that, again, this House and the people of Australia look at the pathetic stance of the Leader of the Opposition on this matter. I ask members of the House again to remind themselves of what he is saying now about repealing this Government's legislation and to compare it with what he said on 9 September 1981. He made a very lucid statement in this House and put a very well argued case for the sorts of propositions which the Government has now brought in. In that speech he said: Needed decisions will demand a good deal of courage from Government leaders. Unfortunately, since that time and particularly since he has assumed the leadership of the Opposition, he has persistently lacked any sort of courage himself. When the Opposition Leader has been faced with the choice between principle and expediency, expediency has triumphed every time. It is well known that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition does not share the view of the Leader of the Opposition on the question of assets testing. It is very much to his credit that he does not. He has a position of principle on that issue and he has not gone out of his way to hide it. Importantly, as was quite clear in the whole of the Liberal Party conference last weekend, it was not a conference of the Leader of the Opposition; it was a conference of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The conference of the Liberal Party adopted the position of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and repudiated that of the Leader of the Opposition. The Federal Council of the Liberal Party passed this resolution: That this Council expresses its support for a needs-based social welfare system and therefore believes that welfare benefits should be payable subject to a means test . . . The Liberal Federal Council was right. It supported the Deputy Leader of the Opposition who is a man of principle on this issue and it repudiated the Leader of the Opposition who is a man of expediency. Mr HOWARD —I ask a question of the Prime Minister and I preface it by reminding him of his frequent claims that his Administration governs in an even-handed manner for all sections of the Australian community. I therefore ask him to give an unequivocal assurance to the House that his Government will neither repeal nor emasculate section 45D of the Trade Practices Act which has provided such invaluable protection to the small business community against anti-competitive and predatory conduct. Mr Burr —That was a good question. Mr HAWKE —It was a very good question. I can recognise them; they are so rare. They stick out, do they not? I appreciate the question that was asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and I recognise quite straightforwardly that controversial issues are involved in section 45D. I can see that there are arguments both ways on this issue. The reason the section is there is well known . But obviously, against the position which was used to justify the introduction of section 45D there is equally a very strong concern, which I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would understand, within sections of the community, including the trade union movement, that the trade practices legislation is not an appropriate piece of legislation in which to include penal provisions against the trade union movement. One can have a general argument about penal provisions but if one is to take action against people in regard to industrial action it could be argued that it is more appropriate to take it in the-- Mr Howard —Do you not agree with penal provisions? Mr HAWKE —I am saying that I recognise the arguments both ways on this issue. We are reviewing this legislation. We will not move to repeal it without providing a full opportunity for all interested groups in the community to make submissions to the Government as to their positions on proposed or contemplated changes. This has been a matter of very recent consideration within the Cabinet. I give the Deputy Leader of the Opposition an assurance that there will be an exposure paper setting out the ideas we have on this legislation. I would welcome views in regard to any proposed changes from interested organisations in the community. I say sincerely that if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would like to make some submissions to us I would welcome them. Mr CROSS —Is the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism aware of the crucial importance of the tourist industry to Queensland, known in the trade as the Sunshine State? What initiatives is the Government taking to stimulate this important industry? Mr JOHN BROWN —Of course I am aware, as are most thinking people in Australia, of the importance of the tourism industry to Queensland. Of course, having said ' thinking people', I dismiss honourable members opposite because in their seven years in government they failed to realise that they had within their grasp an opportunity to do something not only to bolster the economy of Queensland but also to help the economy of Australia. They failed to take any advantage of the great potential that was there. This Government does not share that despair, fortunately. With reference to the honourable member's question, I can list a few specifics that we have done to advantage tourism in Queensland. Tourism has traditionally been Queensland's most important industry and with the downturn in commodity prices and the fall in the capacity of mining in Queensland it is even more important. A few of the things that we have done are very important. Firstly, we took away a tax that was imposed by the previous Government back in 1981-a 20 per cent sales tax on the building of tourist boats, which had the disastrous effect of closing down a very viable industry. Not one decent tourist boat has been built in Australia since that time. In fact, the skilled people who were employed in that industry have shipped out to Taiwan and we have been importing boats from Taiwan to assist the tourist industry in Queensland. This Government, in a very interesting move, dismissed that tax retrospective to the day when it was instituted-19 August 1981. The effect of that has been marked in Queensland, where the boat industry has now reconstructed itself. Every time I visit Queensland I meet people with smiles on their faces who are getting rebate cheques from this Government because they happened to have had a boat on the slips at the time when the tax was implemented. Now they are getting rebates and are planning to build new boats, as is the Ansett organisation at Hayman Island. It has just announced its intention to build a $4m boat. That was one thing. Secondly, we have made $1m available to the Queensland Government in the form of a section 96 grant to alleviate the cost of the generation of electricity on off-shore islands. The geniuses who were on the Treasury benches ahead of us imposed a 6.5c a litre tax on the diesel supply for the tourist industry, which meant that all those islands that generate their electricity from diesel were faced with an enormous impost which added to their problems in remaining viable. We have given them $1m to help. Apart from all that, we have increased the funds for the Australian Tourist Commission by a massive 75 per cent in one swoop, which points out in stark reality what we believe about the tourist industry, its potential to employ people and its potential to add to the economy of Australia. Queensland should now be in a much more prosperous position than it would have been under the people opposite, because it depends so radically upon tourism for its survival. This Government has been entirely responsible in its administration of tourism. I think that at the end of our first term of office, when honourable members opposite see the numbers of people who are coming to Australia and the numbers of Australians who are taking holidays at home because of the initiatives we have undertaken, they will realise just what a great potential they missed. They had a diamond mine in Queensland and they could not get the shovel to uncover the gems. Now we have done that, greatly to the advantage of Queensland. I thank the honourable member for his question. I hope honourable members opposite have learned something from my answer. Mr PORTER —My question is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Why was the National Aboriginal Sports Foundation given four days in which to wind up? Why was the NASF excluded from yesterday's discussions on its future? Have the jobs of its employees been guaranteed? Will the independent identity of the NASF be preserved within the Aboriginal Development Commission? If administrative savings are made on transfer, will they be spent on Aboriginal sport? Mr HOLDING —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. Under the previous Administration approximately $200,000 for sport was made available to the National Aboriginal Sports Foundation. Of that $200,000, approximately $140,000 was spent on administration. It seemed to me and to this Government that it is not very sensible having people fly around Australia to tell Aboriginal communities that there are no funds for them for sporting activities. It was felt, on the basis of financial prudence, that the full benefit of the funds that are made available to Aboriginal communities for sport should reach those people, particularly young people, who are involved in Aboriginal sport. Therefore it was decided, in conjunction with the National Aboriginal Conference and the portfolio bodies-it was discussed with the National Aboriginal Sports Foundation-that the appropriate process was to house the NASF within the ADC, the ADC being an Aboriginal commission which, as the honourable gentleman knows, or should know, is an entirely independent Aboriginal-run structure. It was decided that the Commission would be responsible for meeting the administrative expenses so that the full benefit of the funds-I would be the first to agree that not enough funds are available for Aboriginal sport-would flow to those people who most need them, that is, young Aboriginal people involved in sporting activities. We have virtually guaranteed the integrity of the people who are in staff positions. They have been given the responsibility of preparing for the NAC a policy document on the future of Aboriginal sport. That matter will be reviewed, we hope, within 12 months when the Government will look at the range of options which will be available to it. Dr EVERINGHAM —My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Has the Government expressed a view of the award of the 1983 Nobel Peace Prize to the Polish campaigner for workers' rights, Mr Lech Walesa? Does the Government accept the reported view of Polish authorities that the award to Mr Walesa is an abuse of the Prize? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The Government is delighted to know that the Prize has been awarded to Mr Walesa. The Prime Minister has sent a message this day on behalf of the Government, the Parliament and the people of Australia to congratulate Mr Walesa. I think it ought to be placed on record that Mr Walesa formed the first registered communist trade union in 1980. That, of course, made him world famous . I think it is to be deplored that the fact that the award was made to him has brought some criticisms from the Polish authorities. I think that criticism was demeaning and I do not think it was in accordance with the spirit of that Prize. It is interesting to note that the Nobel Prize is awarded in a number of fields but also for what is called the good of humanity. One can think of no better cause for the good of humanity than the cause of peace. I notice that the Peace Prize is awarded by a committee of the Norwegian Parliament. That Prize was awarded to Mr Walesa by that committee. I think we are all very appreciative of the work done by Mr Walesa in establishing the trade union movement in Poland. It is a communist country; freedom is not readily available. Mr Walesa has had to put up with no end of pressures and problems which he has been able to counteract. Honourable members should look at the struggle of workers throughout the world. They are only ever encouraged by trade union solidarity. If we look at the nations of the world where there are no trade unions, or where trade unions are not encouraged, we will see that there is no freedom and that there are always dictatorships. Walesa and his workers are experiencing a tremendous problem in Poland. I hope, the Government hopes and, I am sure, the Parliament hopes that the award of this Prize will give heart to all those in Poland to continue the struggle for human rights. It is our hope that the Polish authorities will allow Mr Walesa, who is a true patriot in every respect, to travel to Norway to collect the Prize and then to return to Poland to carry on the work for which he has undoubted talents . It is not without precedent for the Prize to be given for such efforts. Last year Garcia Robles of Mexico won the Prize for his work in respect of nuclear arms control. The whole concept of supporting the work of Solidarity is to guarantee that trade union movements throughout the world will flourish and, therefore, that human rights will flourish and prospects for peace will certainly be improved. Mr PEACOCK —Can the Prime Minister assure the House that none of his Ministers is or has ever been involved in tax evasion or tax avoidance? Mr HAWKE —To the best of my knowledge, that is the case. I wonder whether at some stage the Leader of the Opposition, or those behind him, may perhaps have the courage to ask the question that I think may be in his mind. If he does he will get a more direct answer in regard to the matter which is in his mind but which he does not have the guts to ask. Mr SAUNDERSON —Has the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations been made aware of criticisms directed at the Federal Government's community employment program along the lines that it will provide only temporary employment and will be of no longer term assistance to the unemployed who participate? If so, can he inform the House whether there is any substance to these criticisms? Mr WILLIS —I am aware of criticisms from some sections of the community, including some members of the Opposition, in regard to the job creation programs . Of course, those criticisms came from the previous Government many times before its death bed conversion to job creation programs to sweeten the wage pause. The objections were that they were not real jobs, that they were make- work jobs, that they were only short term and not permanent jobs, and that they gave no valuable training. Some have even maintained that they may be harmful by giving people only temporary experience in the work force and then dropping them back into a dole queue. We certainly reject those criticisms. We strongly believe that the community employment program which this Government has now implemented and which is beginning to provide jobs in this country will be very productive for the long term unemployed at whom it is directed. Of course it is a key objective of that program to provide jobs for those who have been out of work for a substantial period-at least three months-and particularly those who have been out of work for nine months or more. Our guidelines are such as to ensure that real jobs will be created, that they will have social or economic value and therefore will not just be simple make-work jobs, and that they will provide worthwhile work experience or training. We certainly want to improve the ability of people to obtain permanent employment. We see it as a key advantage of this program that it should improve the ability of people to obtain a permanent job. We are particularly aware of the fact that the long term unemployed-bear in mind that the average duration of unemployment now is something like 42 weeks-find it very difficult to obtain a job, firstly, because of what has happened to them during that period of long term unemployment through the loss of confidence which comes through continued rejections when seeking employment and, secondly, because employers tend to discriminate against the longer term unemployed as against those who are freshly into the work force by thinking that those who cannot get a job for a long period cannot be so good. Our feelings in regard to this scheme have been endorsed by a recent evaluation of the employment initiatives program, which is a program of the Cain Labor Government. The Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research was asked by the Victorian Government to undertake an evaluation of the employment initiatives program. It found that the advantages which we hope to obtain from the community employment program certainly apply to the employment initiatives program, which is very similar to, although of course far smaller than, the community employment program. The evaluation found that people who have participated in the employment initiatives program have a three times greater chance of finding jobs within three months of leaving the program than if they had not participated at all. Quite clearly, it markedly improves the chances of the long term unemployed in obtaining a job. I found that this was particularly the case because of the greater willingness of employers to take on someone who had had recent work experience rather than a long period out of work. The evaluation found that there was a high degree of success in reaching the target group and that to reach as many long term unemployed with government expenditure programs or other employment creating initiatives we would need to spend nine times as much money as was spent to reach a given number under the employment initiatives program. The evaluation also found that the employment initiatives program would create 60 per cent more jobs over a full year than would other policy initiatives, that is, tax cuts or other forms of government expenditure on capital works, housing or whatever. Those are very important findings which, I believe, repudiate the criticisms made by various people in the community, including members of the Opposition, who have attacked the community employment program and job creation programs generally as not being worth while. The evaluation team found that the jobs actually created had been generally of value to the community. I believe that since the leader of the evaluation team said that those findings should apply also to the community employment program, given the similarity of the program we have every reason for confidence that the $300m being spent by the Commonwealth this year on that program will be very productive indeed. It will provide more jobs for the unemployed than the same amount of money spent in any other way. It will certainly reach the target group -the long term unemployed-far more effectively than any other form of government initiative. It will provide productive and useful jobs in the community. Finally, this week we announced the first projects to be funded under the community employment program. There are 13 projects to create 143 jobs in South Australia. Many more will be announced within the next month or so. In the course of this year we will have that scheme running at a rate of 70,000 jobs in a full year, and it will do far more for the unemployed than anything that was ever done by the previous Government. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 30 of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981, I present report No. 5 of the Human Rights Commission on a review conducted by the Commission of the Crimes Act 1914 and other crimes legislation of the Commonwealth, together with the text of a statement relating to the report by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce) —Pursuant to section 37 of the Australian Industry Development Corporation Act 1970, I present the annual report of the Australian Industry Development Corporation for 1982-83. Ministerial Statement Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation and Special Minister of State) —by leave- The political legitimacy of government-any government-and its right to develop and implement policies for all its citizens must rest upon two inescapable and inseparable facts. Government must be elected by majority vote, and that majority must be drawn from the maximum number of citizens eligible to vote. Early this century our nation led the world in many spheres of reform, not least , democratic reform. Reforms such as compulsory voting, votes for women and the secret ballot developed for us an international reputation for democratic initiatives. During these years Australia, in its institutions and laws, as well as in its outlook and temperament, did something to make democracy a reality as well as a name. But we lost our way; we lost our momentum. For some 60 years our electoral arrangements have remained stagnant with little or no initiative or reform. In particular, despite the existence of compulsory voting at State and Federal levels for more than 60 years, governments between elections have not conducted ongoing education, information and enrolment campaigns to inform the electorate of its rights and responsibilities. The Joint Select Committee on Elecotral Reform observed after its survey of electoral developments this century: The electoral process has not atrophied (but) it has not always progressed at a rate in line with expectation. Over the years, confusion and ignorance of our political system have manifested themselves in high levels of informal voting, confusion between Federal, State and local government, donkey voting and so on. Yet governments have done little to educate and inform voters and potential voters of their rights and responsibilities. We on this side of the House have long been aware of an increasing sense of apathy and alienation in the electorate. In recent years this trend has been accentuated by neglect on the part of the national Government. However, even those of us who realised there was a tendency for people deliberately to opt out of the democratic process were shocked at the numbers involved. The figures have just been highlighted by two surveys carred out on behalf of the Australian Electoral Office, details of which were released at the end of last month. These reports are of great importance for all involved in the political process in Australia. The first survey shows that between 500,000 and 600,000 eligible Australian residents have failed to register to vote. That is the equivalent of seven full divisions of this House, or almost twice the voting strength of Tasmania. A second survey issued by the Australian Electoral Office explored the attitudes of certain specific groups in the Australian population, mostly young people and those of ethnic origin, in an attempt to discover why so many fail to enrol, to vote and to exercise their right to participate in our system of parliamentary democracy. The qualitative research of attitudes of Australians, particularly those of the young and the young unemployed, show that they are becoming increasingly alienated from the political process. More than 30 per cent of those aged 17 to 19 years in this country are unenrolled and it is estimated that 62 per cent of the half million or so unenrolled are under 30 years. Many young Australians believe the vote at Australian, State and local elections has no intrinsic value in itself and no relevance to them, their lives or their future. There is, and I paraphrase the qualitative research report released by the Chief Electoral Office, an almost universal lack of confidence among young, unenrolled Australians that their vote has any significant impact on government, the Parliament, the bureaucracy and, thereby, their own lives. The survey found disturbing and widespread ignorance of enrolment requirements, fear that there would be retribution against people who failed previously to enrol, and a pervasive distrust and dislike of politicians, political parties and our democratic system. Additionally there was identified criticism amongst young people that the education system has failed to provide them with the information , education background or forum they need to discuss, understand and accept the need for a democratic voting system, a fairly elected government and a political process designed to work in their interests. One very encouraging aspect of the research was that the non-English speaking foreign born people interviewed had a good grasp of the electoral and parliamenary systems and were generally keen to participate. They saw benefit not only for themselves but for their families and future generations. The essential message of this research should come as a sobering warning to everyone in this Parliament. Many young Australians have come to view politicians and the system as being alien and irrelevant to them. Unfortunately I believe that many of them are justified. For an 18-year-old who has not had a job for two years since leaving school and for a 19-year-old apprentice who has been thrown out after only two years of work, the system has failed. Recently the Catholic, Uniting and Anglican churches described this loss of faith in a document entitled 'Changing Australia' in the following terms: There has been a loss of public confidence in political institutions . . . policy makers are less accountable to the community; political parties submit themselves to the electorate on the basis of promises that they are unable or unwilling to fulfil; power is centralised into the hands of fewer people. For many years, there has been insufficient moral and ethical leadership in Australia's economic and political life. It is our job as a government to provide information, motivation and reason where there is ignorance, apathy and cynicism. It is our task, particularly in a time of mass unemployment, poverty and economic uncertainty, to remind the youth of Australia that they have a crucial role to play in the running of and the future of Australia. Without them, and I mean all of them, Australia has a very flawed future. Last week the Sydney Morning Herald editorialised about the subjects of the survey and described them as the 'lost generation'. I want to assure the House, the unenrolled and the people of Australia that this Government has no intention of losing a generation, however deep is the extent of the apathy and distrust felt by so many towards the political system. The Electoral Office research confirmed the fears of Government Ministers with responsibilities for policies affecting young people. The feelings of apathy and insecurity that the very high level of unemployment induces in this age group makes policy implementation very difficult. Those young people unemployed for considerable periods suffer particularly, and I quote from the report to emphasise their situation: The unemployed stand out from all the other groups in their attitudes because of the enormous feeling of rejection and the complete demoralisation of their self-esteem. Without exception they feel that society, the system, has rejected them. They see themselves as outsiders, dividing the world very clearly between the employed and the unemployed. They believe that the unemployed are 'treated like scum' by potential employers and governments. To assist the departments relating to youth the Government has decided to undertake a research project which will thoroughly investigate the views and attitudes of youth on such matters as the education system, employment training opportunities, income support, employment expectations and government policies and programs in these areas. The research project will cover the interests of several departments with responsibilities in these areas and will be co- ordinated to ensure that the project meets their needs. This Australian Government, unlike its immediate predecessor, has acted to analyse the problem. We can now begin work on resolution of the problems identified last month in this research by the Australian Electoral Office-the first research of its kind. One of the bright spots in the research is that with proper information and attention to education most of these people described as a potentially lost generation can be involved in our parliamentary political process. The Government as part of its rejuvenation and reorganisation of the Australian Electoral Office has provided adequate funding to allow an education and advertising campaign to be developed by the Australian Electoral Office to address the problems identified by the research. Next week the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) will launch a sophisticated and carefully integrated eight-month education and information campaign directed not just at the unenrolled but at all Australians. The promotion will comprise a television, radio and Press campaign in which some $3.5m will be spent between October 1983 and April 1984. This cost includes a component for non-English material to be disseminated through ethnic Press and radio, including the Special Broadcasting Service. The sum of $356,000 will be spent advising British subjects who may otherwise be disenfranchised by the changes to the citizenship requirements. The sum of $350,000 is to be spent informing Aboriginal people of electoral matters so that they will be well informed when compulsory enrolment is introduced. This latter sum of course is only supplementary to the $1.8m already allocated for the expanded Aboriginal electoral education program and is a reflection of this Government's concern that all citizens of our country will be able to participate fully in the democratic process. The sum of $142,000 will be spent advising people who move house that they must re-enrol on taking up residence in a new district. The bulk of the campaign funds will be spent on a general advertising campaign, to cost $2,003,000. People in need of further information will be encouraged to telephone the Australian Electoral Office where an extended free answering service is being installed. This will cost $130 ,000. Research, development and support costs for the campaign will cost $369, 000. The campaign will concentrate on the positive aspect of the research, and its major objectives will be to make the vote relevant to the individual. We must capitalise upon feelings of national pride; we must link the vote to adult responsibility; and we must emphasise the importance of people having a say about matters significant to them. The campaign will emphasise that the individual must have responsibility for enrolment. An extensive public relations campaign will support the main media thrust and seek to make information universally available in a wide range of media- television, cinema, radio and Press. In particular, I will be seeking the active participation of honourable members from both sides of this House in explaining the aims and purpose of this campaign. We also intend to feed into a distribution system embracing all relevant Federal and State government departments, including the Department of Social Security, Commonwealth Employment Service offices, community services outlets and agencies, a redesigned electoral claim card. This card should also be available through such outlets as cinemas, largely patronised by people in the age groups most likely to be unenrolled, apathetic or unmotivated. In addition, people in need of further information will be encouraged to telephone the Australian Electoral Office. Honourable members will see over the forthcoming weeks and months that this enrolment and education campaign has been carefully designed to reach the people who are in greatest need-the young, the unemployed and those previously disenfranchised. This campaign is the first attempt at adequately informing and educating all Australians about their electoral rights and responsibilities. I do not for one moment pretend that an education and enrolment campaign is the only solution to the apathy and the alienation amongst the unenrolled. Indeed, the message contained in the survey results published must be taken up by many organisations-by education and immigration authorities, by political parties-and even by families. But there is a heavier responsibility incumbent upon us. Governments, and politicians from both sides of the House, must earn credibility through performance. This Government, through its policies and actions, must show that a vote is a worthwhile and meaningful exercise. If our policies fail, we are deserving of censure, effectively applied through the democratic process. This is the only alternative to the survival of the strongest, evidenced in so many non-democratic regimes around the world. An education and enrolment campaign may not be enough to convince all Australians of the value of the vote, but it will be a very significant departure from the attitude of the past. I do not know that this campaign will necessarily enchant everyone, but I can assure the Parliament and the Australian people that this campaign will honestly and straightforwardly inform, motivate and educate in a way entirely new to voters and potential voters in this country . Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby) —by leave-Before I deal with the report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, I express the hope that the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) has got it right on the first occasion and does not have to retable his statement, as he did yesterday when he made a mistake with regard to his personal interests. There is no doubt that the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform has paid a great deal of attention to furthering the right to vote of citizens of Australia. One aim of the Committee was to develop a fair electoral system not only one in which everyone can take part, but one in which everyone's rights are safeguarded, so that every opportunity is given to everyone who is entitled to enrol. Therefore, we cannot ignore the startling findings of the surveys which show that between 500,000 and 600,000 Australians, a great number of them young people, are not enrolled to take part in the democratic process. Certainly, we support any fair moves to have those people made aware of their rights and to have them enrol and take part in the system. The Committee's report, which will be discussed at a later time, contains some important areas of change. Despite that, I say clearly that the main base of Australian democracy will be unchanged if the Committee's report is followed. It does not recommend change to compulsory voting. It retains in its recommendations the basic thrust of the preferential system which we now enjoy. It maintains the 10 per cent variation between electorates. It continues the recommendation for single member electorates for the House of Representatives and it maintains the existing system of proportional representation for the Senate. I define those matters to remove any doubts in the minds of anyone who has listened to the Minister or his predecessor describing this reform as a new dawn in electoral matters in Australia; it is not. The Committee has suggested numerous changes in detail-some of a major nature which few dissenting reports have shown will be harmful to the system-but has left intact the major system that has been developed in Australia. That needs to be stated, in case the Minister and the Government try to make the people of Australia believe that this is the first system we have had. In fact, it builds on the system which has been developed over many years. In relation, for instance to the vexed question, of preferential voting, I take an optimistic view that most people in Australia vote formally. In fact, 97 per cent of those who vote for the House of Representatives vote formally and 91 per cent who vote for the Senate vote formally. Therefore, one need not look pessimistically at the electoral system. We have a good system, possibly the best in the world, which we are improving by the study that is now proceeding and the reforms which will now be put into legislation by the Government. I make the point that it does not represent a new dawn. It is improving a peak situation which we previously reached. We concur with the proposition put forward by this statement. The Minister has outlined a vigorous and major campaign to educate the unenrolled to join the system. He made this remark almost at the conclusion of his statement: In particular, I will be seeking the active participation of members from both sides of the House in explaining the aims and purposes of this campaign. I suggest to him that this campaign should be bipartisan. If we are to develop a system which encourages people to take part in it, we must ensure that the campaign is not party politically motivated. I suggest that the only way it can be carried out in a non-party political way, if there is to be political presence, is to ensure that at least the Leader of the Opposition is involved in the campaign. If no political presence is envisaged, the matter will be equalised. But if political figures are to be involved in this campaign, I suggest to the Minister he should be very careful to ensure that there is no smell of party politics involved in what should be, and hopefully will be, a non -partisan area of education and encouragement. Much of the success of the campaign, of course, will depend on the way in which it is carried out. I ask the Minister: How is the matter to be dealt with? Perhaps he may be able to explain at a later stage how we can be assured that the major sums of money involved will be applied fairly throughout Australia, State by State, within the States geographically, electorate by electorate and demographically. That is a major question because, as outlined in the statement, $3.56m is involved, over $2m of which will be spent in general advertising. I would like some assurance that the details of construction of this campaign will be placed before this House so that honourable members are at least aware of the fairness which I hope the Minister will build into the campaign. The Minister said a few things about the public's perception of members of Parliament and indicated that some people-in fact, a good number-may not enrol because they dislike politicians, have a jaundiced view of the system, believe that those who take part in it are there for their own benefit, or believe all the other criticisms which are levelled at politicians. I say to the Minister that one of the major reforms which his Party is proposing will, I believe, increase public disregard for politicians. That is the matter of public funding. I would have hoped that the Government would not proceed with public funding. But its course has been well established by its support of the Committee's recommendation in this area. I put it to the Minister that nothing could discourage the public more in its attitude to politicians than to know that political parties and political figures are elected to this place by expenditure from the public purse. In that one so-called reforming stroke, the Minister is adding very significantly to the disregard which the public has for members of this House. I say on behalf of the Opposition-certainly, it is my observation of the Government-that it is a disregard which is totally unwarranted. I believe that members in this House work diligently and fairly for their electorates but that regard has to be built on, and it will not be built on by saying to the taxpayer of Australia: 'You will significantly fund the members who inhabit this place'. By the ability of honourable members to belong to major parties, they are automatically ensured of funding and thus of being re-elected to this place. If we were to ask any young people who are unenrolled today whether they approve of public funding, I am sure that we would get the answer which the polls have already shown. A vast majority of young people would be against using public funds in support of political ideology and a furtherance of political figures in this House and in the community. I say, in a forlorn, last minute request to the Minister that if he wants to support his remarks in the statement , of which he made a great deal, he should remove his support for public funding . As I have said, a eight month compaign is indeed a long campaign. It is well funded. I again make the point-I hope the Minister will maintain his interest in it-that both sides of politics, if politic figures are to be involved, will be involved and that the further action which will be necessary will be taken. The paper did not mention what will happen after cessation of this campaign. It is one thing to make people aware of their rights but it is another thing, after they are educated-hopefully the expenditure of just under $4m will make the members of the public aware of their entitlements and responsibilities-for the Minister to evolve some plan to get them on to the electoral roll and not simply let them, in disregard of the campaign, go off and do their own thing. People will have to respond. The Minister will need to have some force in his argument; he will need to have some penalties that will bear on those who will not take part in the system. There are penalties now but obviously they are not effective otherwise we would not have half a million people who have ignored their civil responsibilities in this way. The Minister too will need to bring back to this House a practical plan to take over from the educative role which he has put forward to enforce the law and the necessity to get unenrolled people into the system. I repeat that I could not agree more that the issue is important. No one in the community could oppose this proposal, as none could oppose or want to oppose the compulsory enrolment of Aboriginals. One would support that proposal just as one would support the enrolment of every person over 18 years of age in this community. However, it is the quality of this campaign which will count and it will be very much within ministerial capacity to inform the House as to whether that quality will be high. The Minister's regard for the Opposition's role, his regard of the amount of money that is spent and his regard for the campaign which must be mounted after the money is spent will finally tell the tale as to whether we ought now to be supporting his message to us. However, we do support it in anticipation that some of the vitriol which has crept into the political argument, and which was maintained by his predecessor in office, will not spoil what I believe is a fine recommendation from a committee that has worked hard and assiduously at its task . I ask the Minister now to produce the goods to match his rhetoric in the statement. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition ( Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The threat posed to economic management by the Prime Minister's delusions of support from the business community for the economic policies of his Government. 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 HOWARD(Bennelong)(3.15) —I do not think there can be any doubt that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is a man of many delusions. If anybody had any doubt about that, those doubts would have been totally dispelled in Parliament yesterday when, in answer to a question from the honourable member for Calare ( Mr Simmons), he said that the breaking of the drought was predominantly-only predominantly-due to an act of God. Perhaps that more than anything else indicates the extent of the delusions of the present Prime Minister of Australia . Of course, he has a fair number of delusions about a lot of economic matters. He has deluded himself about the causes of the recent fall in interest rates. For anybody in his position to be running around the country at present saying that interest rates have fallen because of the superb economic management of the Hawke Government and that interest rates have fallen for other very good reasons shows not only a total delusion but also a total ignorance of the causes of the recent fall in interest rates. Anybody who has any understanding of what causes rises and falls in interest rates will know darn well that interest rates in Australia have fallen in recent weeks for all of the wrong reasons. I will be very interested to know-indeed, the Australian community will be very interested to know-when interest rates resume an upward momentum, as well they must and as inevitably they will at some stage in the future, whether the Prime Minister claims credit for that or whether he has woken up to some of the delusions under which he has been suffering in the economic area. There is no delusion in the economic area that I think is more profound on the part of the Prime Minister and is more threatening to the economic management of this country than the delusion he has operated under for seven months that he has the overwhelming support of the Australian business community for the economic policies of this Government. Anyone who has observed the Prime Minister will know how proud he is of what he believes to be the support of the Australian business community for his economic policies. Whenever one observes the Prime Minister talking at a business gathering or in Parliament about the attitude of the business community towards his economic policies one sees his chest go out with very great pride. He goes around saying 'I have everybody on side. I have not only the trade union movement on side but also I have the business community of Australia on side.' On 21 September in the Parliament he said: . . . this Government has the overwhelming support of the business community in this country. In the few moments available to me I want to examine the accuracy of that proposition and the delusion under which the Prime Minister has been operating in this area. In the course of doing that I will expose to the Parliament the real doubts that are now growing in the minds of members of the business community of Australia about the veracity of the commitment to responsible economic management given by the Prime Minister at the National Economic Summit Conference and the real doubts that are properly developing throughout the entire Australian community about the quality of this Government's economic management. The euphoria of the Economic Summit has long since evaporated. It has evaporated for one fundamental reason: A yawning chasm has opened up between the commitment to economic rectitude made by the Prime Minister at the Economic Summit and the real performance of his Government in the economic area over that period. In some respects the mini-Budget was a more responsible document than had been anticipated by many people in the Australian community. Nonetheless, it did not come to grips with the problem of a burgeoning structural Budget deficit . We had the Premiers Conference which was the most generous Premiers Conference that we have had in Australia for the last seven years and certainly the slackest so far as a responsible economic approach is concerned. We had an early commitment to wage indexation and most recently, of course, we had the Budget which was hailed by the Prime Minister as a document of economic responsibility. However, in reality it has been seen, particularly by the business community of Australia which the Prime Minister repeatedly says is not necessary for a reduction in unemployment and a revival of economic activity throughout Australia, as an inappropriate, fragile and in many cases a downright irresponsible and dangerous document. I will tell the House of some of the things that the business community has said about the Budget and about the other economic policies of this Government. On 28 August, the Australian Chamber of Commerce, a body representing 40,000 businesses throughout Australia, said: It would be dangerous for the Government to take it from media coverage that a majority in the business community accepts uncritically the general strategy and specific prescriptions embodied in the budget. The Australian Chamber of Commerce representing 40,000 businesses throughout the country, believes that at this tentative stage of economic recovery in the private sector, the government is taking an enormous risk in busgeting for a mammoth deficit. This will place unprecedented demands on financial markets and interest rate structures. The Government is also seen to be demonstrating a blind faith that its accord with the ACTU will be effective in limiting wage and the CPI increases to the order of 7.0-7.8%. That is hardly a ringing round of applause from the most representative commercial body in Australia-the Australian Chamber of Commerce. On 5 September the respected economic commentary, SYNTEC, stated: The Prices and Incomes Accord is not going to deliver the needed degree of wage restraint. The Westpac Banking Corporation, the largest private trading bank in Australia, stated in its most recent economic review in September: For there can be a little doubt that the whole expansionary budget strategy represents a high risk venture, resting on some fairly shaky foundations. I emphasise the phrase 'resting on some fairly shaky foundations'. The review continued: The biggest gamble is that the so-called prices and incomes accord will hold fast, even when the economy moves into higher gear in 1984. By deliberately setting out to force-feed economic growth in the year ahead, the Government may well have truncated Australia's longer-term growth prospects. That is hardly a ringing endorsement from the largest private trading bank in Australia. It is hardly representative of the broad base of community support that the Prime Minister claims to have from the Australian business community. The Confederation of Australian Industry, another broadly based industry group in Australia, stated: . . . the budget involves a very delicate balance of the risks, and is subject to severe potential pressures that may be beyond the scope of the Government's control and influence in both domestic and international terms. It went on to say: The Government may well have missed an opportunity for a some-what tighter budget with a greater emphasis on reducing inflation . . . Once again, that is hardly a ringing round of applause for the Government's economic policies. The ANZ Bank Ltd, in its September survey, stated: Full indexation of wages against the consumer price index could complicate the task of slowing Australia's inflation rate . . . It stated further: It is a matter of concern that already there are indications that wage pressures beyond the Accord are developing within particular industries . . . Once again a major condemnation-this time by the ANZ Bank. Such condemnation is not confined to the manufacturing and tertiary sectors. The National Farmers Federation, in its release on the night of the Budget, 23 August, under the heading 'Opportunity lost' stated: . . . the opportunity had been lost to make significant reductions in interest rates and inflation by the Government's inflexibility on the size of the deficit . The Government could have given the economy a desperately needed boost of confidence by pruning the deficit further. So, comment after comment from respected and representative industry bodies throughout Australia goes on. In case anybody imagines that I am just relying upon the comments of the large industry associations in Australia, let me say something about the small business community, a community that the Government says it is particularly concerned about. On 25 August, the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, which is the largest small business organisation in Australia, said: It is a matter of deep concern that the Government, after 6 months in office, has not implemented one plank of its Action Program for Small Business. That comment comes from the largest small business organisation in Australia. It goes on to say: Unfortunately, the Budget does little to give any incentives to business entrepreneurs to expand and create more jobs . . . To base a massive deficit budget on very dubious assumptions as to the rates of inflation and growth during the coming year is a gamble that Australia can perhaps ill-afford at this time . . . So, wherever one goes, instead of finding the ringing endorsement that would justify the Prime Minister's delusions, one finds increasingly the opposite. One finds growing doubt and concern within the Australian business community and within the broader community as to the quality, the veracity, the workability and the judgment behind the Government's policies in the area of economic management. That is little wonder, because the Budget is based upon the very fragile assumption that the prices and incomes accord will work. Everyone knows that daily there is evidence that that accord has only to be given time and it will ultimately fail. The deficit contained in the Budget is far to high. It could have been much less. It could have been between $6,000m and $7,000m. The Government knows it. The Budget Papers demonstrate it. They demonstrate the dishonesty and the deceit practised by the Government over the last few months in relation to its alleged Budget problems. There is no doubt that the premature return to full wage indexation will make Australian industry uncompetitive at a time when, above everything else, we need to become more competitive. But most seriously of all, it is now clearly emerging that there is a major tension and conflict inherent in the economic approach being taken by the Government. As a result of the large Budget deficit and the very large capital inflow into Australia at present it is necessary that the Government run a policy of appreciating and not depreciating the Australian exchange rate. Because, unless it allows the Australian dollar to go up, it will not be able effectively to control the rate of growth of the money supply, and that will have very serious inflationary consequences. The effect of allowing the Australian dollar to go up will be to make Australian industry less and not more competitive. That is directly in conflict with the Government's employment objectives. When one adds to that a wages policy which is also anti-competitive and which involves a premature return to full wage indexation, one has a scenario for destroying and not creating jobs. One has a scenario for making Australian industry less and not more competitive. I think it is a matter of great concern that it is not only the Government which has a problem and is under a delusion in this area. The Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, in its national wage decision, I regret to say, revealed an ignorance of a fundamental reality of Australian economic life at present when, in giving the reasons why it supported a return to full wage idexation, it incorrectly-and I use the word 'incorrectly' quite deliberately because it was incorrect-stated: The devaluation in the Australian exchange rate in March 1983, has substantially neutralised the effect of the relatively large wage increases in Australia and significantly improved our international competitiveness. But this can only be maintained if our inflation rate is brought down to that of our trading partners. What the Arbitration Commission did not say, and what the Government apparently does not understand, is that that devaluation in March may have had that effect but just about all of that devaluation has been cancelled out by subsequent upvaluations of the Australian dollar. So for the Arbitration Commission only a couple of weeks ago to say that one of the reasons we can go back to full wage indexation is the March devaluation shows an abysmal ignorance of what has happened to the management of the Australian exchange rate and the consequence of that for the competitiveness of Australian industry since the end of March. In my concluding remarks, I return to the Prime Minister. I think that there were a number of people on this side of the House who attended the launching of the Business Council of Australia at the grand ballroom in the Regent Hotel in Sydney a few weeks ago. Of course, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) were both there. The Prime Minister was very happy, of course, to say how much he loved the business community of Australia. How fulsome he was in his praise of those gathered at the launching. He was particularly fulsome in his praise of the person who had been elected as the first chairman of the Business Council of Australia, Sir Arvi Parbo, a very distinguished Australian businessman and the Chairman of Western Mining Corporation Ltd. It is therefore instructive to read to the House something Sir Arvi Parbo said only a few days ago: It is . . . a great pity that what was probably a unique opportunity to correct within a very short time a large part of Australia's existing cost disparity . . . was missed. Even if the Government's optimistic forecast of Australian inflation rates come true, it will still be increasing at at least twice the rate of our main trading partners in 1984. In plain words, this means that, far from regaining some of our lost competitiveness, we will continue to lose more. The only question is how much more. What more telling and complete condemnation could one have from such a distinguished Australian businessman of the policies of this Government and the extent of the Prime Minister's delusions? Mr ROBERT BROWN(Hunter)(3.30) —First of all, I express some degree of concern for the actual wording of this matter of supposed public importance which has been raised by the Opposition. I do not believe that the wording of the matter of public importance was devised by the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) who has put forward the position of the Opposition on this matter. The wording of this matter of public importance simply does not make any sense. It is in these terms: The threat posed to economic management by the Prime Minister's delusions of support from the business community for the economic policies of his Government. I waited to get some indication from the comments of the honourable member for Bennelong as to exactly what was meant by that. For example, I did not know whether the alleged delusions by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) represented some threat to economic management, or whether some alleged lack of support from the business community was posing some threat to economic management. I take it from the comments made by the honourable member for Bennelong that the second of those alternatives is the preferred interpretation. Let us have a look at it. I am quite happy to go along with that interpretation and to respond to some of the issues raised by the honourable member for Bennelong in defence of it. I think it is important for us to realise that the most important single document, the most important single measure, the most important single approach which has been made by the present Government in relation to economic questions, economic management and economic strategies is of course the Federal Budget that was introduced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in August of this year. It is also important for us to realise that the Budget, while it is the most important single document, is only part of a total package of economic measures which have been taken by this Government, part of a total sensible, coherent, integrated, co-ordinated and consistent approach to economic management. I will refer to some of them. First of all, there is the fundamental importance , as far as this Government is concerned, of the prices and incomes accord and the important role which it will play in an attempt to attack simultaneously the problems of inflation and unemployment. The honourable member for Bennelong quite correctly referred to the fact that the previous Government made the control of inflation its primary objective. He criticised the fact that this Government has chosen to adopt measures which are designed, as I say, to attempt simultaneously to overcome the problems of inflation and unemployment. It ill becomes any spokesman for the previous Government, the present Opposition, to suggest to us that we should adopt and continue the policies which it asserted and declared were policies which, according to it, would be most effective in bringing about a reduction in inflation. Let us examine just how successful the former Government was in pursuing this primary, fundamental, basic, first, priority objective-the control of inflation by the adoption of the measures which it pursued. These measures were adopted over a period of seven years and were responsible for creating a situation where the Australian people had never in the history of Australia been more savagely attacked, mauled and disadvantaged as a result of measures adopted by any former government. But that former Government, the present Opposition, made the control of inflation its primary objective. Let us examine how successful it was. In the last full year of the former Labor Government-that is, from September 1974 until September 1975-the rate of inflation was 12.1 per cent. Following that period, as I say, there were seven years of savage mauling of the Australian people when increasingly more and more people were sacrifices at the altar of those ill-conceived, ill-considered and ill-implicated policies of that Government. Let us take the comparable period for this former Government. I refer to the period from September 1981 until September 1982 which is comparable with the period in 1974-75 when the rate of inflation was 12.1 per cent. What was it in the comparable period of this former Government? It was 12.3 per cent. The former Treasurer, the man who is responsible to a very large extent for devising those economic policies, is responsible for that rate of inflation. Certainly with all of the advice that was available to him and with the support of all honourable members on that side of the House who sat with him on the front bench and sat behind him, the honourable member for Bennelong has the gall to come into this chamber and suggest that this Government would be pursuing more appropriate economic policies if it were to pursue the same type of economic policies which were responsible for those disastrous seven years of the Fraser Government. I said that the Budget formed only one part of a total, coherent and co- ordinated approach to economic management. What have been some of the other approaches? In addition to the prices and incomes accord, to which I referred, this is a necessary component of the alternative economic and more expansionary approach which has been taken by this Government in order to bring back increasingly, as the months progress, into employment some of those 750,000 officially unemployed people in Australia. I refer to the 1 1/2 million people who are, in reality, unemployed. If we take into account the disguised unemployed, the hidden unemployed, the people who were working part time and would prefer to work full time-if we take into account all of them-there are 1 1 /2 million unemployed in reality in Australia. Those people can, to a very large extent, trace the cause, the precipitation of their present deprived economic circumstances to those ill-considered, ill-conceived, ill-devised and unfortunately-applied policies of the former Government. Other aspects of the economic approach which has been taken by this Government place it in a position of marked contrast with its predecessors who, prior to the election-I refer particularly to the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock)-like their leader in the weeks leading up to the last election on 5 March, were prepared to make statements in the public arena to the Australian nation which could have nothing but severe and damaging impacts and severe and damaging effects on the Australian economy. How irresponsible, how absolutely cynical that there were references on that occasion to putting one's savings under the bed. Consider the impact that could have had on the whole Australian financial system. What did the present Leader of the Opposition do on that occasion? He speculated about the possibility of devaluation. I will quote one of the statements which that irresponsible man made on that occasion. I refer to a report in the Sydney Morning Herald on 9 March. The report was written by John Short, who referred to a Press conference in Canberra which had taken place on 8 March. He wrote: When asked how he had reached the conclusion that a 15 per cent develuation was necessary, Mr Peacock said- I will quote what Mr Peacock said. Honourable members should listen to these words and note to the incredible expression from the present Leader of the Opposition. He said: 'A number of us met on the matter and made calculations- Can honourable members imagine these people all plugging away on their little calculators? that it would be in the order of 10 or 15 and would be more likely to be 15 per cent. John Short went on: He-- that is, the present Leader of the Opposition, that irresponsible man-- would not say who had provided him with this advice. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition persisted in maintaining that he had acted responsibly. The honourable member for Bennelong, the former Treasurer and present Opposition spokesman on Treasury matters, said that it was his practice never to make comments about the value of the dollar. I know that that was an attempt on the part of the honourable member for Bennelong to adopt a responsible position. Did he persist with it? He then went on: What I will do is express a strong view that an ALP government will frighten foreign investors. So these people were all party to it-the former Treasurer, the present Leader of the Opposition and Mr Valder-in New South Wales. Mr Valder admitted that he had advised his clients to send their money out of Australia. That money flowed out of Australia, with very severe damage to Australia's economy. The point I am leading up to is that in light of that speculation which had been fuelled by these supposedly responsible people presently on the Opposition benches- speculation about the value of this nation's currency which caused an outflow of something like $3 billion of speculative funds immediately before the election- this Government, within the first few days of being elected, took action to devalue the currency; a one-off measure. We accepted the flexible pegging arrangement, the day-by-day adjustment, but we were not prepared to allow the value of this nation's currency or our international standing to be damaged as a result of the speculation by people who now appropriately sit on the Opposition benches. So we had that one-off measure, that immediate 10 per cent devaluation. It ended the speculation and, within the next week, about $3,000m flowed back into Australia. Of course, as a result of the speculation which was fuelled by the Opposition a great number of people at that time made massive profits. We did a similar thing about a week ago when we increased the value of the Australian dollar, again to bring about a reduction in the degree of speculative inflow which was taking place. So we have acted in numerous areas. It has been suggested that there is some deficiency in the degree of support for the measures that we have adopted. Who makes the claim that there is some deficiency in the degree of support for this Government's economic initiatives, its economic strategy and its total package of economic policies? The people, of course, are exclusively those who sit on the Opposition benches-those people who masquerade and parade as the captains of industry, those people who parade as the monarchs of capitalism, those people who parade as the pillars of the commercial and the financial world. They are nothing of the kind. Some of those who identify themselves as chartered accountants are failed bookkeepers. Some of those who identify themselves as solicitors and barristers are suburban lawyers. Some of those who identify themselves as primary producers and graziers are small time farmers. Some of those who identify themselves as company directors are shopkeepers. So let us put to rest the claim by these people on the Opposition side that they are the pillars of the commercial and financial world. They are nothing of the kind. Not only are they not what they purport to be in connection with their personal business achievements and involvements, but also they are not even what they also purport to be-decent, efficient, capable or competent economic managers. They are not even economic managers. Increasingly, those people who sit on the Opposition benches have the gall to come into this House and make some criticism of this Government's economic performance, of the degree of support which undoubtedly exists through the broad spectrum of the Australian community and in all areas of Australian economic activity and of the massive support for the continuing economic policies of this Government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Consideration resumed. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory)(3.45) —Prior to the suspension of the sitting for lunch I had spoken about the need for a special joint management structure for the Uluru and Kakadu National Parks. I spoke about the suggestion that I had made to the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) on a nuclear waste research fund, where existing uranium producers and those companies which want to exploit uranium in this country could demonstrate their real concern and responsibility by contributing to a fund to research this very serious problem. The intitial response from the uranium industry has been disappointing to say the least though it is perhaps not unexpected. John Reynolds of the Uranium Information Centre, as reported in today's Australian, said: . . . there was no need for Australia to start waste disposal research. The research going on already is being funded by the taxpayer, including the mining companies . . . He said further: The problem of the isolation of high-level wastes doesn't arise in Australia, only where you have a uranium-based electrical system. In some sense he is accurate, but this indicates that the attitude of the uranium industry is one of: 'It is your problem, not ours. We will ask the taxpayer to bear the brunt of sorting out this very serious problem of nuclear waste disposal and the money involved in researching technology to try to deal with that problem'. Indeed $3m has been allocated in this Budget. The taxpayer will have to pay for research and development in this area. I am quite optimistic that, at some stage in the not to distant future, we may well find the solution. If the uranium mining industry keeps on with this sort of head-in- the-sand attitude, I despair at the prospect of finding that solution. If we are serious about finding a solution to the problem we need to spend a lot more than $3m on it. It is Australia's responsibility to find a solution to this problem. If we are to export uranium, as we are at present, we will have to accept that nuclear waste will be created by nuclear power plants in other countries. It may be used for nuclear armaments. It is not good enough for honourable members to sit here and say that, because we do not have any electrical generation systems depending on nuclear fuel, it is not our problem. I hope that, in the very near future, the uranium mining industry wakes up to itself over this issue and starts to appreciate that it, along with the other people who intend to exploit this resource, has to put its money where its mouth is. In the time that I have left to me I would like to make some comments on the Budget allocations for the Northern Territory. The first thing that should be said is that total payments to the Northern Territory this year are up by $124. 12m which is an increase of 17.3 per cent. That is by far the largest dollar increase in any Budget for the Northern Territory. It is far and above any allocation made by Liberal-National Party governments which claim to be great people concerned about the Northern Territory and northern development. The Hawke Labor Government has shown its real concern for the Northern Territory in this Budget. A few of the specific things that have happened include: Assistance to the Northern Territory Electricity Commission has been increased by $6.9m to $64.7m. The brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign funds have been increased by $5.2m to $8.9m. We have received a Medicare establishment grant of $2.1m. Funding for rehabilitation centres is up $4.5 to 5.3m. Of course, along with other States we have received money under the community employment program. Housing funds are up a massive 41.6 per cent. Road funds are up 16.2 per cent. The total amount allocated by way of both specific purpose capital payments and loans to authorities and to the Northern Territory Government this year is $116m . The Budget indicates the real concern of the Hawke Labor Government for the Northern Territory and to ensure the future development of the north. Frankly, it amazes me that after all that the Northern Territory Government could not find the goodwill to say that it was a good Budget. That Government still criticised the Budget. Yet, a week after the Northern Territory Government said that this Budget was not very good, that Government managed to bring down a Budget which it says is fantastic. Of course, 86 per cent of the funds in the Budget brought down by that Government were provided by the Federal Government. There is hypocrisy as well on the part of the Northern Territory Government. Nothing satisfies it. If the Federal Government gave everybody in the Northern Territory a golden brick the Northern Territory Government would still want two. The Northern Territory Government has made a number of demands on the Federal Government in recent months, particularly since we came to office on 5 March. If all those demands were met over the next five years the Federal Government would have to make $3 billion available to the Northern Territory Government-that is, on top of the yearly funding which has already been made available and which this year totals $856m. If one amortises that over the period the Northern Territory Government is talking about one sees that it is asking for something like $8 billion. All the Northern Territory Government wants to do is scream and shout about what it should be given. It is selfish and self-indulgent and it does not want to accept any of the sacrifice ordinary Australians are having to make in these difficult economic times. If one has any doubt about that Government's selfishness, one can look at the fact that this year the six Northern Territory Government Ministers have budgeted $2m for their own travel and entertainment while they are screaming and shouting about the Federal Government not giving them enough money. They will spend $2m in twelve months. That is $1,000 a day for each of them. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Darling) — Order! The honourable member's time has elapsed. Mr FISHER(Mallee)(3.53) —One of the many notable successes of the coalition Government between 1975 and 1983 was its innovative program and achievement in sport and recreation. During that time, in 1977, the sports development program was established to improve standards of administration, athletes' performance and coaching. This was supported by the national coaching accreditation scheme in 1979 to upgrade and standardise coaching education in all sports. Of course, 1980 was a year of outstanding achievement with the opening of the Australian Institute of Sport and with scholarships being given to young Australians to provide the opportunity for them to develop and to encourage their sporting potential. That year also saw the creation of a sports studies course at the Canberra College of Advanced Education, a program of assistance for sport and recreation of disabled people and a program of co-operation with the States to construct throughout Australia a full range of international standard sports facilities. I mention these achievements because they were a watershed in Commonwealth Government assistance to sport and were coincidentally, but appropriately, capped off by the spectacle and success of the Commonwealth Games . I acknowledge that these innovations have been continued and reinforced by the present Government. The overall Budget allocations for sport and recreation are, by any standards, generous. The Government has kept its election promises to sport. I mention that it is one of the few promises that have been kept in the Budget area. There are a few areas with which I find disagreement and about which I wish to express some concern. One item is the allocation of funds for the Australian Institute of Sport. The AIS asked for a working budget of $6.4m. The administrators of the AIS believed that this figure was needed to keep all the current programs going and to allow a proper allocation of funds to sports people preparing for the 1984 Olympic Games. The Budget, in fact, allocates them just over $5m, which is a cut of 17 per cent on what they asked for. My argument is not so much that the AIS allocation was less than what was asked for, despite the fact that this is a pre-Olympic year, but that the Government also announced that programs at the Institute would be expanded to include new sports programs. I welcome these new programs but, with inadequate funds, this creates a number of difficulties. For example, more programs are to be started but the request for an extra 38 staff has been denied. This will result in more programs with no one to run them . The problem facing the Institute now is that it has to prune its costs and programs. But what will it cut? Should the Institute reduce its competitive budget-the biggest single factor in all the Institute's costs? If it cuts its budget in that area we could be faced with the prospect of sending to Los Angeles Olympic contenders who have never had overseas competition experience. To do this would put Australian sport back to where it was 10 years ago. Should the Institute reduce its sports medicine programs? Sports medicine is a relatively new science and one that needs all the government assistance it can get. It is of real concern and embarrassment that Australian teams competing overseas do not have adequate personnel in the sports medicine area and that they sometimes have to rely upon the expertise and assistance they can borrow from other international teams. Should the Institute cut back on its national training programs so that even fewer sports students will be given an opportunity to reach their full potential? Another area of dispute is the subject of subvention fees. Subvention fees are those paid by the AIS to the Government for the privilege of using the facilities at the National Training Centre at Bruce. One could ask: What is the national sports facility for if it is not for the use of the national sports institute? This financial year the AIS has been charged $650,000 in subvention fees. It seems to me that the Government either has to give the AIS another $650 ,000 for its budget or has to remove this impost from the Institute. Out of a total allocation of $5m, $650,000 is a large slice. I urge the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), who I know has had lengthy discussions with AIS personnel on this issue, to examine this matter seriously. It is unfair and immoral to offer the sporting sector of Australia international sporting facilities, coaches and equipment and, in the next breath, not to give it enough money to keep operating at a maximum level. If we are to compare ourselves in the international sporting arena with overseas sports men and women , we must be prepared to provide international equivalent budgets. I note the very significant increase in allocations for staffing and administration costs within the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism. I understand that staff is to increase from 25 to 40 personnel. I acknowledge publicly the effectiveness and dedication of this small sports department and its expertise in the administration of programs and the implementation of policy , but I caution any move, either by design or by natural growth, to overbureaucratise the administration of sport in this country. We need more indians and fewer chiefs. The imposition by government of its will upon the freedom of individual sports, coaches or administrators has failed in other countries. The loss of Don Talbot, the Executive Director of the AIS, is regretted. I feel that this may largely have been due to the view that the AIS might become a statutory authority and the administration part of the Public Service. I pay a tribute to Don Talbot, the Chairman of the AIS, Kevan Gosper, and his committee for their successful development of the AIS in its formative years. The new appointment should be independent of the Department and given very great flexibility and autonomy. The ignorant and insensitive views that have been expressed by some-a minority of the Government-indicate support for a sports policy based on the premise that tall poppies should be lopped off in the interests of social equity. Any doubts about the Government's policy should be dispelled by the Minister. Such people as Robert de Castella, Ken and Robin Lorraway, Paul Narracott and many others who performed so well at the World Championships in Helsinki and young sports people such as Pat Cash and Darren Clark do more to stimulate the nation and the interests of young people in sport and recreation than token and wasteful handouts to anyone or any organisation that asks for assistance. The Government has met in full the commitment made for the former Government to the Australian Olympic Federation, which is so important in these months prior to the 1984 Olympic Games. I applaud the continuation of the Federal-State arrangements for international sports facilities in capital cities. However, I ask that the injection of funds into sport this year reflect a true concern for sport in Australia and not be used just as a political smokescreen designed to take attention away from inflationary measures contained elsewhere in the Budget. The sports development program has been generously supported although, to my knowledge, full details of the individual allocations are still not known. I hope the Government will ensure that these funds are used to assist sports administrators and coaches to use their skills at the grass roots level for the young people who are so vital to the future development and physical health of this country. Care must be taken, I believe, not to spread the funds too widely to passive recreational areas or to areas of support that more correctly fall within the health budget. One of the sad features of a number of State government departments of sport and recreation has been the trend to use the disbursement of limited funds to gain political publicity. The construction of toilet blocks at football grounds or the writing of small cheques to every sporting club throughout the State does no more than subsidise the annual Christmas wind up. While they are popular, they are useless in improving the skills of our sportsment and women in encouraging them to reach their full potential as athletes, coaches or administrators. I now comment on the proposal to form the Australian Sports Commission. The Minister, I believe, has put together an interim committee comprising personnel with a broad spectrum of expertise in sport, commercial administration, education and public relations. In saying this, however, I refute the Minister's comments that the members of the Sports Advisory Council were inexpert amateurs. Les Martyn and his council have had the respect of the broad Australian sporting community. The Commission has a formidable task ahead. It must be given every opportunity to operate in a completely autonomous manner, free from bureaucratic intervention and influence. It is vital that the Commission be given the freedom to develop long term goals that meet the aspirations of Australian sports and form a national approach to recreation that is based on participation at all levels, without reducing our elite mediocrity. I hope that the policies the Commission develops are geared to the present and future needs of sport and not dissipated in areas that, as I said before, more correctly belong in the health or environment area. I hope they are developed for people involved in sport and that there is an awareness of the diversity and needs of sport and sports people . In conclusion, I say to the Minister that the Opposition will give its full support in underwriting the Disabled Olympics in Canberra. We seek an early commitment to this. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(4.03) —I have much pleasure in supporting the appropriation of $153m for the Department of Home Affairs and Environment which has been made for 1983-84. The increase of $20 1/2m over the 1982-83 expenditure, a 15 1/2 per cent rise in the allocation, is an indication of the deep commitment which the Federal Labor Government has to the preservation and conservation of the natural and built environment. It is particularly pleasing to note the large increase which has been made in the grants and contributions to conservation organisations and historical societies. In a recent fact finding tour of north Queensland and the Northern Territory the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, of which I am Chairman, had the opportunity to talk to a number of conservation organisations and was made fully aware of the considerable funding problems which those organisations were experiencing. It is particularly difficult to attract funds on a dollar for dollar basis, as is frequently required by government, for voluntary organisations in the more sparsely populated areas of northern Queensland and the Northern Territory. Governments at both the State and Federal level should be made aware that voluntary organisations in such areas often have pressing environmental problems facing them but do not have large metropolitan populations to sustain funding on a dollar for dollar basis. Governments must recognise the need to provide a bigger proportion of government funding for voluntary organisations based in cities such as Townsville, Cairns and Darwin. It was drawn to my attention that the present matching grant formula means that conservation groups are heavily involved in fund raising efforts rather than carrying out their most important function of protecting the environment. I know that the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) is aware of this problem and the increase of over $3m to $20,509,000 is, to an important extent, a recognition of the difficulties faced by such groups. It was, I regret to say, particularly disturbing to meet with one historical society which had suffered a withdrawal of its funds in one year because it had made a recommendation to government which was not in line with that Government's views on a particular conservation issue. I think that such conduct from a government towards an independent voluntary organisation is reprehensible. The only reason I have not named the government concerned is the fatal consequences it could have for the valuable work and continued existence of the organisation concerned. I turn to the increase of a little over $1m to $3,665,000 in the allocation for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. I am most gratified to note the strong support for the Authority which is represented by the increase. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation recently toured the Great Barrier Reef. All the members of the Committee were most impressed by the dedication and professional and administrative efficiency displayed by all the officers and rangers of the Authority. We were particularly interested in the joint Federal-State management of this important and valuable world heritage area. It was clear that a close working relationship had developed between the officers of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and those of the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service. The administrative arrangements by which the Authority develops broad policy and the Queensland Parks Service undertakes the day to day management appeared to be working most effectively and enjoyed the full support of the Premier of Queensland. In my view, the administration of the world heritage areas of Kakadu National Park in the Northern Territory and the national parks of South West Tasmania could be modelled on a similar Federal-State relationship. Such a model could ensure the permanent protection of world heritage areas from the avarice of the extractive industries and their supporters. At this point I mention my concern on hearing that the condition of the Queensland rainforests has reached a critical level. I advocate that research be directed, perhaps by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, towards the development of systems for logging outside rainforest areas, such as the rehabilitation of old farm sites by the planting of rainforest species. Pressure needs to be exerted on the Queensland Forestry Commission to establish native plantations and to reafforest hillsides which could be a worthwhile job creation project. The national tree program could be directed towards the rehabilitation of degraded hillsides in the region. The funding support for the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service has been increased by $1,800,000 to $5,948,000 which, again, is an important increase for a service which impressed me on my visit to Kakadu National Park, with the determined and professional approach of the National Park's officers and rangers towards preserving Kakadu for the enjoyment of present and future generations. There is no doubt that the whole area has an enormous potential as a tourist attraction. With improvements in roads, access, camping and other accommodation facilities there is no reason why the park could not provide a valuable resort area for visitors. At the same time, the natural beauty of the Alligator Rivers region would be preserved. It must be remembered, of course, that a significant part of the Park is leased to the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service by the traditional Aboriginal owners and their interests must be balanced against the interests of park management. It must be recorded that the Northern Territory Government would like to control Kakadu National Park completely. However, it was pleasing to note that a co-operative attitude was developing between the Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory and the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. That co-operation was particularly noted between the rangers on the ground. One problem has been the high level of radioactivity which has been found to be present in mussels in the area. Following a request from the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation the Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs and Environment advised: Preliminary and very recent results indicate that mussels in the Region contain high levels of radium, and also high levels of other radioactive isotopes. The Supervising Scientist has brought these observations to the attention of the appropriate Northern Territory health authorities for consideration of the need for action to alert the public of any possible health hazard. On the question of origin, the present research has demonstrated that high radium levels exist in mussels from sites widespread in the Region including areas 20 km upstream from Ranger and quite unaffected by mining. Analysis also shows that one abundant radioactive radium isotope found in mussels is not due to the radioactive decay of uranium but of thorium, an element not found in significant quantity in the Ranger orebody. For these reasons the preliminary conclusion is that the current high levels of radium in mussels are a natural characteristic of the Region and unlikely to be associated with uranium mining. Another problem which was raised with the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service was the report of seepage from the radioactive tailings dam into the groundwater system at the Ranger uranium mine. Again I quote the letter from the Secretary to the Department: On the question of seepage from the Ranger tailings dam the Supervising Scientist has advised that in June 1982 Ranger Uranium Mines informed the Northern Territory authorities and the the Coordinating Committee for the Alligator Rivers Region of rising groundwater pressure in monitoring bore-holes adjacent to the north wall of the tailings dam. The dam is designed to contain the contaminated waste from the treatment plant at the Ranger mine. Investigations subsequently carried out by the Northern Territory Supervising Authorities, Ranger Uranium Mines and its engineering consultants, and the Supervising Scientist supported by the Department of Housing and Construction and the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation have confirmed the existence of a rock layer of higher than desirable permeability extending under the foundations of part of the north wall of the dam. The existence of this aquifer has resulted in increased ground-water pressure below the dam wall, suggesting some degree of a permeable connection to the head of the retained water in the dam. However, there is no evidence yet of significant contamination of water in the aquifer. Since June 1982 the situation has been monitored very closely by the Northern Territory authorities and the Supervising Scientist. One thing which is very clear from the investigations conducted by the Supervising Scientist is that the operation of uranium mining is quite incompatible with the preservation and conservation of national parks. In this respect it is particularly welcome that the Jabiluka and Koongarra uranium mines , the mining operations of which could have caused irreparable harm to the world heritage area, are not to go ahead as a result of the implementation of the Federal Australian Labor Party's anti-uranium policy. One regret that I have is that the Minister was unable to persuade the Cabinet that the creation of an Australian coastal management council was an urgent priority. The Cabinet had obviously taken the view that the increase in funding for environment and conservation matters was very generous at a time of economic stringency and that funds for an entirely new council were just not available. However, I am heartened by the response of the Acting Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Barry Jones) to my question of yesterday, as he has indicated that coastal management has been identified as a project high on the list for consideration in 1984-85. In this respect, the people of the Gold Coast should be aware of the waste of public money resulting from the decision of their local State member, Mr Russ Hinze, on the building of groynes to prevent beach erosion. Having inspected the groynes, it is clear to me that thousands of dollars have been wasted, as all that the groynes have caused is the transfer of erosion problems from one portion of the beach to another. I congratulate the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment on his advocacy of conservation issues and the consequential large increases in the funding for his Department. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(4.12) —In speaking to the estimates for the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism I wish firstly to congratulate Paul Hogan on agreeing to participate in the Australian domestic tourism program. I have already assured him, and I do so publicly in the House today, of the Opposition' s support for his participation in the Australian Tourist Commission's program to encourage Australians to see Australia first and to travel in Australia. Mr Barry Jones —You had better congratulate the Minister too. Mr SHIPTON —We should just wait before doing that because I believe that poor old Hoges has a hard job ahead of him. The Government, by its Budget and by its actions, is making it very difficult for him. If the Minister for Science and Technology listens he will see why. The Budget admits and assumes an inflation rate of at least double that of our trading partners. Because of the continuing high inflation in Australia overseas travel will continue to be attractive to Australians. The Budget, the mini-Budget and the national wage case put up costs for every Australian. The middle income earner is continually squeezed and will have less discretionary income to spend on holidays. The increased costs due to the Budget, the mini-Budget and the national wage case put up costs for every tourist operator in Australia. The Budget is a public sector budget. It expands government in Australia and squeezes private enterprise and the private sector. It puts pressure on every private enterprise tourist operator in Australia-the airlines, bus operators, hotels, motels and restaurants. It is no wonder that the Government is employing Paul Hogan to advertise the industry because the Budget contradicts and counteracts everything that poor old Hoges is trying to do. The Budget puts up costs to everyone in the tourist industry and to its customers, the potential travellers-the Australian consumer, the Australian public. The domestic tourism advertising program is doubtless designed in part to cover up the Government's failure to provide any real hope or any real incentive to the industry. The Budget contains no real incentives to the industry. It provides no investment allowances, no depreciation allowances or provisions. There are, of course, broken promises. Let us look at Tasmania in relation to the Budget. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), in a visit to Tasmania in August before the Budget was presented, promised Tasmanians, as compensation for the dam, $10m to be spent on tourist development. He also promised jobs to Tasmanians. I say to the Minister: How much of that $10m was provided in the Budget? Less than $2m was given to Tasmania, and $10m was promised. It is no wonder that Tasmanians continue to be disaffected and disillusioned with this Government. The increases in fuel costs in the mini-Budget in May and in this Budget strike at the tourist industry. Increases are now guaranteed every six months by automatic indexation. Airline costs are increased and these are reflected, obviously, in higher air fares. Bus and coach operators are cruelly hit by the fuel increases. Buses that do eight miles to the gallon are heavy consumers of diesel fuel. Bus operators also suffer from the Government's broken promise to abolish sales tax on retread tyres. Let us look at Queensland. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) described in the Budget a special grant to Queensland of $1m to subsidise the costs of diesel fuel to Barrier Reef island resorts. Yet the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, in a recent speech at Tamworth-he reassured the House of this today-said that that $1m was to assist the off-shore islands with the generation of electricity. So the grant has been confined to the generation of electricity on off-shore islands. The situation is confusing and it needs clarifying. Mr John Brown —Do you know of any on-shore islands? Mr SHIPTON —I am asking the Minister about the off-shore islands. He said that the grant was to Queensland. Does it include the Whitsunday islands, which are not Great Barrier Reef islands? Does it include Kangaroo Island in South Australia? Is it limited to the Queensland Barrier Reef islands, to the Queensland off-shore islands or to off-shore islands generally? If it does not apply to all Queensland off-shore islands and particularly to Barrier Reef islands, obviously they will all get less than they thought they would get when the Budget was delivered. There will be less for everyone. If the grant applies to all Queensland off-shore islands, will the Government increase the amount available? The situation is confusing and it needs clarifying. The special subsidy in Queensland of $1m, the limits of which we will hear about shortly, I hope, discriminates against all on-shore operators, who suffer similar disadvantages of distance in Australia to those who suffered by off-shore operators. I refer to on-shore operators at Queensland ports, in the Northern Territory and other parts of Australia. Surely operators in Alice Springs and Ayers Rock are just as entitled to special assistance and suffer the same disadvantages as off-shore operators in Queensland. What about bus and coach operators who operate long distances? They need fuel depots, often in remote areas all over Australia. They have an equal claim for a subsidy but are excluded by this Government and have seen their fuel and other costs escalate enormously. One could be excused for believing that there was to be an election shortly in Queensland and that this Government had tried by its $1m subsidy to win votes. The subsidy has backfired, because it is confusing. No one knows where it applies or who will get it and at the end of the day there will be very little for all operators in Queensland. I turn to the subject of penalty rates. I welcome the Australian Tourist Commission inquiry into penalty rates because it is clear that penalty rates are putting up costs and limiting the growth potential of the tourist industry. The Minister was forced publicly to admit the existence of this inquiry, which he knew about, but he did so only after I revealed its existence. He was quiet and reluctant about it because of union pressure. The extra costs to tourist operators of weekend work and penalty rates impose enormous cost burdens on the Australian tourist industry. If the Government is serious about attracting overseas visitors to Australia it must come to grips with penalty rates. Every time the Minister speaks on the subject of penalty rates he changes his position. He backs off a little further from his earlier and now famous statement that penalty rates have a horrendous effect on the tourist industry. I welcome the Commission's inquiry. I am concerned that it will not be sufficiently broadly based. I understand that the Commission will not be calling or advertising for submissions from the public. I ask the Minister: Why is this so? I believe that employers and unions alike should be able to make submissions to the inquiry. It is perfectly clear that penalty rates are putting up costs and inhibiting job opportunities in the industry. I hope that the Minister is not using this inquiry as an excuse for doing nothing, for inaction. However, I feel that he has been muzzled by the union movement and really wishes that nothing should be done to change the status quo, that penalty rates would just stay as they are and that the issue would go away. I now refer specifically to Perth, the host city for the next America's Cup defence. The Government should provide extra assistance to Perth so that it can cash in on the America's Cup challenge. The tourist industry in Perth will need government assistance to develop new facilities. The Government must consider incentives such as investment and depreciation allowances with specific initiatives for Perth and other parts of Western Australia. In this way Perth could become the spearhead of an attractive tourist package before and during the America's Cup challenge as part of a visit which included other parts of Australia. The campaign to attract overseas visitors, particularly from the United States, needs to be stepped up. On the domestic level, the Government must also look at providing incentives to tourist boatbuilders. An enormous number of spectator craft will be needed for the America's Cup series in Western Australia, and there needs to be a close look at who will build them, who will operate them and how best they can be used before and after the 12 metre series. The Government needs to provide incentives for the private sector to build and operate these boats. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism)(4.21) —I should like briefly to comment on the contributions made to the debate by the Opposition on the estimates for the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism. I pay some tribute to the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher), for his rather pleasant remarks about the Government's effort in regard to sport, and I thank him for them. He has a very constructive approach to sport and we welcome it. I think it is fair to say that he is speaking from a position of some disadvantage because I think it is fair to reflect on the record of his Government in relation to sport when in power from 1975 to 1982. I think it is also fair to suggest to him that the record of the previous Government in this regard from 1975, from the time of the dismantling of the late Frank Stewart's Department of Tourism and Recreation, through to 1980 was absolutely appalling. In fact, the Budget for sport in 1979 was about $3m, which was absolutely disgraceful. I must say, in tribute to the Minister then responsible for sport, upon his removal from the position of Attorney-General, Mr Bob Ellicott, that sport received a very improved allocation from the then government. It is to Bob Ellicott's eternal credit that he was able to get the Australian Institute of Sport off the deck. That was some sort of recompense to sporting organisation in Australia for the Government's attempted boycott-which, fortunately, did not occur-of the Olympic Games held in Moscow in 1980. Perhaps in referring to the AIS I should say something about the remarks of the honourable member for Mallee. He mentioned that the AIS was a little disappointed that it did not get the Budget it requested. That is a reasonable criticism. It should be noted that the increase in the budget of the AIS from $4 ,500,000 to $5,300,000 represents a very generous 18 per cent increase in the funds available to the Australian Institute of Sport this year. The honourable member also alluded to the fact that it might inhibit the training that our Olympic Games team is able to get under the national training scheme prior to its departure for Los Angeles. It is a pity I do not have with me the telegram I received from Mr Syd Grange, the secretary of the Australian Olympic Federation, some time after that outburst by various people about the AIS. This telegram waxed very eloquent about just how generously the Olympic Games team has been treated, not just in its allocation. Mr Fisher —You only met our commitment. Mr JOHN BROWN —The honourable member is correct. All we did was offer the previous Government's commitment. I acknowledge that. But, in the funds allocated to the AIS, particularly in terms of the national training scheme, the Olympic Games Federation believes that this team will be better equipped and better trained than any previous Olympic Games team that has ever left our shores. That is largely because of the more generous allocation of funds to the AIS. Leaving the AIS aside for a minute, I shall say something about how this Government views sport and its philosophy towards sport. I mention that Mr Bob Ellicott, when he was the Minister, did an enormous amount to improve the lot of the elite sportsmen in Australia. That is something we applaud and will continue to accept. However, it is true to say also that sport at the grass roots level was largely neglected by the previous administration. Basically the only funds available were $3m by way of the sports development grants. When one considers that the national health bill in Australia these days is approaching $12,000m, $ 3m represents one four-thousandth of the money we spend on correcting people's health and directing people towards a more healthy lifestyle. This Government does not believe that is anywhere near sufficient. When one considers that Australia's health has now deteriorated to the extent to which we now share with Finland the dubious odium of the world's championship title for cardiovascular disease, and the latest surveys of children indicate that the next generation of children will be even worse, it is high time a government did something to encourage people to participate in something in the sporting or recreation line that would get them away from the tellies and the tinnies and get them fit again . To this extent the budget for sport this year has improved by 54 per cent, which the shadow Minister acknowledged. I think most people would agree that that was a very generous shift in the Federal Government's allocation for sport. I shall quote two or three of the initiatives we have undertaken. I think people will realise that we are trying to do something right across the spectrum. For instance, the budget for sport for the disabled has an increase from $200,000 to $400,000. The Surf Life Saving Association of Australia has a lift in funds from $400,000 to $600,000, a neat 50 per cent increase. As I mentioned, the basis for sports development grants has been doubled from $3m to $6m, a healthy 100 per cent increase. I do not think that is yet enough. I hope that in the next Budget we do even more because it is imperative that we start to get Australians active again. That image that we perpetuate of ourselves as bronzed Anzacs and the fittest people in the world should somehow become a reality again because at this stage it is not. We are suffering badly from cardiovascular disease, from cholesterol levels from high blood pressure and from obesity. It is this Government's intention to get people active again. Whilst paying credit to the shadow Minister for his pleasant remarks, I should remind the House that this Government is doing something much more generous than the previous Government did. In this regard I mention the Sports Commission which we set up to mastermind the administration of sport in Australia. It has been set up under the chairmanship of Mr Ted Harris, the managing director of Ampol Petroleum Ltd. His is a very famous name in sporting areas. Mr O'Keefe —A keen tennis player. Mr JOHN BROWN —He is not a bad tennis player either. The honourable member for Paterson is right. The assistant commissioners at this stage are Mr Herb Elliott , whose record would not need elucidation in this or any other forum in Australia, and Mr Mike Fitzpatrick, the captain of the victorious Carlton football team in 1980, 1981 and 1982. They have been joined by two other people, Mr Greg Hartung, a journalist, and Miss Libby Darlison, a sports sociologist. Those are permanent appointments to the Sports Commission. Their job is to replace the old Sports Advisory Council which, with the best of intention, was only a part time body that really did not have much effect other than being a stamp for government policies. We intend the Sports Commission to have a life of its own and to be able to investigate how badly or otherwise sport has been administered in Australia and make sure that government funds will be invested very wisely. I have great hope in their capacity to do their job. I do not think anybody who takes a dispassionate look at how this Government has treated sport and recreation in its first Budget could be anything but laudatory of what we have done. I will accept the criticisms that the shadow Minister has offered in the best spirit in which they were offered. Some of the things that he mentioned are certainly worth investigation, and they will be looked at. Turning for one minute to the other area of responsibility which I carry-that is, tourism-I am absolutely staggered to find that the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton), blasting this Government about its efforts with respect to tourism. I have said before and I will say again that the previous Government put tourism in a time warp for seven years. It decreased the staff of the Australian Tourist Commission from 142 in 1975 to 72 in 1982. Its budget crept up from $7.5m in 1975 to $10m in 1982. The Department of Recreation and Tourism was demolished. Tourism, the biggest industry in Australia, the industry which employs most people and which, probably more importantly, has the capacity that no other industry has to grow and to employ people, was governed by 25 people working out of a cupboard in the then Department of Industry and Commerce under a tourism Minister whose name was known to nobody. We were not at all happy with that procedure, and we proceeded to revitalise the tourism industry in Australia. I find it quite amusing that the shadow Minister can sit there and criticise us . Let us have a go at some of his criticims. He gives grudging credit to Paul Hogan. Paul Hogan offered his services to this Government because he could perceive that it knew something about tourism and was prepared to do something about it. I think I should put on record in this chamber just how generous a gesture that was from Paul Hogan. Paul Hogan would have no trouble commanding a fee of $1m to do an advertising campaign, but he does not want to do any others. Anyone who thinks the Paul Hogan is just an average dull ocker is badly misrepresenting the man. He is a very sensitive, very clever and very skilled communicator. Whatever advertising campaigns he has involved himself in-and the last one was for a brand of Australian beer in Britain-have been extraordinarily successful. More than 10 per cent of the British people are now drinking cold Australian beer. Anybody who knows anything about beer drinking habits in Britain will realise what an extraordinary success that has been. We were delighted when Paul Hogan came to me and offered his services. Of course, we gladly accepted them. The campaign we will have him doing in Australia, to encourage Australians to holiday at home and to engender some pride in Australia about just what a glorious holiday destination it is and how, by holidaying at home, they might create a job for one of their fellow Australians, will also be extraordinarily successful. I am pleased to relate to the shadow Minister and to honourable members generally that this advertising campaign has been joined by all the States, which support it, and by the two domestic airlines which have acceded to our request to support this one advertising campaign to encourage Australians to see Australia first before going overseas for their holidays, as they are now doing in enormous numbers-about 1.3 million a year. That is the position as far as Paul Hogan is concerned. The shadow Minister then got himself hooked out on a limb about costs. I find it rather amusing that he cites costs to us. The shadow Minister should look at the latest surveys on the Australian financial situation which show that inflation is falling and that unemployment has bottomed. Every economics writer and every political pundit in Australia now believe that the country is on the way back to prosperity. All the signs are there to indicate that there is confidence in Australia and that this Government has been able to get the disparate threads of our economy together. We have industry, governments and unions all joining together-the product of the National Economic Summit Conference held in this chamber-and now the country is united for the first time since the early 1970s. We are on the way back to prosperity. When I hear Opposition members talking about costs in the tourist industry I am simply astounded. If you took a dispassionate look at what we have done in this Budget you could hardly come in here and mouth such inanities. I mentioned at Question Time that we have even taken two taxes off, and you question the veracity of the second one. Let me explain to you in simple monosyllabic terms- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Darling) —Order! Would the Minister please address his remarks through the Chair and not to the shadow Minister? Mr JOHN BROWN —How could I refuse such an offer? The tax to which the shadow Minister referred, the provision to the Queensland Government of a section 96 grant of $1m, is in fact a very simple one. All we have done is given the Queensland Government a section 96 grant of $1m which it will administer. We made an election promise to all the Barrier Reef islands including the Whitsunday islands and to all the tourist islands off the coast of Queensland, that we would subsidise the cost of electricity which they generate from diesel fuel because the previous Government, in its stupidity, had foisted upon the tourist industry a cost of 6 1/2c per litre on diesel fuel, from which the island resorts traditionally had an exemption. The effect on the islands was disastrous. They are not on the mainland grid. They have to generate their electricity from diesel. We have given them $1m which, on every estimate, will more than cover the cost of the diesel employed in generating electricity on those 18, I think the number is, recognised tourist islands off the coast of Queensland. I will not swear to the number, but it is in the 20 area. I think 18 islands will share this $1m. Mr Ian Cameron —What about the isolated resorts? Mr JOHN BROWN —I am pleased that the honourable member for Maranoa talks about other isolated tourist resorts around Australia which are not getting it. We are having a look at what we can do for them, but the honourable member should get it clearly in his mind that their difficulty is a result of a decision made by honourable members opposite in government, a deliberate decision to impose a special tax on the tourist industry. They did not have enough brains to realise that there was the answer to Australia's unemployment problems. All they could do was look at an industry which has a capacity to grow and think: 'Here is a milking cow. We will milk a bit more tax off it'. We have taken two taxes off it because we realise that if we can get the tourist industry to proliferate as it should the returns to government are very obvious: It will employ people. Mr Ian Cameron —We know that in Queensland. We have the best tourist corporation . The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! Will the honourable member for Maranoa stop addressing the Minister. He does not have the floor. Mr Ian Cameron —Queensland has the best tourist corporation in Australia. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! Mr JOHN BROWN —The inane bleatings of the honourable member do not worry me, Madam Chair. Who listens to the honourable member for Maranoa? Not even the sheep! I turn to what we have done in the last Budget to assist the tourist industry. One of the problems that the tourist industry and other service industries in Australia have had traditionally is an inability to raise finance. If the shadow Minister takes a look at Budget pronouncements he will note that we have beefed up the capacity of the Australian Industry Development Corporation to the extent that it now has at its command over $1 billion to lend to Australian industry. We have given it a special charter to finance the service industries, particularly the tourist industry, to enable new resorts new hotels, et cetera, that will find genesis in Australia in the next few years to obtain finance. We have given the same charter to the Commonwealth Development Bank. Had the honourable member looked at that he would have seen exactly what we are doing. He then went on to bleat about Tasmania. It must be terribly disappointing to members of the Opposition to realise that when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) went to Tasmania recently and when the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) and I went to Queenstown and Strahan we were not greeted with derisive jeers and boos as members of the Opposition might have expected. The honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) nearly had a heart attack when he found that the Prime Minister was cheered by Tasmanians. We were greeted with cheers of delight because they understand that the Government will honour its promises. We made firm commitments in Strahan and Queenstown, which are the gateways to the south west wilderness area, about what we proposed to do. It is no good the honourable member bleating here about it because the local residents are delighted with what we have decided to do. The honourable member went on to talk about air fares. Of course, in the last few days there has been a 6 per cent increase in domestic air fares, which will not help the tourist industry. Let us put this in its true perspective. This year, under the administration of this Government, air fares have risen by 13 per cent. In the previous two years they rose by 45 per cent under the previous Government. We will be doing all we can to encourage the airlines to produce a proper tourist air fare, and I am sure that that will happen. I will not dignify with a reply the remarks the honourable member made about penalty rates. My position on this subject is quite clear. I have put it publicly on many occasions and it has never differed from when I first spoke about it. He also alluded to a secret inquiry by the Australian Tourist Commission. I would have thought that he was sufficiently disgraced in the House some weeks ago when he asked a question about this matter never to raise it again. As he has, I will remind him what the situation is. There is nothing secret about the inquiry being conducted by the Australian Tourist Commission. It was set up by the Commission, not by me. I am very pleased with what it is doing. It is finding out what data is available about the effect of penalty rates on the tourist industry and the full spectrum of that activity. When that advice is ready it will go to all the tourist Ministers in Australia and we will make some decision as to what we can do if there is a case to be made about penalty rates. Mr Shipton —You don't believe they are horrendous any more? Mr JOHN BROWN —No. I suggest that in certain isolated areas of the tourist industry they do have an horrendous effect. I do not retreat one inch from that remark. But in the whole spectrum of the tourist industry they do not have such an effect. They have little effect on the hotel industry. In some island resorts and clubs they are devastating. But in many areas of the tourist industry they have very little effect. The honourable member should get his facts straight before he starts mouthing stupid remarks. This Government's record in sport and tourism is one which is unparalleled in the history of this Parliament. I look forward to succeeding Budgets providing even more for those two very important parts of Australian life. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology and Acting Minister for Home Affairs and Environment)(4.41) —I say to my colleague the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) that the last minute of his speech was one of the most graphic and also one of the longest that I have ever heard. I take up one or two of the points raised by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay), the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves) and the honourable for La Trobe ( Mr Milton), relating to home affairs and the environment. The honourable member for Bradfield raised the question of Tasmania and, in particular, the provision of support for rangers in the wilderness area of south west Tasmania which of course, has been an area of great controversy. He complained that the Commonwealth provision of only 12 rangers was inadequate. Of course, we are all conscious of the recent vandalism with the destruction of one of the gaint 3,000-year-old Huon pines in the area. The reality is that even if the Commonwealth provided a battalion of rangers it would be insufficient to protect such a vast area, especially if people go to the area determined to break the law and inflict vandalism. It is such a densely forested area with very poor visibility that it is an enourmous task to try to police it if people are determined to wreak some havoc. The Commonwealth for its part has offered asistance to provide rangers to protect the most critical features of the heritage area. The required number of rangers and adequate back-up support- vehicles, fire fighting equipment, boats and a helicopter-were discussed by the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service and its Tasmanian counter- parts. The Tasmanian National Parks and Wildlife Service felt that 12 rangers with adequate support services would be sufficient to protect the most critical features during the coming summer. Honourable members should appreciate that the Commonwealth support amounts to about $1m. As the Committee would know, there is a great deal of political sensitivity in Tasmania over the whole issue of States rights. It is important that the States should be seen as having the primary responsibility for conservation in this uniquely beautiful wilderness area. The Commonwealth, in a sense, will have to respond to a large extent to what the Tasmanians believe would be adequate. The agreement to provide support is of an interim nature and, of course, it is open to review once Premier Gray has signed the compensation agreements that have been presented to him by the Commonwealth. It is very important that we work together in this area, that we try to bind the wounds and end the period of confrontation over the dam. I am only acting on behalf of my colleague the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen). The issue raised by the honourable member for Herbert about the Great Barrier Reef, the question raised by the honourable member for the Northern Territory as to whether the Uluru area should be declared a national park and the question of coastal management and some other related conservation issues raised by the honourable member for La Trobe will be raised and discussed when Odysseus returns. Proposed expenditures agreed to. Department of Communications Proposed expenditure, $376,673,000. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(4.45) —The area of responsibility of the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) is suffering at present from a rash of strikes. I refer to the Canberra mail strike, now several weeks old; the Australian Broadcasting Corporation journalists' strike-there has been a series of rolling strikes in sectors of the ABC recently; and the Overseas Telecommunications Commission restrictions that have resulted in a backlog of overseas communications. In drawing the Minister's attention to these strikes I am not criticising him. But I draw his attention to the fact that some of the problems to which these strikes give rise relate not only to interfering with the public and their right to continuous access to mail, ABC news, or overseas communications, but also to the question of Government policy in relation to strikes in statutory authorities, those organisations sometimes referred to as quangos. With regard to the ABC strike, the Minister said yesterday, in reply to a question from me, that he had made no contact with the ABC, nor had the ABC management made any contact with him in relation to the journalists' strike and the question of the ABC assisting a journalist in his litigation against the Premier of New South Wales. With regard to the Canberra mail strike, an article in the Canberra Times this morning states that the Government has intervened; that there has been contact between the Government and Australia Post on the question of refusing to provide payment to postal workers for those days when they were on strike. The Opposition certainly supports the action of the Government in intervening in the postal strike in Canberra by saying that workers should not receive payment for those days when they are on strike. Let us compare the attitude of the Government to those strikes with its attitude to the pilots' strike over the last two days. There was publicity about the very active intervention by the Government and threats of government action against the pilots. What was the difference between this strike and the others? Statutory corporations, including Trans Australia Airlines, are involved in all of those strikes. Why such a low key approach to the Canberra mail strike, no contact at all over the ABC strike, but very public and very threatening action over the pilots' strike? Is it perhaps because the pilots are not seen to be supporters of the Australian Labor Party, but it is hoped that some of the ABC people and particularly the Canberra postal workers could be supporters of the ALP? Will two standards of intervention be applied by this Government with regard to strikes affecting the public? I believe it is impossible for the Government to say that there was a greater threat to the orderly process of government and to people going about their business with the pilots' strike than with the mail strike. The mail strike in Canberra is threatening the nerve centre of government in this country. It has certainly seriously affected the operations of government and of individual members of parliament. All of us are well aware of complaints by people contacting us from our electorates saying: 'What happened to the reply to the letter I sent to you?'. People have not been able to obtain a response from us. We have not been able to receive their mail and carry out our duties as members of parliament. I commend the statements and the action by the Opposition spokesman on the Australian Capital Territory, the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), with regard to the mail strike. One has to ask the Minister and the Government: At what stage does an ABC strike rate government intervention? If the Australia Post strike rated intervention, will this be done as a matter of principle or is there a strike period beyond which the Government feels that it has to intervene? I believe that the Government has some very serious questions to answer with regard to its separate policies and separate attitudes to intervention with the ABC, Australia Post, the pilots, et cetera. The second matter I raise is the concern that all of those associated with Domsat-the domestic satellite-have about the fact that time is rapidly running out for an orderly and planned introduction of the satellite. The first satellite will go aloft in less than two years. As yet the Government has not made any of the decisions which, in turn, will allow Aussat Pty Ltd to make certain business decisions. The first of those decisions, of course, relates to the ownership of Aussat. Unless we have some declaration from the Government in the very near future it will continue to create a lack of confidence in potential users in Domsat. I sincerely hope that the Government sticks to its policy of continuing the policy of the previous Government regarding the present arrangement of basically a public company. There is also the very important question of the ownership of the uplinks and downlinks for Domsat because unless private ownership is allowed it will seriously interfere with the commercial viability and therefore the use of the satellite. The Australian Associated Press has already indicated its concern on this matter. I refer also to the leasing of the high powered transponders on the second satellite. That Government decision brings with it the question of whether the remote areas of Australia will have access to a second over-the-air free television service to match the ABC service on the first Homestead and Community Broadcasting Service. It also carries with it the questions of leasing the other transponders because until a Government decision is made on the high powered transponders obviously some of the other decisions cannot be made. It also raises the questions of pay television and of supplementary licences for regional television. I hope that the Minister, in his reply, can give a definite and early deadline for answers to all of these questions and thus reassure people. We are waiting for an answer from the Government on radiated subscription or pay television. I hope that the Government takes account of the experience gained in the United States of America with RSTV. For people to be attracted to pay connection costs and up to $30 per month continuing costs the programming has to be done by entrepreneurs and people with commercial ability who provide entertainment first and foremost rather than perhaps more culturally uplifting. All of those forms of cultural pay television have failed. At the service end, the service franchise company also has to be consumer oriented because maintenance provisions seven days a week are very important. One can also look for decisions on supplementary licences for commercial radio. I also draw the Minister's attention to a couple of anomalies with the new Countrywide Calling policy. I complement the Minister and Telecom Australia in that the majority of people in remote areas in Australia will benefit. However, there are two anomalies. People who subscribe to country automatic telephone exchanges but who are more than 32 kilometres from the exchange will lose their access to unlimited local calls-the right of every other Australian. People phoning adjacent telephone exchanges will also face increased costs. I ask the Minister, as I believe it is unfair on these people and large amounts of money are not involved, to reconsider this policy so that all Australians have the right to untimed local calls. Finally, I wish again to draw to the Minister's attention the reduction in ABC funding for this year. Contrary to Labor promises of an increase in funding in real terms for the ABC there has been a reduction of about 5 per cent in real terms. In particular, the reduction in funding for ABC's news services is closer to 10 per cent. I again ask the Minister: Has there been any contact with the ABC management to overcome the serious problem this creates for the ABC in maintaining an independent news service or does it mean, in reality, that the Government has tacitly agreed, or condoned, a reduction in that independent service and the purchasing of outside news services? In the short time that I have had available I have put a series of questions to the Minister that I believe are important in the communications area. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(4.55) —It is really strange in this sort of debate for Opposition members to begin talking about strikes. If one looks at the former Government's descredited record in industrial relations, one will see that to let honourable members anywhere near industrial activity is a bit like putting a can of petrol in the hands of an arsonist. The former Government's record was absolutely appalling. It was regarded by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation as being absolutely out of court. One has only to talk to people in the ABC to find that out. It is absolutely incredible in the context of this debate, when one looks at the reactions of workers from Australia Post and Telecom Australia to the sort of abuse and kicking that Ministers in the discredited Liberal-National Party gave them, that honourable members opposite have the nerve to talk about intervention. We saw intervention in communications by the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) when he was Minister for Communications. He looked after his mates in the communications area. However, we did not see a decent communications policy developed such as the one we have under the present Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy). I think that is the sort of thing that honourable members have to measure up. Not only have we now a new ABC Board, which now represents Australia, but also we are not blaming people and seeking out scapegoats which seemed to be a characteristic of honourable members opposite. They always have to turn a situation around and find the bad things. That is why they are where they are; that is why we are where we are; and that is why we will stay there. All honourable members opposite can find is fault and what is negative. I repeat: We do not want a pack of arsonists like Opposition members anywhere near industrial relations and we are certainly not going to give them the petrol to help them out with their work. We have a responsibility in this Government and we are going to do the job responsibly. I will begin by talking about the ABC Board. The Minister for Communications has set up an ABC Board which is creditable for the quality of its members, for their representations and for the sorts of decisions that it will be making. Under the chairmanship of Mr Ken Myer we have a very good group of members. I particularly complement the Government on its decision to choose Sister Patricia Veronica Brady from Western Australia. The entire community of Western Australia supports that decision. It was a very good decision. I compliment the Minister most warmly on that choice. Honourable members opposite did not get down to those sorts of decisions because in the past they were too busy. They still have not lost the habit of scapegoating. Honourable members opposite should keep it up. The Australian electorate knows all about them. That is why they are in opposition and that is why they will stay there. Again I remind honourable members opposite that until they can start talking positively they will stay in opposition. I refer to some of the decisions that the Government is making. We are putting some effort into the Special Broadcasting Service. We have increased its allocation from around $28m which was allocated under the previous Budget to $ 33m. That is very important. In Perth we very urgently need channel 0-28 to be provided. I understand from the Minister that in 1985-86 we can look forward to the introduction of ethnic television in Western Australia. That is a very important move and it will make a great difference to Western Australia. There are many groups in Perth, certainly within the electorate of Stirling, such as the Yugoslav, Greek, Macedonian and Italian communities, who would want to participate in that sort of broadcasting service and who would enjoy its output. I certainly endorse that move, it is a very important one. Grants were also made for public broadcasting. Under the previous Government they totalled $153,000 and under this Government they total $300,000. Public broadcasting can play a major part in Australia. Honourable members opposite were very nervous about public broadcasting because it tended to reflect some of the opinions in the community that they did not like. We are not afraid of that. We are putting more money into public broadcasting and we welcome those initiatives in public broadcasting. I am certainly pleased to see that this Government has chosen to increase the amount of money being given to public broadcasting. Another matter I wish to raise, which is very important in the context of this debate, is payments to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal which are going up from $3.9m to $4.4m. As honourable members would understand, the Tribunal is responsible for the conduct of broadcasting in Australia. One of the issues that really concern honourable members on this side of the House is that we must have a better broadcasting system. I am very determined to see provided in Perth, Western Australia, a third commercial television licence. We now have a growing community. We have an expanding business community. We certainly have good reason for having a third commercial television licence, particularly with respect to the future growth in tourism that will come with our defending certain sporting trophies. We will certainly need a third commercial television licence in Perth to provide that sort of vehicle. Another issue which many people speak about is one to which we must pay attention, and that is the current rating system in television. It is one that we need to pay attention to with respect to the Tribunal. It is a source of great annoyance. I can think of no other business in Australia that deliberately sets out to bias the sample of the product that it produces by producing a product specifically for that sample. Let me give an example. When television stations decide to go into their ratings periods they put on top movies. One has the extraordinary situation where, in fact, the viewing audience has to try to make decisions on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday night between competing popular movies. As a consequence, we get an artificially designed survey. But what about the rest of the viewing time? The people are treated arrogantly in that when television stations go out of rating periods they show re-runs and old rubbish. We really have to say to ourselves as a government in terms of talking to the Broadcasting Tribunal: 'How have we let the broadcasting stations get into this condition where they can arrogantly treat the rest of the community by deliberately distorting the surveys they conduct by running popular movies?' It is little wonder that in fact members of the public are buying video recorders. When the good movies are on they are watching one on one station and recording another on the other station. Guess what happens? When the television stations go out of the ratings periods and start to run the normal rubbish that they run, people hire or buy movies and they stop watching television altogether. We have to have a long hard look at the way television is conducted in Australia. The other thing that is appalling is that most of the non-ratings periods happen to coincide with holidays so people are at home and have a very low standard of television product to watch. We have to take a long hard look at the way that the television industry currently conducts itself. I think it is also a matter of comment that it is very difficult to find in Australia anyone who has actually ever received a ratings book. I guess that again is a cause of some comment. Not only is the survey deliberately biased because television stations put on products specifically designed to distort the outcome, but also we find that it is very difficult to find people in our community who, in fact, received a ratings book. It is a little difficult to find people who vote Liberal, but it is even more difficult to find people who in fact receive a ratings book. I suggest that we need to have a good hard look at the policy with respect to our attitudes towards the broadcasting industry. I believe that this Government has also taken some other important initiatives. It will spread the regional radio operation in Australia through the ABC. That is very important. We recognise that there are people in the Australian community who currently have a very low level of delivery of broadcasting services. I go back to last weekend when the Davis Cup was shown when, in fact, the family of John Fitzgerald was not able to get the television reception where it lived. It is a source of disgrace in Australia that those people were not able to get that television reception in a modern day and age when, in fact, people in the cities receive pictures from the moon. My good friend the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) in fact recorded that television program for that family so they were able to see their son compete in that historic Davis Cup match. That lack of reception is a source of disgrace in the Australian community. What is also a source of disgrace is that when one network was locked into showing the Bathurst race-for which I commend the channel 7 network because it was an excellent television coverage-it completely locked out other people who might have wanted to watch the Davis Cup because the station had exclusive rights. We saw people in the television industry refusing to provide the public with the service it needed-the capacity to watch the Davis Cup tennis. What we are arguing for on this side of the House is an increase in competition . In Perth we certainly need an increase in competition. We need a third television licence. That will do a lot to add to the broadcasting capacity in Perth. We certainly need channel 0-28. We need public broadcasting. Again I can say that under this Minister we are getting important initiatives and some important changes. The changes in the ABC are welcome. I repeat that I believe that the decision as to who constitutes the ABC Board was excellent. Those people are of great quality. Already people in the ABC are saying that that effect is being shown. We are making other initiatives with respect to improving and upgrading broadcasting in Australia. I conclude by saying to those opposite that they should begin to look to the positive initiatives that we are taking. We are doing some very important things with respect to broadcasting. The ratings issue I believe is an important issue on which we must focus a lot of attention. We must say to the broadcasting industry: 'It is not good enough to deliberately ignore the Australian viewing public the rest of the year when you do not have ratings books out. You must respond to the community'. This Government responds to the community. We believe we are doing some positive things in broadcasting. I commend the Minister for the efforts he is making. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(5.5) —The honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards ) is attending his first Parliament. Of course he has not had a term in opposition. I am interested to hear the view of his colleagues and him. It is amazing how people can change their view. I have, of course, sat very close to the place where he is sitting now. I find myself on the opposite side of the chamber. But I am quite surprised at the extent to which people can change their views. It is quite clear from a statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) this morning that the Government has even changed its definition of tax avoidance. Any means by which one did not pay tax once was a rort when it was stated from this side of the House and by a particular person. But apparently that is all to change now. Apparently the Government has even got around to positive thinking. I congratulate it if that is a fact, but I ask what its positive thinking is on Aussat Pty Ltd, because it is just a great big vacuum. The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) was reported the other day as saying that he could not tell us what his position is to be- Mr Chynoweth —Vacuum? That is where it goes. Mr TUCKEY —I was referring to the physical parts of certain people when I referred to the vacuum, and not to outer space. In fact, what we are talking about are the people who have to make quite large capital decisions about whether to purchase equipment, and they do not know whether they will be able to or not. Companies that are probably very effectively running themselves as a private enterprise do not know what will be the situation in the future. They do not know whether they will be dragged into the bureaucratic sausage machine. But more importantly, while I am touching on that subject, let me speak for the people in the country whom I represent, people, for instance, such as the Isolated Children's Parents Association. Such people are adamant in their view. They have been cajoled by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) who tried to convince them at the Australian Labor Party's Federal Conference and at other times that to pass Aussat over to Telecom would be in their interests. Those people listened politely, but their view has not changed. Those people do not want Telecom to take over Aussat and they have very good reasons for this which I will tell honourable members now. Let me start with the fact that they know that once Telecom has control of Aussat all communications again will be locked up under the control of a single union. They are terrified as to what might happen. I have listened to senior people in the Telecom unions telling us of their wonderful record of industrial relations and how infrequently they strike. I accept that. With the control they have over Australia today they do not have to strike. They ring up the boss and tell him what they want. This Minister may put his name down in history as the man who takes away from us our first opportunity for decent interstate and intercity communications, the opportunity to have an alternative, by throwing Aussat into Telecom. If he throws Aussat into Telecom, he will go down in history and he will be cursed by Minister after Minister in future governments when they see that the business of government can be completely stopped by one union which can turn off its communications. The situation is bad enough today, but as time goes by we will find that, as data processing increases and data transfer is necessary, business and government will stop. I drew the attention of honourable members previously to the huge expenditure of the Australian Taxation Office on an integrated data arrangement whereby it will be reliant to a greater extent on the communications provided either by Aussat or Telecom. There is a real need to give people an alternative. We know how industrial relations work. It is on the Minister's head . I hope that he will take that advice as it is meant-constructively and positively. Mr Young —I am not taking it. Mr TUCKEY —Congratulations. Maybe we do not have to put the honourable member for Port Adelaide down in history for that particular reason. The problem in the electorate of O'Connor in the area of communications relates mainly to the fact that it still has inadequate telephone services. I have found the Telecom staff dedicated to providing a service and only constrained in the amount of money they can spend. The Telecom staff in my electorate do everything in their power to accommodate my constituents. I congratulate them for their work. Nevertheless , we must look at expenditure priorities. I still wonder how they are worked out . We have money to give metropolitan consumers more government television services, yet the Minister has not been able to find the funds to erect a promised television station at Mount Marshall. He came into this House and said that it was not promised; it was just in a five-year plan. A lot of people out there know it was promised. Unfortunately, it was promised by a previous Government which did not deliver. That Government spent some $150,000 in a previous Budget to get planning under way. Those funds are lost now because the plans are in limbo. The people of Mount Marshall will receive their first television transmission when most of Australia has been receiving television transmissions for nearly 25 years. The point was made earlier that the parents of John Fitzgerald can get some television but the programs are not to their liking. I have constituents who get no television. Many of them live within 200 miles of the city of Perth. That is disgraceful in this day and age. If the Government has not the money, those people should be given priority when funds are available. My constituents tell me that they wish they could all change their names to ones of European origin, as then they might get ethnic television ; but ethnic television is being provided to city people and to a large degree, from my advice, to city people who have no ethnic origin. It has become upmarket to watch the ethnic television service as it was to go to European movies. European people, to a great degree, are not availing themselves of that wonderful service because many of them appreciate good Australian movies and are practising at being good Australians. I refer also to the self-help program which was instituted by the previous Government and which is still in place. I asked the Minister in a previous speech whether we would be able to get the Department of Communications to assist people in country areas, to give them the necessary information and preliminary planning that would encourage them to spend money on consultants to finalise a program of self-help television. The Minister said: 'Yes, I will improve on that'. I said I would only be too happy to congratulate him in this place if he did. The Minister might comment on that matter because there are people in my electorate who would spend money on self-help television. With the advent of Aussat Pty Ltd their properties are sufficiently close that there are advantages in collectively putting up a self-help television station and each person individually buying a dish to get direct access to the Aussat or Domsat satellites. So these sorts of matters count. The Government has delayed in the area of supplementary television and radio licences. I do not know whether there is any positive thinking in this area. I get constant communications from people in my electorate complaining about the programs they are forced to see because of the lack of television channels. One person wrote to me and said that there is not enough sport. Another one wrote and said that there is too much sport. I agree with both of them. I appreciate their points of view. It depends on what one likes. I agree with their opinions. The point I am making is that that problem can be clearly overcome by additional channels. In fact, supplementary licences were created for that purpose. We recognise the economics of another television station. I sincerely hope we will shortly receive an additional television channel in Perth. But the question that has been raised in Perth is: When viewers receive the transmission, what will be the difference? We will get a different brand of soap opera at a given time and we will get a different quiz show at another time. A further question is: How many television stations do we need to give a broad choice? That naturally will not be achieved by granting additional licences; the economics of such action eventually defeats the purpose. If supplementary licences are granted, capital costs contained and all the administration remains the same, this is a possibility. The principal commercial station serving my electorate is anxious to obtain a supplmentary licence to enable it to give the constituents of O' Connor better television viewing. The sooner the better! Legislation was passed in the last Parliament. There is absolutely no reason why it cannot be acted on even if this Government believes it wants to fine tune it in some way. Let me address myself to radio frequencies. A survey is being conducted into radio frequencies. Band 2 has to be removed from television and made available for FM so that the FM program can be advanced. In Western Australia, those decisions can be taken now. I see no reason why Western Australia should be held up while the national survey is being completed. The issues in Western Australia are more simple and can be resolved immediately because we do not have neighbours who would be affected-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(5.15) —It is a pleasure to rise on the first Budget brought forward by the Hawke Government to speak on the communications portfolio. I would like to touch on a number of issues, but I will firstly look at the whole communications area which has been given $413m. That ranges over many and varied commissions, authorities and institutions, such as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, which has been given nearly $289m to run its operations. It is very important to continue funding an important body such as the Corporation. It must be remembered that this Government, only in the first few weeks of sitting of the new Parliament, introduced the legislation to establish the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The Parliament passed that legislation and the Corporation has been set up. It is a very important and very extensive piece of administrative legislation. Now we see the Corporation under a new Board headed by its Chairman, Mr Ken Myer. I am very confident that this Government will continue to fund-as I hope that all governments in the future will, no matter what political persuasion-the Corporation in a satisfactory manner to enable it to carry out its many and varied duties for the benefit of all Australians. It is also good to note that the commencement of work on a second regional radio network of several hundred thousand dollars has been put forward into that project in this financial year. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has announced the establishment of a task force within the Department of Communications to begin work on the establishment of a second regional radio network for the ABC. When we were in Opposition we promised that we would work towards that goal in as quick a manner as possible. The announcement by the Prime Minister, and the continuing setting up of a task force which will obviously be reporting back to the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) in the foreseeable future, will be a most important report. When one considers the ramifications this second network will have for the many people who do not receive such a service now, especially in the regional and outback areas of Australia, it is of high priority. This Government has already given it that importance. We see a number of important authorities under the Department of Communications such as the Australian Telecommunications Commission, the Australian Postal Commission, the Overseas Telecommunications Commission or OTC. OTC is expected to pay a dividend to the Commonwealth this year of $32.5m which shows the successful operation of OTC. It has been very successful and progressive since the setting up of the Commission. OTC is in the process of putting several hundred million dollars towards three new cable projects linking Perth, Jakarta and Singapore, Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan, and Singapore, the Middle East and France. All these projects are expected to be in service by the end of 1986. The OTC is doing that very important work and I congratulate it for doing that work. The previous speaker, the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), talked about Aussat Pty Ltd. That is another body that comes under the communications portfolio. It was interesting to hear the honourable member for O'Connor criticising this Government for supposedly fumbling around in connection with this Australian satellite system-Aussat. It must be remembered that the previous Government and the 'gee whiz' Minister of 1977, Mr Staley, floated the idea of a satellite six years ago. This Government has barely been in office for six months. In fact in November, in approximately one month's time, we will look back on the first eight months or so of this Government and see the introduction of legislation for the establishment of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the lifting of the election black-out on broadcasting political news and comments-something that has been promised for ages and has never been delivered. We will also see firm policy decisions which have never been forthcoming from previous conservative governments in regard to the many broadcasting decisions, such as the satellite issue, Aussat and pay television-issues that have been floating around for many years. As I stated earlier, I think 1977 was the year that the satellite issue was first floated. Successive conservative governments have really failed to grapple with the problem. This Government is at present holding an inquiry. It has sought submissions and has received many varied submissions, written and oral, regarding this very important subject. It has been a very enlightening exercise- not a trumped up exercise. It has been a very enlightening exercise, from the Government's point of view, to see the many good points put forward by the many people involved-the networks, the ABC, potential entrepreneurs and others, especially in the broadcasting area. I will stay with the broadcasting area at this stage rather than deal with other users. At last many people in the industry see that firm decisions and policy announcements are about to be made by a government that was elected only last March. As I have said, this is in contrast with the inaction of previous successive conservative governments. I do not think anyone in the conservative parties knew anything about communications. I think that is one of the main reasons the former Government floundered for such a long time. We are now seeing the industry awakening. It is well into the home straight. The whips are cracking. People had better start making their final submissions to the Government because policy announcements will obviously be made by the Government , through the Minister for Communications, who has been very firm in his dealings and in the way in which he has conducted proceedings in this communications portfolio. I congratulate him on that. Policy decisions which will be made within the next half a dozen weeks will have a profound effect on Australian broadcasting for many years to come. I will not canvass all the options now as I do not have the time. It would be pre- empting many decisions. Obviously, no matter which way the Government jumps on a number of important decisions, there will be ramifications that will change the nature of broadcasting. The ever evolving technological changes in communications are continuing and will continue into the next century; that is for certain. The Government must continue to respond and must be on top of its policy making in regard to communications so that we are not caught in a floundering situation by saying 'Gee whiz, isn't this wonderful? or 'Gee whiz, isn't that wonderful? We will be looking at what is available, what is likely to be available and what is best suited to this country. We have heard so many arguments about what happens in the United States of America, Great Britain, Europe or anywhere else for that matter. Whilst recognising that these situations are important, especially the situations in Britain and America, we must recognise also that Australia is different traditionally. The set-up in the broadcasting and communications area has a unique Australian flavour. I am sure that this Government will continue to preserve that unique Australian flavour. I congratulate the Government on its Budget and on the allocation for the Department of Communications. All the requirements of the communications portfolio have been met, despite the very tight budgetary circumstances in which the Government found itself. I am quite sure that because of the positive nature and direction that this Government will show in the broadcasting and communications arena we will see a progression unparalleled in this area in Australian history. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(5.25) —I commence by pointing out to the electors of Maranoa and people at large in inland Australia, where communications are so important, that the Government has allocated $288m for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio and television network. Of that, approximately $ 280m is spent locally and $8.6m is spent on Radio Australia; that is, the radio network that spreads the message of Australia overseas to all our near neighbours and friends. Of course there are many good things in this allocation for inland Australia. One is the remote underserved community scheme which received an allocation of $330m this financial year. I believe that this is an excellent program. It is an initiative. It is something that we in inland Australia certainly support. Many areas outside the capital cities of Australia are underserved both by television and radio. Of course most of these funds will not be spent in the capital cities. We have seen the allocation of funds for a second network for regional television stations. This has been welcomed by most. I add that an awful lot of provincial stations cannot fully use their existing capacity for advertising, let alone compete with a second network and expect to recoup advertising income. Most of those stations are looking at a pay system. The second regional radio network is also to be welcomed. This is something that has been in train within the Department of Communications for a number of years. I do not believe it is something for which the present Government can take credit, but at least it has been prepared to initiate the move. This will give an extra radio service to four million Australians, again outside the capital cities. I welcome that move. Ethnic radio received a Budget allocation of $6.7m. Multicultural television received $24.9m. The total for the Special Broadcasting Service was $33.7m. I will come back to that matter later. I have never been all that keen about this concept. I cannot see why we cannot all be classed as Australians and all listen to the same radio and television stations, without having to give something special to these people. I think we have reached a stage where those of us who live in the bush are referred to as an ethnic class. We are completely forgotten and we do not have any decent services given to us. I think we ought to do away with ethnic radio and television before they completely encompass us and we, as taxpayers, have to spend millions of dollars. Previous speakers have pointed out that it is not the ethnic people who are watching the television or listening to the radio stations but the trendy Australians. Mr Lusher —Probably the socialists. Mr IAN CAMERON —Probably the socialists in and around Canberra and those sorts of people would be watching those programs. There is a Budget allocation of $245 ,000 for testing the homestead and community broadcasting satellite service. Of course we all welcome that. We are looking forward to the launching of that system in mid-1985. It will bring television to approximately 300,000 people in outback Australia. This money is being expended to test the small receiving dishes required to receive the signal off the satellite. I am one who supports the concept of Television Australia. I put it to the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) now that I do not believe that the ABC should receive the second HACBSS system, which it is mooted will be a pay system. I put it to the Minister that we are entitled to receive a second system that we do not have to pay for. Those of us who have not been getting any television up until this stage hope to receive a signal. Obviously we will receive an ABC signal on the first HACBSS system. I believe that the ABC should not have the second HACBBS system if it is going to be a pay system. If it is good enough for the ethnic communities to have that $33.7m spent on them it ought to be good enough for the Minister to direct the ABC to give people in inland Australia a second commercial channel, if that is what one likes to term it, but certainly a second channel they do not have to pay for. Mr Reeves —Television already is a pay system. Mr IAN CAMERON —I do not support a pay system if it is to be given to us by the ABC-a network supported by the taxpayer. If the only way we can get it is through the concept of Television Australia-a pay system, a commercial operation , with people having to pay-that is not quite so bad. But I am totally opposed to the ABC going into pay television and the taxpayers in remote areas having to pay to receive their signal. Every other taxpayer in Australia gets his ABC wireless and television services for nothing. The Minister and the Department are trying to tell us that the only way we can receive the second channel is by paying for it. In that case I am dead opposed to it. Of course, Aussat Pty Ltd has been set up. I only hope that the Minister can make sure that those in Caucus and other places have the present proportion of private enterprise involved in Aussat as it is. It is a new medium. Surely, if it is going to work, the public ought to be able to buy into 49 per cent of this great company that has been set up to manage the television network that will be conducted through the satellites. Of course, satellites are the new and ongoing technology. We will have not just one or two satellites in 10 years time. We will probably have half a dozen satellites. I think it is important that we let private enterprise get into this system and that we let private enterprise throughout Australia get some experience in it. Before I leave the communications section of the Budget I would like to thank the Minister for including Charleville in the Budget and allocating $210,000 to commence building an ABC radio station there. It is the only allocation for radio in Queensland. I and my predecessor, Mr Jim Corbett, have been pushing for many years to have this station established. I hope that Jim is still around by the time the station is completed. Let us hope that it is completed by the turn of the century. It is scheduled to be completed by 1985. That sort of allocation ought to buy the land and get the station going. Hopefully, we will see it completed. I would like to move on to Telecom Australia. From the figures released today we see that Telecom's profit is down $12m. I think it is important to point out to people that the revenue of Telecom is $3.6 billion. It is one of the biggest organisations in Australia today. I support the comments of the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) about Countrywide Calling. I point out to the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) that some of us on this side of the chamber have been constructive. At my initiative and that of other honourable members we met with the Minister and we have achieved some changes in that concept. We met in one of the party rooms. Most people in inland Australia are most concerned about the cost and the fact that they now have to pay by time for a community call to the nearest business centre. I support the concept of the honourable member for Murray. Surely to goodness, in this day and age every Australian is entitled to be able to ring his local business centre for the cost of a local call. He should not have to pay for a time call. We see mass discrimination being established by Telecom and by the Australian Labor Party Government whereby people living in the Countrywide Calling zone, the most disadvantaged people, will be the first in Australia asked to pay more for a local call. This affects only the isolated zones in Australia. They will now be on a time call system. I must say that through the efforts of Mr Keith West of Telecom, Murray Brodrick, the area manager from Toowoomba, and Geoff Johnston, the area manager from Roma, we have achieved something. We have had meetings in Goondiwindi. Barbara Mailer was very helpful in this regard. Last week Mr Keith West, on behalf of the Minister, was able to announce that Mundine , Toobeah, Lundavra and The Gums now have local call access. I am sure that the people in all those places are very happy now. Mr Saunderson —Wonderful country. Mr IAN CAMERON —I say to people such as the honourable member for Deakin and others that people in other areas in Australia ought to apply to Telecom and see whether they can get back their local call access. Surely, those of us who live in inland Australia should not be the first to have to start paying for a time community call. We ought to be the last people to pay. I have Australia Post mentioned in my notes. There are mail strikes in Canberra at the moment. None of us can send anything anywhere. That is probably a good thing. We are not receiving anything either. Our work load has slackened off somewhat, so that is good for us politicians. Australia Post is continuing to downgrade services. I would like the Minister to look at this facet of communications. I ask him to make sure that country people continue to get the services they deserve. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SAUNDERSON(Deakin)(5.35) —I am thankful for this opportunity to speak in relation to the communications area of the Budget. I would like to respond to some of the points that have been raised by the honourable member for O'Connor ( Mr Tuckey) and the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron). Both honourable members were fairly critical of Telecom's attitude to people, particularly those who live in the country regions. I think perhaps we really ought to look at some of the facts. For instance, the honourable member for Maranoa indicated that he felt that Telecom's profit was reasonable for the amount of revenue it turned over. But he did not go on to say that, in fact, also involved in that revenue turnover is the $250m which is used as a cross- subsidy to assist in keeping the charges in rural areas much lower than they would be otherwise. The honourable member for O'Connor was a little critical of Telecom in that he felt that Telecom did not really have the interests of people in the rural areas at heart. I think it is probably a pity that he has not read the 1982-83 report from Telecom, because if he had he would have seen in fact how much it is putting into improving the services in the rural areas. That report shows the performance of Telecom last year in terms of converting people from manual systems to fully automatic systems. Last year Telecom was able to upgrade 10,000 services from manual to automatic systems. That was more than 10 per cent of those who are currently on manual systems. To say that Telecom is not putting effort into and taking note of the problems of people in the rural areas I think is a very poor effort on the part of the honourable member for O'Connor. I want to give some idea of the cost incurred in those conversions. As Telecom has pointed out, the estimated cost to convert the rest of the manual systems in Australia-there are some 35,500 of those-to fully automatic systems is $250m. Keeping in mind that that cost would be on top of the cross-subsidy which is already being put in by Telecom, that is a conversion cost in excess of $7,000 per telephone system. It is not so that Telecom will get any increased revenue. It will simply be providing a better service to people in the country areas. Full conversion will be achieved by 1990. Given the very large cost involved in that, I believe that that is quite a reasonable target for it to be aiming at. That covers the 35,500 people who are on manual systems, but some 44,000 people have no telephone system at all. Telecom is putting a lot of effort into both research and development and it is looking at about 5,000 services for those 44, 000 people who have no telephone service. As has been recorded in the report, Telecom has already purchased 65 earth stations which will be used when the satellite is aloft to help provide telephone services to outback areas. Telecom has developed a digital radio service which is being experimented with now and which will also be used to help provide services to people in outback areas. I totally refute the criticisms of the honourable member for O'Connor and the honourable member for Maranoa about Telecom's attitude to people in the country. I believe it is providing services and making every effort to improve services to those people who have poor ones. I come back to the arguments that have been raised by people in relation to the satellite and the present Government's policies on it. I have to point out what the situation was when the present Government came to power. A decision has been made by the previous Government that the satellite should go up. That decision was made after some fairly quick exercises to try to justify it. The Government made some allocations and said that certain people would use a portion of the satellite. When we came to power what did we find? Half the capacity of the satellite system was unallocated. There was no real known use for it and certainly no positive policy by the previous Government as to how it could be used. Certainly in the area of broadcasting it had no clear policy. It did not give any consideration to what should happen. The satellite uses the latest technology. It has the potential to improve services in Australia. It also has the potential, if it is not properly checked, to destroy some of the fine services we have already. The previous Government had given no attention to what should be done with the spare capacity of the satellite, what controls needed to be brought in and the people who should be allowed to use it. This Government is getting opinions from people who are interested in using the satellite. It has found confusion amongst people in the broadcasting area. They have been trying for ages to get a clear cut, long term policy on how broadcasting should be developed in Australia. From the previous Government they got nothing at all. They were left with half baked ideas with no positive long term direction. This Government, in its first six months, has organised inquiries. It is now dealing with people who are interested in broadcasting and television. We are asking them: 'What are the real problems? What needs to be done?' We are also telling them that we will come up with long term clear directions so that they will know where to invest and how things will operate. They will have long term policy direction so that they can develop communications systems in Australia, particularly in the broadcasting area, to the total benefit of everybody in Australia. The honourable member for O'Connor was very critical of some aspects of Aussat Pty Ltd. He was particularly concerned, as was the honourable member for Maranoa , that Telecom should not be involved. Those honourable members have a big fear about the bogey of the trade union movement, particularly the Telecom unions. I can speak from some experience having worked in Telecom and having been an active member of the Australian Telecommunications Employees Association. If we look at the history of Telecom and its unions in the 80 years of communications in Australia we find one of the best industrial records of any industry in Australia. The honourable member for O'Connor talked about the Telecom staff who give people in his electorate the best service that they can. He said that they are hard working people. Then he talked about the union. Quite obviously the member for O'Connor has no understanding of what it is all about because the technicians providing the services are the people in the union of which he was critical. They have a real conscience and concern about the communications industry. They have worked diligently over the last 80 years and have built Telecom and the communications system in Australia into the finest system in the world. Mr McGauran —It is union officials like you who are the problem. Mr SAUNDERSON —The honourable member talks about union officials. Obviously, he has no comprehension of the trade union movement because the union officials and the Telecom unions have one of the most democratic processes in the trade union movement. The unions are led by their membership, not by their officials. That is what people on the other side of the House have no comprehension of. That is why they cannot formulate an industrial relations policy. They do not understand trade unions and proper democracy. The previous Government came up with a halfbaked scheme to provide regional television with supplementary licences. That was well and good; but it did not bother to find out whether supplementary licences were viable or whether people wanted them. We now find that there is no use for them. Regional television stations do not know what to do with them. This Government is trying to prepare, in conjunction with the use of the satellite and the long term development of broadcasting in Australia, a situation in which supplementary licenes will become viable and useful for regional television stations. That will ensure that people in regional areas who currently have only one commercial station will have a much wider service. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(5.45) —I will try to contain my remarks although I wish to speak on a very difficult subject and take up the matter of industrial disputes, in Canberra in particular. The honourable member for Deakin (Mr Saunderson) who spoke before me alleged that the telecommunications unions have a very good industrial relations record. In endeavouring to describe their relations as good , he must not have wanted to compare them with others that could be construed as being bad. A disastrous industrial dispute is proceeding in Canberra at present. It is having a tremendous effect upon the community as a whole, including pensioners and business houses, and government activity is being brought to a close. Urgent action is required on the part of the Government. This matter has not been raised before in this House but it has been raised in the Senate by Senator Reid. I am surprised-there are two members representing electorates in the Australian Capital Territory-that the matter has not been raised previously in this chamber. Only days ago, with the prospect of a dispute involving airline pilots we heard in rather emotive language of the action that the Government intended to take against those pilots. That dispute was to last two days. As some people have said, only a limited number of people were affected, those who happened to be flying around Australia. Anybody who wants to communicate with government in Canberra has been disadvantaged for almost four weeks. When we contemplate that, the position of people requiring pension cheques and the like, who have been disadvantaged and have had to chase around to have new cheques issued, and business houses, which have no alternative arrangements to put in place, we can appreciate the urgency of the situation. All this week I have wanted to ask a question of the Prime Minister during Question Time. I stood for the call on each occasion and was unsuccessful in catching the Speaker's eye. I will record the terms of the question I wished to ask. It sums up, more than in any other way, the feelings I have about the matter. I wished to ask the Prime Minister: Are you aware that for almost four weeks Canberra has been severely disadvantaged by a mail strike, hurting pensioners, stultifying business operations and hampering government activity nationally as well? Are you aware that people in Canberra are fed up because, although Canberra is the national capital, it is the only place where the Federal Government has total responsibility for industrial relations. The dispute involves a Government Statutory Authority and your minister for Industrial Relations, Communications and Territories and Local Government have appeared totally disinterested. The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) may say that he has been very interested, but I make the observation that he appeared totally disinterested. There have been no public comments on the matter. I wanted to continue: In the light of the Government's foreshadowed action against pilots for industrial activity of two days, including threats of dismissal, stand downs and the like, what action will you be taking to get all three of your Ministers working constructively on this urgent problem to have it immediately settled and avoid charges of double standards? I issued a further statement in conjunction with my colleague the honourable member for Balaclava, Mr Macphee, today. It reads: Canberra mail sorters would have to be stood down unless they lifted overtime bans which have crippled postal services in the National Capital for the past four weeks, the Federal Opposition said today. 'Both the Arbitration Commission and the Australia Post have made it clear that paying strike pay is absolutely out of the question', the Shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Ian Macphee, and the Shadow Minister for the Australian Capital Territory, Mr Philip Ruddock, said today. The Federal Government must be commended for its firm support for Australia Post on the issue of strike pay. Similarly, it must make it clear to Australia Post that it has full Government support for any further measures it deems necessary to bring the postal workers to their senses. The dispute is no longer a local matter. It is not only causing severe inconvenience to Canberra residents; it is disrupting the function of Government and preventing Members of Parliament from carrying out their responsibilities to their constituents. The justification for the strike-if there was justification-was absolutely minimal. Australia Post has done everything in its power to resolve the dispute, short of paying strike pay. Now the mail sorters have had it made clear to them that there is absolutely no possibility of their being paid for the time they were on strike, they ought to accept the situation and return to normal work. I hope that the Minister for Communications will be able to tell us of the firm action he is taking to have this matter resolved as quickly as possible. It is causing considerable concern in the Australian Capital Territory. Madam Chair, I know you will be interested to know that the concern is such that Canberra residents are organising a rally tomorrow in the Civic Centre. It is to be held at 12.30 p.m. on the steps of the Canberra Theatre. I hope that honourable members will take the time to go to see what the residents of Canberra feel about this very important question that is causing them such hardship. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(5.52) —In concluding the discussion of the estimates for the Department of Communications I wish to comment briefly on a few matters that honourable members have raised. I say, with some reservations in relation to the Opposition which I will deal with in a moment, that the contributions from the Government side and from the Opposition side were constructive. I thank honourable members for their contributions. I was a little concerned by the problems that the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) has had this week in not being able to persuade members of the Opposition to give him priority for a question which he wanted to direct to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). It is hardly a problem for this side of the chamber that he has been unable to get the call all week. One would have thought that if the matter were of such enormous significance to those opposite he could have arranged to ask the question. It is unfortunate that he had to take up time in this debate on a matter about which Opposition members were obviously not prepared to allow him to ask a question. I wish to take up the comments of the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) who raised firstly the question of the industrial disputes in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and Australia Post and the pilots dispute. He expressed concern that there had been no contact in respect of the ABC matter. He raised that matter at Question Time on 5 October. He, obviously, is able to get the call whereas the honourable member for Dundas has some difficulty. The honourable member for Murray asserted that no contact had been made with the ABC . As I indicated at Question Time yesterday, as far as I am aware the ABC has not contacted any Minister in this Government in relation to that matter. It is a matter for the ABC to deal with at this stage. That is the position. It is not , in my view, the role of the Government to interfere with the ABC in any way. Obviously, that is not the view of those opposite but it is certainly the view of the Government. There is a considerable difference with respect to Australia Post because Australia Post sought advice on the question of the payment of strike pay. The honourable member for Dundas indicated when he read a Press release to the Committee this afternoon that he supports the non-payment of strike pay by Australia Post. The honourable member for Murray made a rather stupid point but nevertheless one that was interesting in a sense. He said that the Government may have become involved in the dispute with Australia Post because those involved in Australia Post, being members of the Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union, may well have been supporters of the Australian Labor Party. He distinguished our involvement with Australia Post from our actions in respect of the pilots dispute. He said that considerable action was taken by the Government in relation to the pilots dispute and some very strong statements had been made. I think it ought to be pointed out that the fact that strike pay has not been paid has not pleased the members of the union involved in the dispute-the APTU. The decision taken by Australia Post is not likely to make any friends in this Government so far as that union is concerned. It is really quite ridiculous to suggest that we are treating one union in one way and another union in another. I can assure the honourable member for Dundas that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) has been working assiduously on the Australia Post dispute. It is certainly hoped, for all the reasons that the honourable member for Dundas put forward, that it will be resolved at a very early date. Matters concerning broadcasting were raised by various honourable members. I wish to take up a couple of the matters put forward by the honourable member for Murray, particularly the question of the funding of the ABC. The 1983-84 funding for the ABC represents an increase of 5.35 per cent, but if expenditure on the Commonwealth Games in 1982-83 is discounted the increase over last year is 7 per cent. As to the other matter raised by the honourable member for Murray in respect of the ABC I point out that other matters related to the ABC have involved considerable expenditure. The first of those is the proposed second regional radio network for the ABC. Secondly, there is the question of addressing the remote and underserved communities over a three-year plan with television services to 42 communities and radio services to twelve sites in for example southern New South Wales, north-western Tasmania and north-eastern Victoria. Also, an amount of $3.7m is to be provided to the ABC over four years for satellite conversion. The internal breakup of the amount allocated to the ABC is, of course, a matter for the ABC. I again point out that we on this side of the House respect the independence of the ABC. How it allocates its money is a matter for it. The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) raised the question of self-help programs. I think it should be said that since 1977 there has been a build-up of unprocessed broadcasting planning proposals within the Department of Communications. This is due in part to the introduction of major new services- public radio, FM broadcasting and the remote area television service. The other factor has been the limits imposed in recent years on staff resources. Those limitations were, in fact, imposed under the Fraser Government. In a pre- election policy announcement this Government stated that it would allocate $1m specifically to update the Broadcasting Planning and Operations Division of the Department. This amount has been agreed upon and it has been spread over two years. Six staff members will be added, and there will be expenditure on consultant fees and equipment within the allocation of that amount of money. Part of those resources will in fact be directed to the self help programs which were raised by the honourable member for O'Connor. Therefore, the Government, having been in office for six months, has carried out its commitment in relation to the planning backlog in the Department of Communications caused, as I have indicated before in this place, by the previous Government's miserable, penny pinching attitude of allocating resources to that Department over a long period, certainly since 1977. The other matters which were raised by the honourable member for Murray and also by the honourable member for O'Connor related to Aussat Pty Ltd. I was somewhat surprised and, I must say, disturbed because the honourable member for Murray seems to be getting his advice from sources which are different from mine . He said that all people associated with Aussat are concerned that time is running out. It would be very interesting if at some stage he could substantiate that statement by showing that it has some authoritative backing or indicate whether it is a figment of his imagination. The fact of the matter is that the launch is on schedule for July and October 1985. I am at a total loss to understand what the honourable member for Murray means in relation to some claim that Aussat has said that in fact time is running out. In relation to the other matters raised, the remarks of the honourable member for O'Connor were dealt with fairly adequately by the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Saunderson) in relation to what could best be described as an Australian Telecommunications Employees Association bash. I will not go over the ground that was adequately covered by the honourable member for Deakin. The appropriations for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Special Broadcasting Service, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and the funds for capital works operation and maintenance paid to Telecom Australia to undertake the functions of the Department of Communications will be the basis of a good year in the area of communications. The decisions were eagerly sought today by those who were in office for a long while and who made decisions in the communications area which has suffered from seven years of permanent paralysis. I can assure those people that they will not have to wait very long for decisions to be made which will affect broadcasting in this country into the next century. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Progress reported. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Leader of the House) —Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to mention a matter of which you are aware. Last evening the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) made a number of detailed statements which reflected on a member of the Ministry whom he did not name. Those statements obviously related to tax evasion, deception of the Commissioner of Taxation, and deception with respect to stamp duties and estate duties. Today I understand the honourable member also made further comments in a radio broadcast but again did not name any Minister. Today, at Question Time, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) asked a question of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) inquiring whether any Minister had been guilty or was liable to be guilty of tax evasion. The answer was no. I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that the Prime Minister then asked the Leader of the Opposition to indicate whether he wished to pursue the matter against any Minister. The honourable member said no. It is within the knowledge of the Ministry, and certainly within the knowledge of the honourable member for O'Connor, that we feel that he thinks the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) is the Minister involved but the honourable member has not been prepared to name him. We cannot leave that unsatisfactory situation because it affects the standing of the Minister and also defames him to the extent that these allegations have been made and are continuing to be made. Accordingly, Mr Speaker, I have the permission of the Government to suggest to you now that I am prepared to move for the suspension of so much of the Standing Orders as would prevent the honourable member for O'Connor moving a substantive motion. I invite him to indicate to us now whether he wants that done. If he does I will move the motion; but if he does not I shall have to take another course of action. Mr SPEAKER —This is a rather unusual procedure. Honourable members have heard the Leader of the House speak by indulgence. I ask the honourable member for O' Connor to indicate his intention. Mr Tuckey —I do not wish to move a substantive motion. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I have already discussed this matter with the Opposition Leader of the House, Mr Sinclair, and I thank him for his co-operation. I now seek leave to enable the Minister for Finance to make a statement to rebut the serious innuendoes and allegations that have arisen from the statements made by the honourable member for O'Connor. Leave granted. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —As the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the House (Mr Lionel Bowen) has indicated, the honourable member for O 'Connor (Mr Tuckey) in a speech last night made some very serious accusations about an anonymous Minister in this Government, alleging that a Minister was a director of a company at one stage and that in the course of the period during which the Minister was a director of a company certain actions were taken. The accusations went to the point of alleging that there was a massive tax evasion involved in the transactions of the company. Earlier today-at about midday-the honourable member for O'Connor went on the air in Melbourne and repeated most of these allegations, and indeed went further . He was asked by the interviewer: I guess it goes without saying that you want to pursue this matter. The answer from the honourable member for O'Connor was: Oh yes, I'm hoping my Party will pursue it. I don't like their vendettas. I'm disgusted at what went on in our Parliament previously. I just hope now our Party raises questions and more importantly, I hope that the Prime Minister will match some of his rhetoric and conduct a simple inquiry to see if there was any substance whatsoever in the questions I have raised. You will recall, Mr Speaker, that at Question Time today the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) rose and asked a question of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) about whether a Minister in this Government had been involved in tax evasion. The Prime Minister said no and invited the Leader of the Opposition to ask the question that apparently he did not have the guts to ask on that occasion. For some reason, although there was still an opportunity left at Question Time for further questions to be asked of either me or the Prime Minister, the Opposition decided not to take that course of action. It is well known in the Press Gallery that the honourable member for O'Connor has not been prepared to name any names in here. Indeed he has declined the invitation of the Leader of the House just now to substantiate the claims and identify the person against whom they are made. He has squibbed it. He has claimed to be scrupulous about not mentioning names or companies. In fact I want to go a little further and say that at the end of the interview with Mr Nasht in Melbourne today, Mr Nasht said: Well like Mr Tuckey, I'm not going to name the Minister involved without viewing the evidence. I did contact his office this morning and was told that no Ministers in the Hawke Government have anything on their conscience over these allegations. As Mr Nasht rang my office, I assume that he was told which office to ring by the person he was interviewing; that is, the honourable member for O'Connor. That is why we decided that the honourable member for O'Connor or the Leader of the Opposition ought to have the opportunity to demonstrate his courage and his bravado and to substantiate the claims which the honourable member for O'Connor is making in this cowardly fashion about an anonymous person, while at the same time outside this House making it perfectly clear they believe that I am the subject of these accusations. This is not the first time that members of the Liberal Party have attempted to smear me. They have failed on previous occasions and, because of this inept and cowardly attempt now, they will fail again. Despite the fact that the claims made by the honourable member for O'Connor last night are riddled with inaccuracies, in some of the statements which are true, as opposed to many of the statements which are wrong and certainly the conclusions drawn which are wrong, there is some vague resemblance to some of the affairs of a family company of which I was a director for a short time. What is so amazing about this? My association with that company was indicated in my declaration of pecuniary interests. So, the information was available long before the honourable member for O'Connor made these startling revelations! Even an amateur muck-raker could have found out the information which he subsequently was able to cobble together. So much easier it would have been for an expert muck-raker like him! Of course, he pretends not to be making allegations. He has mock and contrived pretensions towards proprieties and makes exaggerated disclaimers about all the accusations he made in his speech. He tries to instil a sense of mystery into what are perfectly proper and transparent commercial activities. He suggests taxation evasion on a massive scale. Yet we have demonstrated again today what a coward he really is. Neither he, the Leader of the Opposition nor anyone on that side has had the guts to carry on with this matter and to indicate what he means by it and what the substantiation of it might be. It may be that the honorable member for O'Connor is attacking my father who established this company. It may be that he is attacking the liquidator of the company who is now in charge of the company and has been since 1978. Or it may be that he is attacking me. I do not particularly mind if he attacks me. I have demonstrated on enough occasions in this House that I am prepared to take as good as I give, and I would certainly be prepared to give a bit more to the honourable member for O'Connor. I do object to the implicit attack on my late father. I do not want to go into any detail about that except to say that, unlike the late fathers of some people in this place, the reputation of my father is completely unassailable. I am prepared to table for the benefit of those honourable members who may not already know the extract from Who's Who about my late father. Maybe, therefore, the honourable member for O'Connor is attacking the liquidator. If he is, he should perhaps pursue the matters with the liquidator. The liquidator has responsibility for the affairs of the company and has had since the company went into voluntary liquidation in 1978. Because neither I nor any of the other former directors have had anything to do with the company or with the decisions that have been taken since that time, I contacted the liquidator and asked him for an up to date report on the circumstances, particularly the circumstances surrounding the claims of improper dealings in land and improper arrangements in relation to the sale of land. I want to quote from a report which the liquidator provided for me today. He said: The liquidator lodged income tax returns during the period of the liquidation in which full and true disclosure of the sale was made. The company has unrecouped tax losses available to it at the present time of $45,000 which will not be recouped prior to the finalisation of the liquidation. The taxation department gave clearance to proceed to final distribution on 13 September 1978 and has been provided with taxation returns and details of the position of the liquidation annually since the date of liquidation. So much for the suggestion that there has been some cover-up or some tax evasion on the part of the liquidator in relation to the affairs of this company. Clearly if the attack is not on the liquidator-if it was, the honourable member for O'Connor should have made it perfectly clear because the liquidator is a member of a very distinguished firm of accountants in Perth-clearly the exercise is about me. I make it perfectly clear that I am utterly relaxed about the accusations he makes about me. They are absolutely without foundation. If they are the best he can do, I can assure him that my current unsullied reputation will remain intact for as long as I want to remain a member of this chamber. The facts in relation to this matter, of course, have already been made available to the Prime Minister. They were provided to the Prime Minister at the end of July when the first declarations of pecuniary interests were provided to him. At the time I provided the Prime Minister with a letter which I will table. I quote: I enclose my return of pecuniary interests. I have attached a report from Touche Ross and Co. outlining my interests in and benefits derived from Coomel Pty Ltd (In liquidation). I do so partly because it has come to my notice that inquiries are being made of the transaction involved by persons who may be politically motivated. Should you consider it appropriate I have no objection to the report being tabled or published at the same time as my pecuniary interests are disclosed. I have absolutely nothing to hide, and the details which I have provided to the Prime Minister were provided weeks ago. I knew somebody was rabbiting around and trying to find something which he could criticise me for and about which he could make accusations against me. Of course, the extraordinary thing is not that the honourable member for O'Connor has done it but that it has taken him so long to get round to doing it and that, having decided to do it, he has completely muffed it. He has been unable to make a mountain out of this little molehill. I cannot see why it should have taken him so long except for the fact that I suspect that he probably knows as well as I do that there is absolutely nothing in it. All I say to the honourable member for O'Connor, as I was inclined to remind another honourable member of the Opposition a few days ago, is that if he is going to cast stones at me he ought to ensure that he is without sin himself. We all know in very graphic and technicolour detail some of the history of the honourable member for O'Connor, certainly before he became a member of this chamber. We know of the criminal charges against him and the fact that he bashed up an Aboriginal person in Carnarvon while that person was being held down by this brother and one other. He was belted around the head with a steel cable by the honourable member for O'Connor, who was convicted of that charge. We know of certain other activities of the honourable member for O'Connor when he was a member and the President of the Carnarvon Shire Council. There are suggestions of conflict of interest. There are suggestions of breaches of the Local Government Act and there may indeed be charges pending in relation to some of those matters. If the honourable member for O'Connor wants to box on with this matter I am perfectly happy to accommodate him. I have nothing to hide in this matter. I have nothing to be concerned about in the slightest. All this has been brought about by the fact that this Government has had not only the courage but also the morality to disclose the interests of members of the Ministry. We did that quite voluntarily. We provided the information, and now the honourable member for O'Connor has sought to extend from that voluntary declaration of our interests some manufactured hyperbole about the circumstances which lie behind the particular activities of the company with which I was associated. I conclude by saying to the honourable member for O'Connor that I am perfectly happy about the affairs of my family company. I have indicated already that I ceased to have anything to do with the company at the time that it went into liquidation and any transactions since then have been entirely decisions for the liquidator. I have also indicated the circumstances which completely blow apart the suggestion that there was any tax avoidance or evasion involved in any of the activities before or subsequent to the liquidation of the company. But I am prepared to go further and provide more details in relation to these matters, so long as the honourable member is also prepared to subject himself to the same sort of scrutiny, particularly in relation to the period during which he was a member of the Carnarvon Shire Council. On the other hand, of course, the honourable member already has a great deal of information-which is available, as I said, from public sources-about this company and he may on this occasion be prepared to do the decent thing and provide us with details of his interests as well. If he is so prepared, of course I will be prepared to run my eye over them and perhaps report back to the House. Indeed, I might be prepared to do so even if he is not prepared voluntarily to submit himself to that process. I am sure such a report would be educational, if a little unedifying. Perhaps then we will see Wilson Tuckey fried. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —by leave-We have just heard some words; we did not hear many facts. We heard a statement from the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) that certain activities were perfectly proper and perfectly transparent. He said that he had a role in a company over a short period. Yet last night I drew the House' s attention to the fact that the Minister to whom I referred joined the company in, I think, 1973 and had reason to declare himself as having an interest in that company in 1983. If that is a short period in his life-I think he is under 40-I would like to know what is a long period. Furthermore, he was listed all that time on company returns as a director. Now he tells us that he did not have anything to do with it. He was only a director; his signature only appears on a declaration of solvency. He tells us that he did not know what was going on; it was all due to his father and his accountant. He paid a fortune to that accountant to ensure that he did not pay tax on the private activities of his business. I went to great pains last night not to take a leaf out of the Minister's book, either when he was in opposition or since he became a Minister. In this House he has poured shocking accusations over people who do not have the privilege that he used today to defend himself in this Parliament. He has done it time and time again. His morals have changed. If being in government has such an effect on one , everybody should have a go. It is nice to know that people's morals and ideals of what is rotten and disgraceful can change in this fashion. Many of us here remember-- Mr Scott —Yours have not changed. You are still a grub. Mr TUCKEY —Many of us here-the honourable member, too-remember the diatribe that came from this Minister. I heard his speech in silence. The Minister came to this place time and again prepared to destroy the reputation of anybody who might at some time have had the misfortune to have even talked to somebody in the Liberal and National parties. It did not matter at all-and he talks about guts! Mr Hurford —You don't have any guts. Mr TUCKEY —The Minister talks about guts. Mr Hurford —You are absolutely gutless. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister for Finance was heard in silence. Mr TUCKEY —I am standing here now, and I have guts. Quite clearly, last night I went straight to the point and made it clear that it was not my-- Mr Hurford —When are you going to make some accusations? Mr TUCKEY —I am coming to that. If you are worried about what I am saying-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I invite the honourable member to get on with his statement and not answer interjections. Mr TUCKEY —Last night in my speech I referred to the figures. I gave certain facts, and although we have been told that they are inaccurate, they have not been refuted, and I think that they will be found to be inaccurate in minor details, not major details. The Minister had as long as he liked to refute them, but he seemed to be more interested in threatening me with some future problem such as prosecution under the Local Government Act. He has been doing that for two and a half years. I thought the purpose of his statement was to improve the confidence of Australians in his stewardship of one of the senior ministers in the Cabinet. When I raised the issue, I wanted the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to satisfy himself confidentially that there was no reason to doubt the capacity of this person to look after the people of Australia, which he is now charged to do . Let us face it: He was elected to represent an electorate. The people of Australia did not vote him into the Cabinet. As I said, the style of these activities and others with respect to possible State charges and taxes would normally-I repeat normally-be the work of someone committed to massive tax evasion. It is reasonable to say that anyone who went to all that trouble with the normal and proper returns which were lodged with State company authorities would be committed to massive tax evasion. However, there is no way that this can be assessed from the information published in the statement tabled the other day by the Prime Minister. In my speech last night I made it very clear that only the Commissioner of Taxation and the Minister concerned could resolve the concerns I felt about the stewardship of this Minister, whom I failed to name and whom I was prepared to leave in confidence so that he could, through his Prime Minister, give the House a statement, from an independent person, to guarantee the situation. But I have been asked for some accusations. Mr Hurford —You got the statements from the independent people; they have been tabled. Mr TUCKEY —They were from his paid office johnny-the man that he and his family paid over 20 years to organise and minimise his tax. We are talking about morality. I thought that maybe the Minister would give the House a certificate from Mr O'Reilly. I thought he might have brought one from the State taxation commissioner and, in particular, a statement that the types of activities undertaken by his company met the spirit of taxation law and did not set out to defraud State and Federal authorities and government revenue. Government members tell us day after day that the collection of revenue is the paramount virtue. It should be spent on creating jobs. Why did the Minister not have the decency to see that government revenue received its fair share by way of probate of $1.6m? He did not have to do what he did. He could have paid the money. I should not have to ask the question. The facts are-as I said, they will be incorrect only in minor detail-that the company referred to, Coomel Pty Ltd, was incorporated on 4 June 1964. It was a good risk-type company. It had five A class shares of $2 each. I wonder what could be done with such resources and what sort of business the Minister expected to get into with that sort of money. Then, of course, the company issued 200 B class shares of $2 each to five of the Dawkins children. I wonder whether they even paid for those at the time and whether they paid for them with their own money. In addition to the $1,000 plus $10, some other funds must have been injected because it appears that $2,020 was the sole amount of money in this fine company that was going out into the wilderness to trade. I bet it was going to trade! The Minister has asked me not to criticise his good father. We might congratulate him for protecting his children. If they could not do better than the Minister did in his speech tonight, they would certainly need his help. No doubt that is why he put money away for them. He probably had some doubts about this Minister's academic ability. As they were a family of academics, he thought that he might starve if he did not save his estate from probate. Dr Alec and Mrs Dawkins were the original directors and they were appointed on 26 June. John Dawkins was appointed a director of the company on 26 August 1973. The balance sheet as at 30 June 1974, 10 months after John Dawkins-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 6.30 p.m., the honourable member's speech is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 106A. The honourable member may continue his speech at a later hour. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) agreed to: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent order of the day No. 1, Government business, Grievance debate, being postponed and called on at a later hour this day. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(8.00) —I express disappointment that the Minister for Finance, the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Dawkins), is not in the House. He invited me into the chamber and I think he should be here at least to listen to what I have to say. However, he has failed to do this. The honourable member made an explanation which avoided completely addressing itself to the matters that I raised last night in this House which referred to the activities of a director of a company, namely a Minister. It was not I who called for blood; I suggested that the Prime Minister, who is responsible to the Australian public for the morals, et cetera, of his Ministers should look carefully at this situation, make his own inquiries and take action. The matters which I have raised in the House were raised in a proper fashion and in the interests of the community of Australia. Any Minister who stands up for Australians is expected at least to honour his convictions which he expresses in the House. That is the only way by which the Australian public can judge him. It was quite clear that I had a responsiblity, once the Prime Minister decided that it was in the public interest for Australians to know about his Ministers, to raise the issues which concerned me. I too am an elected member of this place. The Minister, by his own admission, is the person to whom I referred. His suggestions that I told a journalist about the matter are quite wrong. They were based on an assumption that even journalists are so dumb that they could not work out who I was talking about by just going through this document and finding one company that was in liquidation . One does not have to be a very smart journalist to realise that. In fact, one would be a dumb journalist if, after being appointed to work in this place, one did not know that when people put companies into liquidation when they are not going broke it is because one has the intention of transferring the reserves of that company to shareholders so that they do not have to pay tax. That is not necessarily illegal. What I am saying is that when an honourable member claims in the Parliament that Consolidated Revenue is paramount, the Australian public should be entitled to believe that this honourable member has a commitment to the revenue and in the conduct of his personal affairs would see that revenue got its fair share. The Minister said that people are sneaking around the place inquiring into his affairs. That may be so. It may be the only accurate statement he has made to us . What I am trying to draw to the attention of honourable members is the fact that all I had to do was read the Prime Minister's report, pick out a company that looked shonky and make some inquiries through the appropriate sources, none of which required the assistance of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation or anyone else. All I had to do was get company returns and from those leads go to the Land Tax Office and Titles Office to get some transactions of property sales and mortgages which I will refer to shortly. It has been suggested that I told Simon Nasht who this person was. The Minister went to some pains to present the credentials of his father. It may be wise for me to read a letter, written to me while the sitting of the Parliament was suspended, by Norm Haywood, a member of my staff: I quite categorically state that at no time during your telephone conversation today with Simon Nasht of the ABC in Melbourne did you mention that the Minister concerned in your speech to the Parliament on 5 October was the Hon. John Dawkins MP. A lot of people in this Parliament know Norm Haywood. I do not know whether the Minister wants to say that he is a liar. He has suggested to me that I have cast aspersions on his father, his accountant and everybody else. He tried to squirm his way out of the situation. He had 20 or 30 minutes at the despatch box. Never once did he refer to the substance of what I said yesterday. The situation is that that was not so. I kept my side of the bargain. I am still able to stand in this place and declare my principles. They are quite different from those proclaimed by the Minister for Finance. When we look at the company reports, maybe we have more in common than he thinks. However, in my career I have not needed to tell myself stories-- Mr Steedman —What about an iron bar? Mr TUCKEY —I will address that shortly. The Australian public expects certain things of Ministers of the Government. If a Minister tells the people that he has certain views, that he believes the revenue is all important and that people have a responsibility to meet the spirit as well as the letter of the taxation laws, certain things are expected of him. Such a Minister reached a position of great prominence. He climbed over the backs of all sorts of people and gained himself a position in the Cabinet purely and simply because day after day in the Parliament he carved up unfortunate people of some prominence in the community. For instance, John Reid assisted a widow. He was torn to pieces, not because of what he did but because he assisted a widow in the resolution of an estate. It did not matter to this man. He declared him absolutely guilty. This man could do nothing more than say: 'I am offering myself to the community in other ways and I do not know what I can do about this'. He did not have the right the Minister has to defend himself in the Parliament. We could cut the Minister's speech in half. In one half of his speech he presented the credentials of his father. I will look later at the qualifications of his immediate relatives-his brothers and sisters-and honourable members may see why he is the one who is in Parliament. The Minister's father seems to have had some considerable degree of intelligence. However, I will look at the other half of his speech. Like the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell), the honourable member tried to threaten me; he tried to frighten me out of this place. He judged me on his standards. I will be here as long as the people of O' Connor elect me as a member of this place. If I have to take the chop as their representative, it will not be due to threats from the honourable member for Fremantle, the honourable member for Kalgoorlie or the Prime Minister. They will not change what I have to say. Mr Campbell —I know all about those shonky contracts. Mr SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member for Kalgoorlie to cease interjecting. Mr TUCKEY —A lot of pressure is being put on me which, I presume, is designed to keep me quiet. If all honourable members on the other side of the House had a commitment to Australians they would listen, make their own judgments and then decide-as the Prime Minister must do-whether this man, under the Prime Minister' s standards, as he has referred to them time and again and to which he has made a commitment in this House, should be a person who has considerable control and influence in running Australia. Maybe I would be doing him a favour if I brought to his attention matters which could be a severe embarrassment to him later. I think that maybe the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) had this concern when he spoke in this place. We have to look further at the Coomel company. No doubt Coomel will mean something but I would say that Coomel will mean shelf company. It was dragged off the shelf when the late Dr Dawkins walked in and decided that no longer should he and his family suffer the burden of probate duties. Of course he was not aware at that time that they were to change. Certainly, when he lamentedly died they were still in place. The estate, which it would appear grew mostly by inflation to the value of $1.66m, or whatever it was worth at that time, perhaps $1.5m, would have been subject to the rates of probate that were applicable. But Dr Dawkins, being a good father, probably thought that his children should have protection from probate. Quite clearly, this company was formed for that purpose . Quite clearly, while the good doctor and his wife were in control of that company the Minister for Finance, who became a director at a later stage, had little opportunity to influence their decision-although I doubt that at that young age the Minister belted his spoon on the kitchen table and demanded that they consider the revenue and the rights of the Commonwealth and State governments to have their share. Nevertheless, as honourable members have been told, in 1973 he became a director. What is more-and let me make it quite clear that I am now not referring to facts on record, but if my advice from the talk of Perth is correct-he was one of the principals. He was always involved in the big time negotiations. His brother, who is a doctor, and some of the other children seemed to take a lesser role. Although there were five children, and I think that they all became directors, he was one of the signatories to the declaration of solvency. Only two of the children, in fact, Roger Letts Dawkins and John Sidney Dawkins signed that document. The suggestion was made-and it is misleading to the Parliament-that the Minister knew nothing about the activities of this company. Not much! He was one of the principals. I suggest to you, Mr Speaker, that he was probably the brains . He was the person who took over a company and could have influenced his brothers and sisters who had gone out into the professional world. He could have said to them 'Look, I know what dad did. I have taken a socialist point of view on how Australia should be run. This is quite improper. It is probably legal, but it is improper. We will disband it. We will give a fair share of the profits that this great country has given us to the-- Mr Campbell —You sophist fraud. Mr TUCKEY —Oh, no. If I were standing at the dispatch box, were a foot shorter and a bit less good looking I could be John Dawkins speaking now-the one-time shadow Minister in Opposition. The man who sits beside him, I presume giving him support at this time, has to make a decision tonight on whether he condones this type of activity. It is no good his coming into this place and saying: 'I think it was legal'. He has to take a moral position on this issue. He has to tell the Australian public: 'In future my Government stands for certain types of tax minimisation. I will stand for that'. Or, he has to put his halo back on and say to the Australian people: 'No, I will not stand for it. The Minister for Finance has to go because he has practised it'. I return to the situations I mentioned. I am just taking these situations at random. Of course, one of the things one has to do to guarantee tax free capital gain from property that is right on the boundaries of the metropolitan area is to run some stock on it. One does not ever believe that properties of 200 acres will make any money. They are not viable. Of course, if there is no stock there, the Commissioner of Taxation might say to you: 'My dear chap, you have not used this property for financial gain. I think you have really and truly held it for capital gain and of the type that is taxable'. So one puts some stock on it. Of course then one has a trading profit or loss. But of course what did this Minister for Finance and his brothers do with the good advice they paid for? They made sure that they also made a trading loss. But despite that trading loss in 1975 shareholders' funds had grown to $80,378, principally as the result of a profit of $48,120-a dashed good income for one poor working man for a year, even if he was on overtime-which was realised from the sale of a city property. Again, no tax was paid by the company. It certainly was not paid according to the records it lodged with the Commissioner of Taxation in Western Australia. But a further substantial increase of $141,113 in shareholders' funds occurred in the year to 30 June 1976. Let the Minister get up-and he has missed a wonderful opportunity to attack the figures that I presented to the House yesterday-and tell me that these figures are wrong. I hope he can tell me they do not exist because as a representative of the Australian public I would feel a lot more comfortable that this man has its interests at heart. To the year 30 June 1976, despite a further trading loss- that year was another bad year for the cattle and sheep-again no tax was paid. The increase in shareholders' funds was the result of a debt of $72,197 owing by the company to the late Dr A. L. Dawkins being waived by his executors according to the provision of his will. Again, as I told the House last night, I do not really know what that resulted in in terms of revenue. But let us go back to this $2,000 company that owned millions of dollars worth of land. The only debt it ever seemed to have was to its principal shareholder. Two mechanisms exist here. Perhaps the good doctor, a professional, had accumulated some land and he was terrified that there would not be enough of it left for some of his children if the horrible government got its fingers on some of it by means of probate, State and Federal. So he transferred that land to the company after he had formed the company on the advice of his good accountant. That is a possibility. When he did so, of course, the accountant said to him: ' If you give this land it will be taxable'-because there were gift duties-'but on top of that, if you do not put some reasonable value on it the commissioner of stamps will make you pay stamp duty. What do you think is the lowest price we can put on this land?' This is only one possibility. He was asked: 'How does $72 ,000 grab you?' The answer was: 'Yes, we will settle on $72,000. You sell the land to the company for $72,000. It is so close to Perth that in 20 years time it will be worth millions. Then it is locked into the company which is at arms length to you but, of course, as the company only has $2,000, it will have to owe you the $72,000'. This company traded for all those years with assets of $2, 000 and debts of $72,000. But the good doctor was not worried. His $72,000 was safe. The ultimate insult to revenue was that he waived that debt of $72,000 in his will. I would have thought that the Minister for Finance might have had advice from this highly paid accountant that that situation was covered, that in fact before the debt was waived it was included in his father's estate, and that the unemployed and those other people in Australia who benefit from Commonwealth revenues would have received their fair share of it in terms of probate. But I have a nasty feeling that they did not, that, in fact, the debt was waived, that it was waived to an arms length group, a company that was totally owned by the deceased and his family, and that that $72,000 was lost in all ways. It was not represented, of course, in the late doctor's estate and, of course, did not attract probate which, if we added up all this $1.6m, would have been significant. That is just one way it could have happened. The other way is that the company could have gone out, bought some land and the doctor could have lent it the $72,000-odd to buy it. But the Minister could have told us the true circumstances of that situation. The Prime Minister could have taken my offer, come into this Parliament and said: 'Gentlemen and ladies, I am going to appoint someone as they did to Denis Horgan. I believe it should be confidential. I believe we should conduct this inquiry in the spirit that Mr Tuckey, the honourable member for O'Connor, has commenced it-no names, no pack drill. And I will conduct an inquiry of these matters and will report faithfully to you on two situations: Firstly, whether the revenue was illegally defrauded and, secondly, because of the high moral principles that I hold for myself and for my Government, I will report to you if in fact the spirit of the law has been defrauded and broken. I expect better of my Ministers.' I am a committed capitalist. I make no secret of that fact. I doubt that I will ever hold high office in this place. I am quite happy doing what I am doing and servicing the people who have faith in me. I tell honourable members that if ever the people of Australia want me in any high position they will know I am a committed capitalist. They will remember and be reminded that I voted against that stupid retrospective tax legislation which was an insult to the people who trusted a government. But, when I do that, the Australian public will know what I am. I will not climb into the Ministry on a heap of situations. Mr Lionel Bowen —I raise a point of order. The honourable member has now had in excess of half an hour to discuss this matter. Mr Howard —Oh, dah! Mr Lionel Bowen —Just a minute. I do not mind the honourable member talking about the facts of the case that he has in mind. To ramble on about whether he is a capitalist or a socialist is not in accordance with the other time pressures. Mr TUCKEY —Thank you. It would save time, Mr Speaker, if he let me get going again. Mr Lionel Bowen —I ask whether the honourable member will conclude within five minutes because there are many other speakers who have something to offer. Mr TUCKEY —It is going to take me a lot more than five minutes to finish the facts in this matter, but I will take your advice. Mr Lionel Bowen —I am sorry, but you can do a lot better. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. Mr Lionel Bowen —It is now 40 minutes. Mr Howard —There is nothing to stop-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order! Mr Anthony —Look at the interest in those opposite. They are all interested in the facts. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party will cease interjecting. Mr Howard —Where is O'Reilly's certificate? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr Lionel Bowen —You know a fair bit about section 60-- Mr Howard —But you know-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. So far, the House has listened to this debate in an orderly manner with contributions coming from the Minister for Finance and the honourable member for O'Connor. I ask senior members on my left to observe that fact. I remind the Leader of the House that the honourable member for O'Connor is speaking by leave and therefore the time available to him is not limited. Opposition members-Hear, hear! Mr SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr Lionel Bowen —There is another factor, though, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —Yes, I know that. Mr TUCKEY —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I made the point for one reason, and one reason only. I will not return to it. What I am saying to the House is that the Australian public is entitled to know what a Minister stands for. It is not his right, in my view, to stand in this place and tell the Australian public what he is and then go out into private life and practise the reverse. As I said, it is between the Minister and the Commissioner of Taxation even as to the amount of tax he has paid. I thought he would have taken the opportunity to tell us about all the money that he has received as a result of all these actions. He could have gone before the Commissioner of Taxation and said: 'Look, it is a bit difficult to calculate, but here is a bit of conscience money. After all, I have different views from my late father and from my brothers and sisters. I am committed to the revenue. I can read the rules. I have practised the rules. For a period I administered taxation in this country and, after all, I believe I have to do this. Here is $200,000 or $300,000 or whatever and we can measure that in jobs'. Let us go down the track a bit further. We have talked about the $72,000. I thought the Minister would have taken the time, rather than raise issues that were front page headlines in Western Australia in 1967 to which I will refer to in rebuttal-and rather than threaten me, to explain to the people of Australia that it was not as I suggested or even questioned; that it was different, and that the $72,197 loan from his father appeared in his estate and in fact attracted taxes. In fact, that might be the case. I do not know. It is a pity the Minister did not use his time to tell us. We have an interesting note. In 1975 the company sold at cost a seven-eighty- fourths share held in the partnership of the Annean Pastoral Co. I did not have time to look at what that particular company did. The buyer is not disclosed, although the accounts of 30 June 1977 disclose that Mrs Muriel Dawkins, at one time a Miss Lee Steere, acquired the balance of this partnership from the company for the sum of $11,000. I thought the Minister would have asked his accountant to give him a statutory declaration that at that time that was a fair price and that in fact the company got value for that particular sale and it was not another attempt at defrauding the revenue by selling out below cost to a member of the family. I turn to 30 June 1977. All these periods by the way were when the Minister was a director. At that time, despite the fact that the company continued its long history of trading losses-he told us it had $45,000 of trading losses stacked up just in case we nailed him on something-the shareholders' funds had grown to $ 197,779. Again a substantial non-taxable profit of over $60,000 was made from the sale of assets. No tax was paid that year. During 1977 a number of assets were sold to shareholders. We can only question whether some of these values were correct. I mention first Mrs Muriel Dawkins, Armadale, Lot 632. I guess that is somewhere around Lot 631. I do not know how big it was. I think we find later that Lot 631 sold for over half a million dollars. Lot 632 was sold to the lady shareholder for $35,000. Shares in public companies amounted to $22,853. I cannot tell honourable members whether that was a fair value but, nevertheless, it seems that we were breaking it up and everyone was in for their chop. Shares in other companies amounted to $19,303. I refer also to the Kersley mortgage-she got the mortgage. So, in other words, those involved had some cash that they had lent to somebody else. I hope they did not do it at usurious interest rates, but it amounted to $21,283 and the balance of the Annean Pastoral Co. amounted to $11,000. R. L. Dawkins got Lot 553 for $25,000 and Lot 59, I think, for $12,000. In March 1978, Roger Dawkins and John Dawkins-as I mentioned I raised the copy of a declaration of solvency- lodged a declaration of solvency with the Commissioner of Corporate Affairs stating that as of 28 February 1978 the net worth of the company was $1,664,948. As the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr) will say: 'That is a lulu'. A members' voluntary liquidation was sought. Why does one liquidate a company of that nature? It is going along pretty well; it is running sheep and cattle at a loss. Why do we liquidate it? We liquidate it to get our hands on the assets in a fashion that does not require us to pay tax. The Minister has had an opportunity to say: 'Well, I got my share'. If I were able to get all these documents out one by one honourable members would see amounts of $40,000 and $25 ,000. He could have told us: 'When I got mine, my conscience demanded that I go around to the Commissioner of Taxation and give him his 30 per cent, 40 per cent or 60 per cent'. Why not? After all, we have heard this man speak on his principles in this regard. Through the Prime Minister, we actually gave him control of the tax system. I should hate to think what will happen if he gets out of this place. If he were a consultant, I would employ him myself. Mr Milton —Tell us how many people on your side are doing the same sort of thing . Mr TUCKEY —Is that the honourable member's excuse? He is saying that two wrongs make a right. That is a good policy for the Labor Party. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will continue with the subject for which he has leave to address this House. Mr TUCKEY —I thought some honourable members opposite might like to know what the people who support their Ministers do in their spare time. There is an old saying: 'Do not do as I do; do as I say'. Let us write that down. A members' voluntary liquidation was sought by 2 April 1983 and this had been virtually completed. We know how long ago that was; it was not very long ago. I would say that it was about the time that the Minister was thinking of what he was going to tell his Prime Minister. I would like the Prime Minister to tell us on oath how much of this he can recite. This liquidation has been virtually completed, with a total of $1,628,291 having been distributed at that time to the shareholders. An amount of $10,732 was still on hand at the completion of the liquidation, awaiting only finalisation of a damages claim against the Metropolitan Water Supply Sewerage and Drainage Board. They were so greedy that not only did they want to make every effort to minimise their apparant responsibilities to the revenue but also they were prepared to take legal action against a government instrumentality to get some more money. No payments were made by the liquidator-this man who stands up and says that everything is all right-in respect of income tax. I turn now to the Land Titles Office. A search of property documents indicates that the company sold land on 29 May 1978 under a contract of sale. An amount of $510,000 was left outstanding on this transaction to be repaid, free of interest , on 1 July 1981, over three years later. Had interest been charged-I have mentioned different figures in my statement-for that period at the prevailing rates of interest the interest bill would have been $240,000. Of course, had the company earned that $240,000 it could have got the shareholders together and held a celebration to tell them that, for the first time in its history, it had made a profit. The company could have invited the Commissioner of Taxation because he probably would have bought the wine out of his share. The company did not do so. Furthermore we find that, at the end of that three-year period, as the purchaser had not met his commitment to repay the money, suddenly the Coomel company directors recognised that there was such a thing as interest because from then on they wanted 12 1/2 per cent. If the directors-I say 'the directors' because one does not allow one's accountant to do this sort of business and if one did one would have to try to tell this Parliament that; one relies on one's own judgment-were of the opinion, at meetings which no doubt they held, which were recorded and signed in their minute book, that they liked the purchaser so much and his name was Frenesi or some such thing, which was not his personal name but the name of his company, that they wanted to give him some help. I suppose that is fair enough. On the other hand, if they felt that they did not really want to pay tax on interest maybe that was different. Mr Speaker, I will give you the facts as I understand them. If the Minister for Finance at some later stage wants to refute them with documented evidence and he wants to bring into this place or some other place under oath the directors of Frenesi Pty Ltd to explain the situation-I hope that the Government does not try to terrorise him as it thought it could terrorise me today; I hope it will let him say things freely-I think this is what will come out: We will find that they had an approach to sell this property and when they discussed the terms a price of $550,000 was agreed on. In fact the subdivider thought that he could get a subdivison of one hectare lots through the appropriate local authority and the Town Planning Board. As I understand it, the property is some 180 acres and I might even be wrong on that. The subdivider thought that he could get a lot of small blocks out of that property. We all know what happens to the per hectare price of a property in those circumstances. They talked about this, and he made an offer subject to his being able to get this type of deal through. In fact the record shows that, after three applications in the names of various companies and all sorts of things, the subdivider eventually succeeded in getting only nine lots of 12 hectares to 20 hectares each. Quite clearly, the financial return to the subdivider was reduced and he said to the company directors: 'I cannot pay you this money. The deal is off'. They said: 'Hang on a minute. You will have to borrow the money. You will have to pay interest. What say you give us $40,000 now?' Fancy selling over half a million dollars worth of property for $40,000 down. I suggest that that is what the directors did. They said: 'We will charge you no interest on this $510,000 over three years. In that time you will get your subdivision in and you will be able to sell the land and repay us'. When the mortgage document was written up clause 25, which refers to partial discharges, stated: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein contained on each occasion a lot or lots comprised in plan of subdivision-- so they knew what he was about; there was going to be a subdivision- of the mortgage property is sold then, subject to the mortgager reducing the principal sum by an amount being the greater of either $11,000 or one-third of the sale price of such a lot or lots, the mortgager shall be entitled to a partial discharge of this mortgage for those lots in respect to which such a payment is made. Of course there was a clear need for this because the subdivider could not sell those blocks until such time as he could offer free title. Mr Speaker, I suggest to you that we now have certain scenarios. I do not know whether I can get to scenario C, but I can certainly give you scenario A and scenario B. Scenario A is this: The directors were well and truly aware of the type of cost that would come to them by way of taxation were they prepared to sell the land for what it was probably worth. They could then turn around and get interest on the money that they advanced to the purchaser who was a developer. Of course, by getting that all up front and by capitalising the interest they made a deliberate decision to create a set of circumstances which defrauded the revenue. Now it is up to the Commissioner of Taxation, not me, to say whether that is a trick to which he would pay attention and for which he would demand the money. Mr Speaker, I draw to your attention the decision taken by a director who has been steward of the taxation mechanisms of Australia. It is really hard to put this together. Scenario B is that they were arm's-length partners with the developer. In fact their taxation load should be not only the interest on the money that was created from that subdivision but also his profits on the basis of 510 over 40 because they were the big people in the operation. I suggest that that thought passed through their minds; that, in fact, they wanted someone to do the deal and to worry about the tax. All they wanted was to be able to put in their balance sheet a capital sale. The realms of practicability! When this mortgage was drawn up they knew full well what was going on. I do not want to say that the Minister is a person who sits down at night and does not go to sleep for an hour while he dreams up ways and means of defrauding the revenue in what could be legal circumstances. I do not know that, but I suggest he did. In fact, it was he who came into this Parliament and said: 'It's me'. I preferred that all this matter be presented not in his style. He talks of my not having guts. We can go on a little further. That land deal! It is also interesting to note that lots 632 and 553, which were transferred out of the company to shareholders of the company, in the year ended 30 June 1977 for a total of $60,000, comprised in total 200 acres. During the year to 30 June 1978 a smaller parcel of land-part of lot 631, the one I just told honourable members about-comprising 180 acres and adjoining lots 632 and 535 was sold for $550,000. I guess we have some new scenarios now. Who got done? Under those circumstances , if $550,000 was a real price for the original block of land, in fact the State Commissioner of Taxation in Western Australia was done to the tune of $6,000 or $8,000 in stamp duty on a transaction. I thought that maybe, because I raised that figure last night, the Minister would have told us the final destination of that land. I do not know what it is. If the brother shareholder, I think it was, who apparently got that land in the chop up-by its transfer for money he could not be questioned in any way about the tax liabilities relating to that land- held it for a while, maybe he too ran some sheep and cattle on it, told the Commissioner of Taxation that he was disenchanted with the farming business and, in fact, sold it for a massive capital gain. I do not know that. But I think it would have been good of the Minister to tell us what has happened to that land and whether members of his family, who his Prime Minister has said should have their affairs clearly identified, have done that sort of thing. There are other facts. Other points about this matter refer to all sorts of things. I take the point of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) that I could go on and on. I have all the information. I offered it to the Prime Minister and he declined it, so he does not need it now. I wonder what it is fair for Australian people to consider of their leadership. Is the Prime Minister going to be the next person to come into this House and tell us what he is going to do about these things? I believe the Minister has had his opportunity to explain it all away. I cannot help having a suspicious mind. In closing I want to take the opportunity, which I have never had before, of being heard in silence to answer some of the Minister's allegations against me. There is a peculiarity in that there is a wonderful judge in the world of politics. It is called the electorate. We get reminded frequently that at the moment it trusts the Government. People in local government, Federal government and State government get commitments to parties and to leaders. I am sure that the one sitting opposite at the moment would inspire confidence throughout the world. But the facts are that when one has 160 people voting for one in a local government election those people know one pretty well. Mr Campbell —Come on; they are all now stooges. We know that. Mr TUCKEY —The facts are that time and time again, when they opened the ballot boxes in that small town, with all these allegations of the-- Mr Griffiths —You've rigged them. Mr TUCKEY —No, that is a practice that honourable members opposite are experts at. If I have to do that sometime, I will go to people on the other side to be taught how to rig ballot boxes. History is on my side. Let me get back to what I was trying to say, because, as I have said, this is the first opportunity I thought I would get to be heard in silence. The facts are that the people of that town voted time and time again to re-elect me. They did that regardless of all the scandals that the Australian Labor Party in that town brought against me . That is an interesting point of view. It is interesting also that when one reads the minutes of a recent ratepayers meeting in that town one sees that the same people are complaining about the present administration. The honourable member representing that area might say that that is not so, but he is silent. The facts of life are-- Mr Campbell —That is not so. Mr TUCKEY —Then the honourable member is a fool. The facts are that I did survive the ballot box until such time as I retired there. All sorts of horrible situations were mentioned by the Minister. Cripes, he suggested once that I had defrauded the Council of the Shire of Carnarvon of $180,000, and then he said no , he meant $178. We find that that amount of money relates to an air fare that was given- Mr Campbell —Tell us about those shonkey contracts you used to run, Tuckey. Mr TUCKEY —Yes, I can tell you about those too. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I invite the honourable member not to respond to interjections. We are waiting to have a grievance debate. Mr TUCKEY —Thank you, Mr Speaker, but I am responding to half of what the Minister said. Most unfortunately, after the Opposition granted the Minister for Finance time to explain away these very general allegations, what did he in fact do? He spent half his time trying to tell the Parliament that I was a crook when I was in Carnarvon. I am a back bencher of the Opposition. I am sure the Australian public really expected that he would have reassured-I think that is the right word-the Australian public that it could have trust and faith in him. He spent half the time, in his typical fashion, trying to tell the Australian public that I was a crook because, firstly, I had been convicted and fined $40 for attacking an Aboriginal. Yet, of course, he declined to tell the House that some of the evidence given in that case was about that same Aboriginal chasing Aboriginal women from my hotel and knocking them to the ground time and time again. Mr Campbell —The magistrate thought you were a liar. Mr TUCKEY —Yes, and what did Chief Justice Wolff say? All that is said only in reponse to a matter which pales into insignificance when we get inside the mind of the Minister for Finance and we find that it is split, not down the middle, but about seven-eighths and one-eighth-seven-eighths for John Dawkins and one- eighth for the people of Australia. That is the way he ran his private affairs. I can tell honourable members that if there was a way by which he could have got a contract signed with the Labor Party so that Coomel could have been the honourable member for Fremantle-it is unfortunate that the people of Fremantle would have elected Coomel as long as it was No. 1 on the Labor ticket-Coomel could have been paid his salary and he would not have paid tax on that either. He would have written it off against his trading stock losses. I did not say this last night. I am saying it tonight at the invitation of the Minister-- Mr Campbell —You are a liar. Mr TUCKEY —No, I have only read to you from documents that you could have got yourself if-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Kalgoorlie will cease interjecting. The honourable member for O'Connor will cease responding to those interjections and finish his statement. Mr TUCKEY —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I say in closing that there is a responsibility on everybody in this House to ensure that Australia has good government. It is interesting to know that certain people on the other side would rather interrupt me and stop me talking than listen to what I have to tell them. They could have used their own ingenuity once that document had been laid down. I presume it was for all members of the Parliament and not only for the public. They might have picked it up themselves and said: 'Ah, Coomel Pty Ltd is in liquidation'. They could have asked themselves why it was the only company mentioned that is in liquidation and said: 'I think I might go and find out what my Minister is up to because he does not represent the people whom I represent and I have a responsibility to them'. I did that. I raised the issues. I tried to do it in a way that was not practised by the previous Opposition. In fact, to suggest that that is a sign that I have no courage is a suggestion not really supported by the facts over a period. The same Minister may care to remember the horrible time he gave me prior to my arrival in this place. When I tried to explain to the Parliament some of the circumstances of that, I was cat-called, ridiculed, quorumed and the lot. If that is his style, as I have said, it is strange that he has had a change of policy. Some things need to be answered as a result of my statements the other night, statements which have not been refuted by the Minister tonight. Not one item was refuted. All he said was: 'It is untrue. It is inaccurate. There is a little bit of truth in it. My father was an honest and respected man. Tuckey's a ratbag because he was in the local authority in Carnarvon where he kept getting re-elected but he was a crook because the newspapers every now and then ran articles about his activities. He won a contract. He was criticised for that. Five people tendered for it. He won it by 20c a metre.' If I were a crook I would have been mad. I would have won it by 1c a metre. Let us get a few of the facts straight. I regretted it sincerely. Perhaps I should have been a crook. That is beside the point. The Minister has taken a position in this place. He is demanding the rights of the revenue. He did it time and again. I suggest to the Parliament that he came from a very low ministerial position. I know they were anxious to get him out of education, but, on the other hand, they would not have kicked him so far upstairs if the newspapers had not picked him up and said: 'Here is the Messiah, here is the man for the brave new world of the Labor Government who will attack all forms of tax evasion avoidance and minimisation.' The Minister must come into the Parliament again and explain to us through his Prime Minister, why he was able to be steward, as he is steward, of so many things for the people of Australia, and explain where I am wrong with my nasty suspicious mind. Perhaps he can produce the figures. I do not want him to tell us that it was 'legal'. I think he has to address himself to the propositions I have put before him. If he will do that through his Prime Minister-after all, he is his Prime Minister's responsibility-I will be quite happy to stand in this place again and say that my suppositions are wrong. I will not resile from that position. The Minister might agree that I have not had to throw newspaper articles at him as substantiation of all the allegations I make. All I bring to the Parliament is a document with a red stamp on it. It states: 'Office of Titles'. It is a photocopy of a document that was produced. I believe that it is legal tender in this place. It is up to the Minister to do better than he did. I call on the Prime Minister now to put action in place of rhetoric, to demonstrate to the Australian people that his Ministry is beyond reproach and that none of these things happened. He should not say that they were all right but that they did not happen. If he says that the Minister for Finance did not know we will have to accept that he did not know, but on those grounds alone the Australian public would be entitled to be served by people in places of high office who do know. That is another question. It is probably scenario Z. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was challenged to do this and I have done it. I do it with some regret because I see myself as a professional in this place. I hoped the matter could have been dealt with in the way I suggested yesterday. The Government well and truly knew that it had that opportunity. I think the Government thought that it could bluff its way out of it by terrifying me with prosecutions. If the Minister wants to get them going tomorrow I am sure that the people of Australia will know why he is doing so. He and his colleagues have tried it once before. They did a disgraceful thing to me in Carnarvon. It was financed by members of the Australian Labor Party who put up $1,500 in the first place. They thought all they needed to do was to get me convicted of assault under the Crimes Act. They thought that would be sufficient to get me to resign from the Shire of Carnarvon. Then they discovered that I had to be put in gaol, although I was fined $40 they took the matter to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the penalty was insufficient. It is pretty good when all you need to do to get a person out of office is to put him in gaol. When people read the evidence-any time anyone wants to do so he can; it is available-they will find that none of the circumstances as described by the- Mr Campbell —The magistrate thought you were a liar. Mr TUCKEY —And the Chief Justice did not. Any time someone wants to throw that at me again he is welcome. Many people in Carnarvon would tell the story as it was. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your indulgence. I thank the Deputy Prime Minister, who is not here, for bringing on the matter for debate. I am sure that he at least has done something in the interests of the Australian public. I wonder what this destroyer of characters-I learnt that phrase from the Prime Minister-this destroyer of reputations can say tomorrow to the Australian public . Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —by leave-Mr Speaker, you will recall that the Government provided an opportunity for the honourable member for O' Connor (Mr Tuckey) to move a substantive motion. It is something he would not do . I made a brief statement and he made a very long one in reply. I listened attentively to what he had to say. Most of it was repetition of what he had to say last evening. I listened very intently to hear any charges of impropriety or illegality on my part or on the part of anyone in my family. I have yet to hear any charges of impropriety or illegality, let alone any substantiation of any of those charges. None of the circumstances surrounding the company of which I was briefly a director-- Mr Tuckey —Ten years. Mr DAWKINS —I was briefly a director; I have been a shareholder for longer. None of the circumstances surrounding the company have been covered up. They were all disclosed. The circumstances surrounding the liquidation were all provided to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in great detail and, as I said before, there are no outstanding matters with the Commissioner of Taxation or any of the State taxing authorities. We have heard a litany of lies from the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr Tuckey —Why do you not explain them? Mr DAWKINS —There is nothing to explain. It was a very interesting and colourful manufacture of circumstances. As I have indicated before, none of it has been withheld from the Prime Minister. I simply make this final point: The honourable member for O'Connor spent a long time talking about the sale of a parcel of land and the circumstances surrounding that. That occurred long after I ceased to be a director of the company. If the honourable member understands the processes of liquidation of companies he will know that the circumstances surrounding the sale of that land were entirely-- Mr Tuckey —Do you deny that you negotiated the sale? Mr DAWKINS —The negotiating and the finalising of that contract were done entirely by the liquidator. The liquidator has, as I have indicated, provided a report of that matter which is with the Prime Minister as well. When the honourable member for O'Connor can actually make some charges of illegality or impropriety against me or against anyone associated with the company, then and only then will I take any of his charges seriously. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —Mr Speaker, I crave your indulgence to add to an answer I gave during Question Time today concerning consultation with women. In answer to a question from the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) I said that women members of Caucus will constitute a group which will have the responsibility for the process of consultation with women and women's organisations. I should have indicated that this is an interim step and that the Government has as yet made no firm decisions on the manner in which the Government will consult with women. The Government is presently giving consideration to new consultative arrangements following the phasing out of the National Women's Advisory Council. Representatives of some 30 organisations have been invited to meet Senator Ryan in Canberra on 9 November to discuss how this might best be done. The Government will make decisions on the basis of the outcome of these discussions. Excise on Grape Spirit-Queensland Government-Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Act-Radioactive Sand-Queensland Labor Party-Steel Industry: Industrial Relations Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(9.00) —When the author Donald Horne wrote his book the Lucky Country he created the impression of a country in which one was indeed fortunate to live. Tonight I wish to draw the attention of the House to some groups that are not quite that fortunate. These groups are not just the unemployed and not just the single parents; they include the small grape growers of the region I represent-the Riverland-and the Riverina electorate and the Mallee electorate. Lest I should be accused, in the atmosphere that pervaded the House yesterday, of not declaring my interests, I say that before I entered this House I too was one of those small grape growers. I cannot claim, having entered this House, to be as identified with them as I once was, but I can claim to understand some of their dilemmas. I can understand the frustration they face in not being able to reconstruct their orchards because they are failing to earn even the minimum wage, because they still have unproductive, expensive and recently replanted areas. I can claim to understand some of the difficulties they face in this climate. I have risen in support of my colleague in the other place, Senator Messner, who raised this matter again last night and because the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke ) has brought me to my feet, having been reported as addressing the Swan River Valley grape growers outside Perth and telling them that the decision to review the Governments excise on fortified wine was 'not yet closed off'; that it was subject to further review. What a sorry, tarnished record the Government has when it comes to an impost on fortified wine. Prior to the election it said to the wine grape growers: 'Hang about a minute; we will scratch your backs'. Following the Budget it said: 'If you do not mind, in the interests of $13m we will break your arms'. Following a squeal from the growers it said: 'Perhaps we will modify that a little and break your wrists instead'. We have gone from a promise of no impost at all-something we have never had before in this House-to a severe tax load on the individual grape growing regions, to the promise of a reduction that still recognised that the load was too great to bear. Grievance Debate Grievance Debate Grievance Debate Grievance Debate Grievance Debate Grievance Debate Grievance Debate Grievance Debate Grievance Debate Grievance Debate Grievance Debate Grievance Debate Grievance Debate Grievance Debate Grievance Debate Grievance Debate How cynical can one be when one observes just what the Government has been prepared to do to the industry I represent? How cynical am I expected to be when one considers that the Government said that the $2.61 a litre that it would charge the industry would raise $13m and then later said that it would reduce it to $1.50 but would still raise $13m? Does this mean that, in effect, the Government knew that its impost would reduce sales by 50 per cent but still went ahead with it, or does it mean that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) assumed that the impost on fortified wine would apply only to existing stocks so that in fact no grape spirit would be prepared from this vintage? If that is the case, if the Treasurer brought in this impost presuming that nothing would be crushed, we can be sure that he effectively said: 'Nothing will be crushed and as a result no tax will be available to the Government, and there will be grapes left on the vines'. In fact, some tax would have been paid to the Government in that at least $3m would have been raised from the amount of grape spirit used for vermouth and other spirits. The dilemma is that the producers in my area, even with the impost reduced to $ 1.50, face 70,000 tonnes of grapes that the industry has told them will not be taken up. Let us say that those grapes are worth $170 a tonne. That is a conservative enough estimate. That would mean that the Government will take $12m not from the wine industry but from the producers in the Riverland, the Riverina and the Sunraysia districts. It is a quite unjustified regional impost. The Government has said: 'We will reduce it.' It has reduced it but it has not changed it. It has still to be paid at the point of blending. It is just like saying to a pay as you earn taxpayer: 'The tax you will pay in four or five years we will take now, thank you very much, and you will still get your pay in four or five years' time'. Honourable members opposite will say: 'The member for Wakefield squeals regardless of what action the Government takes'. I remind the Government that it is not only the member for Wakefield who is unhappy about this modified, but still impossible, impost; it is also the Premier of South Australia and the Minister of Agriculture in South Australia, Ministers of the same political persuasion as honourable members opposite. Let me remind the Government that this impost effectively taxes the most flexible part of the wine grape industry. Do honourable members opposite know how damaging it is to continue to level this impost on this part of the wine grape industry? The grape industry takes up the surplus in times of plenty. In times of shortfall no grape spirit need be produced because the previous year's stocks can be held over. This is the most flexible, the most accommodating area of the industry. This is the industry that the Government has chosen still to hit with an impost. This is the industry that can adjust to seasonal variations, but this is the industry that the Government has chosen to levy. Is the Government so obsessed with rigidity in the industry that it must tax the grape spirit industry as the Whitlam Government chose to tax the brandy industry? What was the result of that impost? There is now scarcely a brandy industry in Australia and, thanks to that impost, we have since the days of that Government faced regular surpluses in the entire wine grape industry. In talking about what happened to the brandy industry and the effect of imported brandies on the grape industry in Australia, let us imagine what will happen if we leave this impost of $1.50 per litre of alcohol where it is. Imported wines will be that much more attractive to the Australian market. Imported wines are a real threat because they come from the subsidised wine makers-members of the European Economic Community. The EEC producers are none too choosy about where they make their sales. Mr Young —What about quality? Mr ANDREW —Precisely. The former Special Minister of State poses the question of quality. That is just a dilemma. With this impost we have guaranteed that there will not be a fortified wine industry in Australia. The result will be that the Australian fortified wine industry, which has earned itself a reputation as one of the most innovative and effective fortified wine industries in the world, will go out of the window in favour of inferior, toenail crushed EEC imported wines. I am not the first member to raise the dilemma of the fortified wine impost in this House. I hope I will be the last but I fear I will not be. I have support from the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Hicks) and the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher), both of whom have pointed to the repercussions of this impost staying in place. The repercussions will be that small grape growers, people scarcely able to stand on their own two feet, will not be the only ones affected. Their neighbours in the dried fruit industry will also be affected. What was a fortified wine industry in dual purpose grapes will be pushed off into the dried fruit industry, which is already in a perilous condition. The dilemma is that this is a regional impost. It affects directly the electorates to which I have referred. It is an impost on rural electorates which are still recovering from the fearful consequences of a drought. The Government has chosen to charge an impost on a minority group. The minority group has been singled out by big brother for bullying. I stand in support of the little people of my electorate just as the honourable member for Mallee and the honourable member for Riverina stood in support of the little people in their electorates. We support them in their endeavours to run their own primary production businesses. I ask that we cease the token gesture that reduced an excise from $2.61 to $1.59 and take a step of real responsibility and abolish this excise altogether before it removes a viable and essential industry from the electorates that I have outlined. Mr WELLS(Petrie)(9.10) —Mr Deputy Speaker, since becoming a member of parliament, I have frequently taken opportunities to criticise the Queensland Government on a wide range of issues. I would like to inform the House of my motive for doing so. The motive is philosophical. The vehemence with which I oppose the Government of Johannes Bjelke-Petersen is the vehemence of one whose overriding and basic commitment is to democracy and who opposes a government which is operating on totalitarian assumptions. The Government of Johannes Bjelke-Petersen works on a variety of propositions which no democrat could accept. I will list just four of them. First, the Premier believes that it is appropriate for the State to intervene without limit in the private lives of its citizens. For example, he believes that it is appropriate for him to circumscribe courses taught in schools. Some years ago two teaching materials, one called 'Man, A Course of Study' and the other called 'Social Education Materials Project', were banned by the Queensland Government. The Premier said that any teachers caught teaching from these materials would be sacked, notwithstanding public meetings at which teachers and parents insisted upon their right to have these teaching aids used for the benefit of their children. One of those teaching aids was developed by the Curriculum Development Centre here in Canberra. The Premier did not think it appropriate for parents to choose what their own children were to learn. Education is the development of independent and rational thought. Indoctrination is the instilling of a body of information or beliefs. Educators are concerned to enhance the capacities of human minds. Indoctrinators are concerned to control the content of human minds. Education is a weapon of democracy. Indoctrination is a weapon of totalitarianism. Bjelke-Petersen used that totalitarian weapon. A further indication that the Bjelke-Petersen Government does not believe that there is in principle any limit to the right of the state to interfere in the private lives of its citizens is its denial, from which in practice it has since resiled, of the right of freedom of procession. The freedom to march in the streets is a freedom which has been known at common law for hundreds of years and at statute law in various jurisdictions deriving from Britain for almost equally as long. It is a right which has been insisted upon by a wide variety of people including members of both sides of this Parliament and ministers of religion. For this insistence the Premier of Queensland has described archbishops in Brisbane as communists, and he has used the power of the state to suppress the inherited rights of Australian citizens. Second, Mr Bjelke-Petersen is prepared to set aside the results of an election of the Australian people. In 1975, Senator Bert Milliner, that great Australian who resided in what is now my electorate, died. As all honourable members know, there was a long standing convention that, when a senator died or retired, he was replaced by a member of the party of which he had been a member. The reason for this convention is obvious. The balance established in the Senate was established by the Australian people. To replace a senator with a person of any other party would be to undo that balance. When Mr Bjelke-Petersen refused to follow that long standing convention and instead appointed to the Senate a man who was offered the position on the condition that he would vote to bring down the Whitlam Government, Mr Bjelke-Petersen substituted his own will for the wishes of the people of Queensland-wishes expressed at a general election. Understandably, the democratic majority of the Liberal Party in Queensland opposed Mr Bjelke-Peterson on this issue, as did every member of the Liberal Party who was a member of the State Cabinet. It would be impossible to think of a more undemocratic act than the act of subverting the expressed wishes of a democratic people. The third anti-democratic and totalitarian assumption that I advert to is Bjelke-Petersen's belief that it is appropriate for the power of the state to be used to blackmail its own citizens. In 1977 Mr Bjelke-Petersen went to Mt Isa and he said to the good people there: You have not had to pay a cent as interest or redumption for your dam and that situation will continue as long as Mr Bertoni is in. A report asked: Are you saying that if the people of Mt Isa do not vote for the National Party, then they will not get any further funding for the dam? Mr Bjelke-Petersen replied: You can read it that way if you want to. All parties use electoral bribery, offering incentives and rewards to electors to vote in the right way. Electoral blackmail, however, consists in offering punishment to electors who do not vote the right way. The power to punish its own citizens for failure to vote in accordance with the wishes of the government of the day is a power which no democrat would use, is one which has never been used by any government in this place, and is one with which only a totalitarian would feel comfortable. Shortage of the time alone prevents me from multiplying instances of this sort of behaviour by the Bjelke-Petersen Government. The fourth totalitarian proposition to which the Bjelke-Petersen Government manifestly subscribes is that it is appropriate for the Premier to give detailed instructions to the police in the performance of their own duties. Adolf Hitler thought it was appropriate for him to give detailed instructions to the Gestapo and the SS, but in democratic communities we believe that the police, like the courts, are there to enforce justice and the law, not to act at the bidding of the person who happens to head the government. Yet Mr Bjelke-Petersen said: We have a very good police force and I am glad we have got them. I don't have to ring him up-- that is, the Commissioner of Police- and tell him to do this or that. All of this demonstrates that Mr Bjelke-Petersen is acting on a set of anti- democratic and totalitarian assumptions. But there is worse to come. I want now to demonstrate that Mr Bjelke-Petersen is not just working on a totalitarian ideology but that he is in fact a caricature totalitarian. I do not wish to make much of the electoral gerrymander in Queensland. I would, however, like to draw attention to what Mr Bjelke-Petersen says about the basis of his mandate to govern. In Westminster democracies, we believe that the Prime Minister and Cabinet derive their right to operate as the executive arm of government from the fact that they command a majority on the floor of the parliament. We believe that the legitimacy of the parliament derives from the fact that it was chosen by the majority of the people. The voters elect the parliament and the parliament elects the Cabinet. The Cabinet therefore does not authorise or legitimise the parliament. The parliament authorises and legitimises the Cabinet, particularly with regard to expenditure of public funds. In this area it is the parliament and not the Cabinet which has the right of determination. Yet in 1978 there arose a dispute between Mr Bjelke-Petersen and the parliament which he had himself so carefully gerrymandered. On that occasion, the Speaker of the House, a member of the National Party-a member of his own party-made a statement with which no member of this House would disagree. The Speaker of the Queensland Parliament, a National Party member, said: The expenditure of funds within the headings and sub-headings of the appropriation are not and cannot be subject to the dictates of Cabinet. Neither Cabinet nor any individual Minister, no matter how highly placed, can claim authority in this matter. Such a claim would amount to a takeover of Parliament by the Executive. The Premier's attitude completely fails to acknowledge the fundamental principle of the supremacy of parliament. So said the National Party Speaker of the Queensland Parliament. Mr Bjelke- Petersen, however, thought differently. He said: There is no argument that Cabinet has the right to lay down procedures for the spending of public money. Clear guidelines . . . were laid down by Cabinet in a number of letters to successive speakers. Mr Bjelke-Petersen then clearly thinks that his authority transcends the Parliament to which we who believe in the Westminster system would have thought him responsible. Where then does Mr Bjelke-Petersen think that he derives his authority? I would like now to read, by way of explanation, two quotations, one from Adolf Hitler in 1937 and one from Johannes Bjelke-Petersen in 1978. In 1937 , Adolf Hitler said: Over and above parties' confessions and classes, we have set the German people, and it is only as a people, not as a group of individuals or parties, that it can survive. Above all, we have worked out in Germany a single will . . . He who represents this will should be respected in his will. That was Hitler. In 1978, Johannes Bjelke-Petersen said: Only one body is supreme in Queensland-the people. Parliament, government and executive are merely instruments of the people and accountable to them and I am running the parliament, not the Speaker. In other words, both Hitler and Bjelke-Petersen stated that they derived their authority not from the elected representatives of the people, of which elected representatives each was merely one, but rather that they have a mandate, personally, from the people, which mandate does not derive from the votes of the people at the previous election. This principle-that is, that the votes of the people do not really count but that what counts is the ability of the leader to intuit and articulate the mystical will of the people, even when that alleged will contradicts the wishes of the people as expressed at the last election-was known in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s as 'the Fuehrer principle'. Mr Bjelke- Petersen recently enunciated this principle at a National Party Conference when he said: We have got to get away from this talk about majority rule. It just does not add up. Mr Spender —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Surely this kind of attack of likening the Premier of Queensland to Adolf Hitler transgresses what is permissible in debate without a substantive motion. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! I rule that there is no point of order. Mr WELLS —The ideology on which the Bjelke-Petersen Government is operating in Queensland is an ideology which thousands of Ausralians have fought to prevent from taking over this country. It is an ideology which my father spent five years risking his life to prevent from taking over this country. Thousands of Australians have lost their lives in an endeavour to keep totalitarian ideas out of this nation. Now is not the time to end the fight against this totalitarianism, and it would be a mistake to think that just because the rot is homegrown it is any less real. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(9.20) —The rot certainly is home grown. We have just heard from it. It will not be my intention to talk about the Queensland Government, but it is perfectly false and outrageous for an honourable member to say in this House that any government in this country, in any State, at any time and of any political persuasion is, as he would put it, fascist. That is an abuse of his position and is no more than part of his persistent attack on a person whom politically he does not like. All of us in this House have differences of opinion about people, but there is a level of abuse to which people should not descend, and the honourable member has most certainly transgressed it. I turn to something else; that is, the unintended consequence of the Taxation ( Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Act 1982. This Act was passed by the previous Government, and its operation was intended to be triggered by fraud. It was designed to recoup unpaid company tax from those who knowingly or unknowingly had benefited from an avoidance or evasion transaction involving fraud, regardless of whether or not they had participated in or even knew of the fraudulent activities. The facts which I now recount I have not been able to verify, but I have spoken to the adviser to the person concerned and I understand the facts which I now set out to be correct. The shareholder in question is an electrician. He is a shareholder in Alpex Commodity Traders Ltd, a small company which was listed on the Sydney Stock Exchange. That company is now in liquidation. The shareholder, an electrician, not a sophisticated bottom of the harbour dealer, purchased shares in this company on that exchange, and he did so after reading a broker's recommendation. He has received one dividend only, in 1979. That dividend was included in his tax return, and he paid tax on it. Subsequent to that dividend, he purchased further shares, approximately 40 per cent of his total holding, at a price of 43c per share. That brought him to the position of being one of the largest shareholders of some 380 shareholders in this small company. I understand that his total investment was around $10,000. He has received no dividend on these further shares, and they are, of course, all worthless. Unknown to the shareholder, who neither knew nor had spoken to the directors of Alpex or any of its subsidiaries, in the 1980 financial year Alpex arranged for the sale, by a subsidiary of another subsidiary of Alpex, of shares in that company-the company whose shares were sold was called T. C. Moritz Pty Ltd-and a capital profit of $427,666 was obtained. No benefit was received or is receivable by the shareholder on that transaction. On return from his annual holidays on 12 September 1983, he found in his post box a letter from the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation, Sydney, together with three notices of assessment on T . C. Moritz Pty Ltd. This was the first indication that he had that he was one of those people described as bottom of the harbour crooks, because the Deputy Commissioner's letter advised him that he was up for a contingent liability. I will refer to some of the paragraphs of that letter. The Deputy Commissioner said in paragraph 3 of his letter: Under the provisions of the above Act- that is, the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Act- Alpex Commodity Traders Pty Ltd would, had it not been divested of assets, have been liable for the payment of recoupment tax . . . The amount subject to recoupment tax being calculated on the basis of the proportion of the total consideration received for the sale of the shares. That is in accordance with the law. He went on: . . . in those circumstances where a vendor shareholder that is a company or trust is unable to pay its recoupment tax liability, the legislation allows for that recoupment tax liability to be passed on to those persons or entities who receive or were entitled to receive- not who did receive- any capital distribution from that company or trust. So he learned that he was in that category of persons. He was told that this was a preliminary step towards raising a recoupment tax assessment. He was advised of his objection rights and, in respect of payment of outstanding company tax, he was told: Any recoupment tax assessments subsequently raised- that is, against the shareholder- will, however, be based only on the unpaid ordinary company and undistributed profit tax amounting to $243,877.86 together with any additional tax that will be imposed . . . I am leaving out certain words which are not relevant. He went on: The fact that an objection has been lodged- as apparently is the case- against the company assessment means that an arrangement cannot be entered into to pay the amount of $243,877.86 by instalments free of additional tax for late payment. However, it is possible to arrange to pay, within 30 days of the service of this copy of the assessment notice, the amount of $243,877.86 and thus eliminate the accrual of additional tax for late payment. Is it not a little rich for a shareholder in a public company to be told that if it is all arranged-that is, the entire liability of $243,000-then he need not worry, in effect? He is in this position: He is an electrician. He is not a rich man, as I understand matters, and he has been advised thus far at no cost to him . He cannot afford to fight. He may be liable for recoupment tax, notwithstanding that he has received nothing and there was no wrongdoing. Despite his ignorance of the affairs of the company whose shares were sold and of commercial and tax matters, he has been selected as one of he five persons appropriate to represent some 280 or so Alpex shareholders because he was one of the largest shareholders in this rather small listed company. I am told that his solicitors have been advised that one of the other five has left the country with no intention of returning. What are some of the crowning ironies of this situation? The shareholder visited the Australian Taxation Office and he was informed by officers of that Office that it could be some years before a recoupment assessment could be issued against him, if at all, as there was an unfinalised objection lodged on the company's behalf. If or when the assessment is issued he will be liable for somewhere between $2,100 and $2,200 plus 20 per cent of that amount from about 15 September 1983, but he may prevent this penalty running by arranging payment under section 20 of the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Act of-listen to it-$243,877 on behalf of the company whose shares were sold or by arranging payment of his share of the contingent possible eventual vendor's recoupment tax , for which, of course, he may never be assessed. Only yesterday, I understand, he learned that his liability might be twice that which he imagined or thought it could be because apparently another subsidiary of the public listed company in which he owned shares was sold. As a consequence , as I say, he could be up for twice the amount that he thought or was advised he could be up for, namely, $2,100 or $2,200 plus 20 per cent penalty tax from 15 September 1983. I would not think there is any member of this House who, on the basis of those facts, which I understand to be correct, would not agree that that is a perfectly unjust and unintended operation of the Act. I am sure that the previous Treasurer would have been anxious to eliminate that kind of effect. I hope that the present Treasurer (Mr Keating) will give his attention to it, because he and this Government are in the position to eliminate that kind of injustice from a statute. It is a sad case and it shows the great danger of passing the more far-reaching legislation presently before the Senate. Of course , when one gets into legislation of this kind, one sometimes simply does not understand how far the net will spread and whom it will affect. On the basis of those facts, it is perfectly unjust that this man, an ordinary Australian citizen, should be caught up in the toils of recoupment tax. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(9.30) —In October 1980 I was elected to this House as a people's representative. Tonight I saw a procedural low point in this chamber. The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) abused the spirit and forms of this House when he embarked for 65 minutes on a prolonged and unsubstantiated personal attack on another member of this House. Since I came into the House I have come to know that the majority of members on both sides of the House are hardworking, and it distresses me that they are publicised as being people who do not work, who are corrupt and who are no good. The majority are good people. But when I heard the honourable member for O'Connor abuse the forms of this place as he did, and at a time when a grievance debate was scheduled-this is the one time when back benchers are able to bring forward matters of concern from their own areas, and he deliberately went on and on to use up that time-I was ashamed of what was happening in this House. I wish to speak tonight about another matter. Great and justifiable public concern is expressed about the safety issues surrounding the mining of uranium and the use of nuclear devices and missiles in the Pacific Ocean. But in south- east Queensland an issue which could have disastrous consequences in the long term remains virtually unnoticed and until this week certainly unresolved. It has been given some attention this week in Brisbane. The Queensland Government is still evading its responsibilities on the issue of radioactively contaminated sand. In October 1982, 12 months ago, State Cabinet approved the formation of a special committee to speed investigations into the dumping of radioactive sand in south-east Queensland. However, nothing appears to have been done since the setting-up of that special committee-which comprises members of the State Health , Local Government, and Mines departments-which was formed twelve months ago to avoid time consuming red tape, as the then Minister for Health, Mr Austin said. He said that it would comprise members of the different departments. In January 1982, following reports of the contaminated sand being dumped at Byron Bay, Mr Austin said that, before deciding whether to investigate former sand mining areas in Queensland, he would study the claims. That was 21 months ago. Queensland people are still in the dark. The sand is still there somewhere. No one is clear as to just where it all is. Some was in Brisbane homes and some has been found in state school playgrounds. Sales of sand mining tailings to the public began in south-east Queensland in the early 1960s, and since that time the Queensland Government has supposedly been monitoring for radioactivity in sand. Yet we find that a grossly negligent act has been occurring for more than 25 years and that over 200,000 tonnes of potentially radioactive sand has been distributed to householders and builders in this area. So far investigations by the Queensland Government have only produced information on the whereabouts of about 1 per cent of this 200,000 tonnes of sand. Householders are just not coming forward. Either the properties have been sold and transferred and the new owners are not aware that their land contains the suspect sand, or the owners are well aware of the problem but are keeping the presence secret as they are also concerning about the cost of its removal and replacement. They could also fear that any disclosure of the presence of the sand could bring down the market value of their property. The State Government surely has a responsibility to ensure that the sand is removed from all known sources. It also has a responsibility to ensure that people do not have to pay exhorbitant amounts for its removal and replacement. At present the only assistance offered by the State Government is a low interest loan to cover the removal expenses-if the sand is discovered. This leaves the householder to pay off the loan and also pay the cost of landscaping or replacement. A legal precedent was set recently when the Small Claims Tribunal ordered a firm which has supplied radioactive sand to a Brisbane householder to remove it from the property. However, the amount involved was only $130 for the removal and $78 for the sand, which had never been used. Yet final responsibility must surely rest with the State Government, particularly for cases involving amounts over $2,000, which are outside the limits of that Tribunal. When this matter was raised in the Queensland Parliament, verbal assurances were provided. But, as I said before, these have not yet been backed up by any firm action, even though tests carried out by government officers show in some cases a radioactivity reading 10 times higher than the accepted safety level recommended by the National Health and Medical Research Council. What is that Government doing? The State Opposition has continued to voice its concern that this contaminated sand has been sold throughout the community without any danger being detected by the Mines Department inspectors. Of course, the Government has been remiss. It surely has an obligation to ensure, firstly, that the sand is removed as soon as possible and, secondly, that people do not have to pay substantial or excessive costs for its removal and replacement. I am told that the prices charged for the removal of contaminated sand are incredibly high. I have been given examples of quotes of up to $18,000 to strip a 32-perch allotment of this 'hot' sand. I have also been assured by other sources that an allotment can be filled to a depth of four to five inches for less than $1,000. So it appears that some unscrupulous people are climbing on the bandwagon when quoting for the removal, as I cannot see how it would possibly cost that much to strip the sand. Another example of the State Government's tardiness is at the Pinkenba State School in my electorate. The principal was advised in October 1982 that the school gounds contained contaminated sand. It was not until May this year that work was carried out at a cost of $60,000. But the Government did not move until public agitation by me and the energetic State member for Nudgee and next Minister for Mines and Energy, Mr Ken Vaughan. The children continued to use the playground all the time until the work was done. Mr Milton —Shame! Mrs DARLING —I find this situation to be shameful, as the honourable member for La Trobe has pointed out, and it is ludicrous. People are being faced with bills of up to $18,000 to clear tonnes of fill which they bought in good faith and which they now find is a health hazard. It is obvious why Queenslanders who suspect they might have this sand are not coming forward. If they report the problem the Government has stated very clearly that, unless they move the sand voluntarily, government officials will force them to remove it, but still at their own expense. Who can afford that sort of money? There is also concern in the community about how the State Mines Department intends to dispose of the sand once it has been removed. On the one hand, the Department gives an assurance that it will now carefully monitor the production of radioactive sand by the dry mills. At the same time, the Department points out that the removal of sand from homes and sites-that is the 200,000 tonnes of bad sand-is a matter for recommendation by the Minister for Health in Cabinet. While it is to be stockpiled at the Consolidated Rutile Ltd depot at Meeandah, where it will be stored until the Government decides how to dispose of it, the sand supposedly comes under the responsibility of the Minister for Health. This is not good enough. It is ad hoc. There do not appear to be any safety regulations to cover the dumping. No one accepts full responsibility. In 1981 Mr Austin, the then Minister for Health, assured us that everything was okay in regard to radioactivity and that there was nothing to worry about. But other than the formation of a special committee 12 months ago to speed investigations, there has been no further action by the State Government. People are still in danger of contamination through this inactivity and people are still having to bear the costs for the sand's removal. In the words of Bill Ord of the Courier-Mail, 'the Government believes it has no more responsibility in the matter than if the householders had bought a dud product of any other kind'. Investigations show that the problem is not limited only to Queensland. It was found in New South Wales, but the New South Wales Government acted. Now, finally, some action has been taken in Queensland, but not through the Government. The Government must be made to admit some responsibility and in the public interest it must be brought to do it without delay. Surely the longer the delay the more cause there is for anxiety. Experts point out that mineral tailings do not present a health risk in the short term but prolonged exposure could be cause for anxiety. As the former Minister for Health said 12 months ago, we have a real problem in homes where a family of young children may live for many years exposed to high levels of radioactivity. If that was the case they are still being exposed to high levels of radioactivity. In October 1983 the matter still is not resolved. It is a disgrace to the Queensland Government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KATTER(Kennedy)(9.41) —I am fully aware of the fact that this is a grievance debate. I say, very emphatically, that I have a profound grievance. If my grievance appears to have a pre-election content. In view of the forthcoming Queensland election, I say: 'Too damn right it has'. I believe that certain policies which are being promulgated by the Australian Labor Party in Queensland have a very dangerous content, at least for the principles that I hold high in this country. I cannot bring myself to be venomous or bitter in relation to my Labor colleagues in Queensland. In fact, I have been rather close to successive Premiers. Strangely, those Premiers have left the Labor Party and gone on to better things. I refer also to a person who was possibly one of the finest lord mayors that Queensland ever produced, Clem Jones; so there is nothing venomous or bitter in what I have to say. I will not discuss anything involving the private lives or the characters of the people involved but I will certainly speak about the policies which they are promulgating. I will deal first of all with drug distribution and the general result of taking drugs, whether soft or hard, in Queensland or in any other part of Australia. Queenslanders are sensible people who are not easily deceived by political dishonesty, by political humbug or by political charade. The present leader of the Labor Party in Queensland is guilty of a conspiracy of those three characteristics. He believes that he has made substantial progress and is the great white hope for the most fragmented Labor Party in Australia, at least at a State level. I have enough faith in the good, solid, common sense of my fellow Queenslanders to believe that they have in no way accepted his deceptions. In fairness to Mr Wright there is a matter about which he has been quite outspoken and about which he has never in any way attempted to deceive the voters. That is his approach to marijuana, its distribution, its production and its use. He has, in a very amateurish way, presented a policy which would indicate some sort of control but it shows a fairly tolerant attitude to the whole question. Under a Labor Government in Queensland-no one makes any secret about it-every Queensland household would be able to grow a supply of this dangerous drug. I refer to the pronouncements made by our Premier-on behalf of the Queensland Government-about introducing penalties, which are probably higher than those imposed in any other part of the world, to get the Mr Bigs of this industry and put them where they belong, in gaol. I have chaired a committee which investigated marijuana and I speak with confidence regarding the matter. I do not give a damn if I am considered reactionary, behind the times or ready for the gas chamber. For some years I have received brochures produced by the World Health Organisation and other organisations updating research into pot. It was revealed in the report-official statistics were given-that a very high percentage, of people, particularly around Los Angeles and elsewhere on the west coast of the United States of America, who graduated to using acid and heroin had cut their teeth, if you like , on marijuana. They had graduated from an allegedly harmless drug to the dangerous and killer drugs. Mr Milton —What about alcohol? Mr KATTER —The humour of the Labor Party is based on the assumption that we should encourage our young people to cut down their standards. The honourable member laughs; it is a great joke; it is not very serious! Let me tell him this. The brochures, which I received not so very long ago from the World Health Organisation, indicate that there was fairly reliable evidence that the constant -let me be sensible about this-the habitual smoking of marijuana would produce cancer cells. Six months later an updated brochure came out which said that it had now been proved that the habitual smoking of marijuana could very clearly create cancer cells. I look back to the good old Labor days. Government members would not have lasted 10 minutes in the Labor Party in the genuine Labor days. Many of them are intellectual aristocrats who would not mix with the workers under any circumstances whatsoever. A part of the Labor Party's aristocracy is to smoke pot and cut down all standards. This policy of absolute permissiveness-I make no apology for that comment-is promulgated by Mr Wright in Queensland. It is no good putting one's head in the sand and saying that the argument regarding cancer does not exist. The World Health Organisation, I imagine, does have some authority. The statement was based on the findings of an organisation which corresponds with our Royal College of Surgeons or our Australian Medical Association; so it is no good trying to be frivolous about this matter. I call on Mr Wright and those standing for the ALP in the forthcoming Queensland elections to declare, quite emphatically, where they stand in relation to a habit which could lead our young people not only into degradation at the best but also into a lethargic condition of mind and body which would render them relatively usless to themselves, their families and their country. I will continue my comments in relation to the newly appointed leader of the Labor Party. One thing that is being questioned by reasonably sensible, alert Queenslanders-that is just about everybody in the State-is how can this man make extravagant, totally unachievable promises. He knows as well as everybody else that if the Queensland people, by some tragic error of judgment, set aside a government which is receiving tens of thousands of people from other parts of Australia, people from all classes and all age groups, each and every month of the year, a State which has made such a profound international impact and will stage Expo '88, these promises could not be kept. What would we give up for this ? Should we give up this Government which demands the respect not only of sensible Australians but also people beyond our shores, for a group of amateurs, for a leader who is obviously a rubber stamp for powerful groups in Sydney and Melbourne who, through Mr Hawke, will manipulate him? We all know that Mr Hawke will manipulte Mr Wright. He is a dominant figure. Members of Caucus tell us that Caucus is now a bit of a joke because its leader permits them to think that they are making decisions. The same thing would apply to Mr Wright. He would have to go cap in hand to Mr Hawke so that he could enjoy some of his glamour and some of the media backing which he gets. He goes around presenting himself as a person of importance and significance when compared with a man of such international reputation as Joh Bjelke-Petersen. The honourable member for Petrie (Mr Wells) has devoted his whole political career to date, not to looking after the interests of the people of Petrie, but to constantly hammering. It is like a little bird flapping its wings on the City Hall in Brisbane. That would be the impact he is making on the reputation of a man like Bjelke-Petersen. They all wished that they had the same power and the same charisma-it is a peculiar charisma I will admit-that demands the world's respect. They fear him and so they make speeches all the time about philosophies , about Adolf Hitler, and all that nonsense. They have tried all that month after month, year after year. That is all old stuff. So we must wake up to the fact that Mr Wright does not have a strawberry road. He is not a stayer. He will not make the grade. Would the people of Queensland swap a strawberry road for a bush hat? Mr Wright has gone through my area like a brumby with his tail on fire bobling through the back blocks promising this and that. But the people of inland Queensland and inland Australia know the record of the Australian Labor Party. It is utterly futile- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(9.53) —Tonight I would like to grieve about industrial relations. When I was campaigning to win the seat of Kalgoorlie in 1980 I met with senior management of the Pilbara mining companies. I well remember a very frank discussion with one executive who said to me: We are frightened of Sir Charles Court. We see him as an agent of Japan. We would prefer Paul Keating as Minister because we think he would stand up to Sir Charles and we know that Doug Anthony will not. He added: The Labor Party will not win the election-but good luck. He was right. The Australian Labor Party did not win until three years later. In the mindlessness of union bashing which has been the hallmark of the Liberal- National Country parties over many years Sir Charles Court has indeed been an agent of Japan. The facts are that the Pilbara has been a very reliable supplier of high quality iron ore to the Japanese. On no occasion have Japanese blast furnaces been threatened by lack of Pilbara iron ore. What has happened is that the Japanese have been able to take up this myth of Pilbara unreliability and develop it into a powerful negotiating weapon. It has been used as an excuse to divert purchases to Brazil and to beat down prices. The Leader of the National Party (Mr Anthony), when he was Minister for Trade, was aware of the situation. Despite the fact that he is not averse to mindless union bashing he was forced to make the same points in the House that I have just made. The reality is that America has made substantial loans to Brazil. It knows that the only hope it has of preventing complete default by Brazil is to sell Brazilian products. America will exert its considerable leverage on Japan to transfer volume from Australian mines to Brazil. The Japanese are themselves in the same position. They need little encouragement to transfer the tonnage. Such actions they know severely prejudice our efficient mines which rely very much on economies of scale for their efficiency. Japan however has to have assured supplies. For this reason it needs to make sure that our mines do not close completely. It knows that South America can be plunged into turmoil at any time. Industrial trouble in Brazil means guns. The country is also prone to natural disasters having a very extended rail service. Our mines need to protect themselves by widening their markets. I am pleased to see that all companies are now looking at deeper ports to accommodate larger ships. In 1980 when I was advocating this so that they could get into the European trade I was derided by many of these same people. While industrial trouble has never directly threatened the supply of iron ore an impression has been created and is now a self-fulfilling prophecy. For the sake of the welfare of the people of the Pilbara, and indeed for the sake of the whole economy, a strategy must be worked out to increase the level of consultation between unions and management. I am aware of the negotiations pertaining to the Hamersley iron dispute that took place between the unions and Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd. I went to some trouble to determine just what the position was of both parties. With the help of Senator Peter Cook I put forward a six step procedure that was subsequently modified by the unions. We were assured it was acceptable to both parties. The acceptance of this procedure by Ian Burston, Manager of Hamersley Iron, was indicated to Peter Cook and me and two delegates to the combined union council at Mount Tom Price. The next day Senator Cook received a telex from the company signed by Ian Burston which appeared to pour cold water on the six points. Being both alarmed and annoyed I contacted the company and was told that everything was all right. History has shown that it was not. The company simply went into the negotiation and reverted to its original stance. This perfidy on the part of the company of course guaranteed that negotiations broke down. The company's actions were dishonest and unless the company had some grand machiavellian design it was also stupid. I do not know what moved Mr Lynch, the company's industrial relations officer or rather the human resources manager. Maybe he loyally and mistakenly put the company's position. In that case, he virtually destroyed the credibility of both himself and the company. I am forcibly reminded of the words of Sir Roderick Carnegie, who said that in the event of a protracted industrial dispute he would always look to management for responsibility. I am aware that CRA Ltd is currently looking at a new American style management system. If this system is based on breaking union power then it is a very worrying development. My belief is that it can succeed only at such cost as to make any victory a very Pyrrhic affair. I suggest to Sir Roderick that he quickly take a long, hard look at his management and consider just where his empire is going. I have said that better industrial relations for the Pilbara are vital. I would like to list some of the reforms that I think are vital. Firstly, the State Government should give a great deal of thought to the commissioners it appoints. This is a subject I want to deal with at some greater length at another time. Secondly, I believe that a tripartite commission should be set up composed of a well respected chairman and a nominee from the unions and from management, and that at least the chairman should be a resident of the Pilbara. This commission should be responsible for all disputes. I have stressed that it is important that a component of that commission live in the Pilbara because conditions are different. The climate is trying. It has to be understood in the context of the whole industrial relations area. Thirdly, and I think very importantly, the formation of a Pilbara trades and labour council should be speeded up. Such an entity should be funded adequately to ensure that the necessary research is at least comparable with the facilities available to the company. I believe that with the formation of a Pilbara TLC we will see developing in the Pilbara the leadership that is necessary if we are to have an improvement in industrial relations. These provisions are not exhaustive or even obligatory. But I believe that there is a desire to improve the situation; there is certainly a need to improve it. This long running dispute was settled this morning when the workers of Hamersley agreed to terms. They agreed to terms which they would have agreed to six weeks ago. They agreed to terms which the company agreed to three weeks ago. It is absolutely outrageous that the resolution of this dispute has taken so long. I know it can be said that there were some areas of misunderstanding between officials in Perth. But the company was aware of the situation in the Pilbara. The company had stated that it was prepared to settle on those terms. The company must be held to blame that the strike went on for so long. Having said that, I would just like to mention an affair that took place in this House tonight. I refer of course to the performance of the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). I do not grieve for John Dawkins. John Dawkins is well known to me; he is a very good friend of mine. John Dawkins is very tough and very honest. If Mr Dawkins has any faults in my mind it is that probably he has made a fettish of integrity. What we were presented tonight was a tirade from the honourable member for O'Connor that dealt not in facts. It dealt with sundry propositions which came entirely from his own convoluted and corrugated mind and had no basis in fact whatsoever. It was a masterly effort, an effort worthy of a man who was a debating champion in the Army, a very sophist and theatrical effort. I hope that members of the Press Gallery who were in attendance had the wit to determine the substance from the reality. Question resolved in the affirmative. Australian Labor Party: Election Promises- Mr Phil Irving-Economy-Student Accommodation-Destruction of Korean Airliner-Meat Inspection Charges-Telecom Charges-Sugar Industry Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 10 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(10.00) —Mr Speaker, one thing about elections is that they bring a latter day interest by the Australian Labor Party in otherwise forgotten sections of the community. For instance-- Mr Lionel Bowen —And in Queensland by you. Mr BRAITHWAITE —In Queensland particularly in the recent Federal elections and now again in that same regard for the State elections. In February 1983, the Federal Labor Party found that the Queensland sugar industry might bolster its parliamentary representation if it made the right noises and promises. Now we see exactly the same position being taken by the Labor Party in Queensland in the same industry and for the same reason. But it comes from a position of heavy handicap. For all its promises prior to the 5 March Federal elections, the Federal Labor Party has not performed, nor has it fulfilled its promises. The Queensland sugar industry might now ask the same question: Can the same political bedmate be trusted to keep its rash of promises? I say that it cannot. Let me just list some of the promises that the Federal Labor Party made during the Federal elections. Firstly, there was its full commitment to underwriting a scheme for the sugar industry related to the 1982 season crop. This was needed to overcome the very severe affects of the drought and the world recession in sugar prices caused by the overproduction of sugar by the European Economic Community. There was never any intention by the Labor Party to honour this promise. It now lies with many others on the scrapheap of its broken promises. There was a promise to contribute dollar for dollar towards the $25m rural adjustment scheme. Yet that Party, that Government, had to be embarrassed into accepting this situation by the Queensland Government through the Queensland Minister for Primary Industries, Mike Ahern, and then the contribution was only $11m and available only on very severely restricted terms. Again, a definite promise to reduce the price of fuels was made. The reality is that since the Budget there has been an inrease of 2c per litre in excise and the excise is to be indexed every six months. This increase is not rebateable as it had been previously. Sales tax on fuels and lubricants introduced in Labor's August Budget adds greatly to the costs of the cane farmer, as does sales tax on retreaded tyres. All definite undertakings not to expand indirect taxation have been broken by Labor. Let us look at the situation since the Federal election. The Labor Government in Canberra has terminated the accelerated depreciation, neutralised income equalisation deposits, altered tax averaging and taken away incentives to clearing, drainage and developing land. This Parliament has heard the categorical assurances that the Government would not support the disastrous recommendations of the draft Industries Assistance Commission report on long term assistance to the sugar industry. Only last week in Mackay, the rural peacemaker, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), was reported to have said that the recommendations may be introduced but not immediately, thus completely refuting the assurances given by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in this place. So, who would trust the Labor Party after this performance in just over eight months? It may have been taken down once, but I am sure the sugar industry in Queensland will not be taken down a second time. Let us look at the present Queensland election. The rural policy of the Labor Party has obviously been prepared not by somebody who is an expert out in the field, but comes from the hallowed halls of the Trades and Labour Council in Brisbane. The policy suggested for grain silos for Mackay overlooks the fact that the grain silos have been in place for the last 18 months to two years; yet it is part of the Labor Party's policy to put them there. Mr Wright, the Queensland Opposition Leader, promises $2m for interest rebate on advanced payments to sugar growers, made necessary because of the Commonwealth's lack of commitment to an underwriting scheme. This is a Federal responsiblity which the Labor Party has not been prepared to accept. The Labor Party says now it will introduce a stabilisation scheme. If it lacks a commitment to underwriting, why is stabilisation proposed all of a sudden? Perhaps the industry does not want a stabilisation scheme. I am sure that it would prefer the reintroduction of income equalisation deposits, a program, as I said before, neutralised by this Canberra godfather. There is also the track record of the present Queensland Labor Leader and his own credibility. I mentioned this morning in a personal explanation the situation where he still makes assertions in Queensland that are not the truth. So what we have to ask is : When these promises are made by the Labor Party, where can we trust it in the final analysis. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr STEEDMAN(Casey)(10.05) —In the Age of 1 October, Geoffrey Barker stated: At a time when Australians need to worry deeply about the political and economic future, they seem far too ready to bask in the vacuous glory of a sporting triumph that was, however enjoyable, the result of a sustained and expensive campaign by a self-indulgent millionaire. That is his opinion. A lot has been said this week in this House about the glory the yachting win has brought to Australia. People have praised the owner, the crew and, most of all, the designer. But while the media and marketing experts plan the next wave to exploit commercially the current wave of goodwill, my mind goes back to a more modest advance in technology, or at least of a man and his craft recognised all over the world but strangely, as it happens, known only to enthusiasts in Australia. I refer to a man who made incredible engineering breakthroughs and contributed an enourmous amount to the world of automotive engineering. He is a man who can truly be called a genius and who, at the age of 80, lives within my electorate of Casey; he is a man who unfortunately did not have a razzamatazz of media, money and high placed politicians to fete him. I refer of course to Phil Irving, the only man in the world to have designed both motor cycle engines and car engines that have held world titles. He was born in 1903 and was educated at Wesley College, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology and Melbourne University . Phil took the world by storm when he designed the world beating Vincent V-twin 1000cc motor cycle. The prototype described by one pressman as a 'plumber's nightmare' was produced in 1936 and from that time until the Vincent factory closed in 1955 these machines lived up to the advertising boast of the world's fastest standard motor cycle. In the days when motor bikes had a top speed of less than 100 miles per hour, Phil Irving's Vincent HRDs were topping 140 miles per hour. In 1956, an 11-year old Vincent broke both the world solo and side-car speed records. But, as I said earlier, this was not the sport of millionaires and falling markets and the move away from bikes finally sent the company to the wall. In 1964, Phil was back in London designing an engine for Jack Brabham to race in the three litre formula. Working with little money and an old cylinder block from a V8 Oldsmobile, within 12 months he put together an engine that won two world championships. His books, written many years ago, with titles such as Tuning for Speed, Rich Mixture and Black Smoke have become bibles to motor cycle enthusiasts. I mention all of this at this time to emphasise the real Australian spirit, not money and media hype, but genius and improvisation. On 14 October this year, I will have the privilege of opening the Vincent HRD international rally at Beaconsfield where riders from all over the world will be paying timely homage to a great, if largely unknown, Australian. I am pleased to record that the rally will be officially closed by comrade Tony Street, a man with a not insignificant record-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member should refer to members of the House by their electorate. Mr STEEDMAN —I was referring to the honourable member for the TT racers, as he was known in the racing trade, in those days. The honourable member for Corangamite is a man with a not insignificant record as a motor cycle rider himself. While not too many working people could claim to be in the 12 metre yacht category, a motor cycle is within the range of a large number of Australians. In these days of enthusiasm for the skills of design engineers, I urge the Government to give proper recognition to one of the greats from our past. Mr STREET(Corangamite)(10.09) —The honourable member for Casey (Mr Steedman) and I will, no doubt, have much to disagree about politically but there is no disagreement on this occasion. We both share an interest in fine machinery and respect for those who design and make it. I am, therefore, very glad and indeed delighted to join him in paying tribute to a truly great Australian too little known in his own country, Mr Phil Irving. As the honourable member for Casey has said, this man has made contributions of world importance to the profession of engineering and, importantly, to engineering literature. His name is a byword, particularly in the automotive and motor cycle engineering fields. He did indeed walk with the kings of his profession; yet he never lost the common touch. I will never forget an occasion, over 30 years ago now, at the Australian TT motor cycle races when a comparatively young motor cyclist was sitting rather disconsolately beside his machine in the pits. It was mid-summer and blazing hot and the rider had just retired from the race in which he was competing- incidentally, when he was quite reasonably placed at the time-because of a seized engine. He was feeling pretty sorry for himself and disappointed. Phil Irving wandered up and asked what had happened. He discussed why it had happened and he gave some very sound advice. Then, out of the blue, he offered to make a pattern and get some special pistons made which he felt would overcome the problem that they had been discussing. He did get those pistons made and they did overcome the problem. As the young motor cyclist concerned, I still have in my possession that beautifully made pattern. That was typical of this man. He had a world-wide reputation; yet he went out of his way to help a total unknown with a technical problem. The honourable member of Casey has referred to Phil Irving's work on Vicent HRD motor cycles and the Repco-Brabham formula one engine, both world leaders of their time and for which he has not received the acknowledgment which I consider is due to him. Even less well known is Phil Irving's work during the war for the British War Office on such projects as pilotless target aircraft and dinghies for air crew forced down in the sea-to name just two projects about which I happen to have heard. Then after the war there was the water-colled Velocette which was years, perhaps decades, ahead of its time. There are so many more examples which I do not have the time to refer to tonight. As the honourable member for Casey has said, in a few weeks' time owners of Vincent HRD motor cycles are coming to Australia from all over the world to pay tribute to the creator of their superb machines-Phil Irving. I look forward to being a small part of this historic occasion. I join with the honourable member for Casey in requesting the Government to recognise appropriately the honour brought to this country by a great but modest Australia. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(10.13) —Under the previous Liberal-National Government the Australian economy was undergoing its worst recession in 50 years, with over 1.5 million Australians, including 800,000 hidden unemployed, out of work. Pensions had fallen from 25 per cent of average weekly earnings under the Whitlam Australian Labor Party Government to 22 per cent under the Fraser Government. Since the last Federal Labor Budget in 1975 education funding had fallen by 5 per cent in real terms and had dropped from 8.7 per cent to 8.1 per cent of total Budget outlays. In the area of health the Fraser Government excelled itself in providing Australia with a series of complicated health schemes which caused increasing insecurity for those sick people who could not afford to cover themselves for health insurance. It was the same story in the areas of transport , housing, children's services, Aboriginal services and services for the disabled. However, for the Fraser Government, savage cuts in government services in all these areas of need were not enough. The taxation system was used also as a means of redistributing the wealth of the country from the pockets of the poor to the coffers of the rich, with the bottom 10 per cent of wage earners paying 19 per cent of their income in tax and the top one per cent paying 9 per cent less. On top of all this was a deliberate undermining of the centralised wage fixing system. Wage indexation was abandoned, and market forces and industrial conflict determined the wage levels of Australian workers. These disastrous economic policies, so enthusiastically championed by honourable members on the other side, and none more that the former Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), were based on a false and misleading picture of the effect of world economic forces on the Australian economy, as indicated by his constant catchcry that wage rises were the cause of inflation in Australia. This claim is worthy of examination in order to expose the gross falsity of the argument. The true cause of inflation began in the United States of America in the 1950s and the 1960s with huge United States Budget deficits spreading their dollar influence throughout the world. First, after World War II, came the Marshall Plan involving large dollar credit flows to the defeated, destroyed and impoverished combatant countries. The Marshall Plan was followed by loans from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank and its affiliates. In addition the large business corporations extended their manufacturing operations into low wage, Third World countries, aided by the merchant banks with huge credit operations. With the United States running consecutive and mounting budgetary deficits out of all proportion to its export income and foreign reserves, the United States monetary authorities were responsible for one of the worst inflations in world history. The rise in oil prices was not, as has often been asserted, the cause of inflation, as members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries raised their prices solely to protect their export incomes. In real terms the price of crude oil remained at 1950 levels. By placing more paper dollars in world speculation the United States monetary authorities increased liquidity and the value of the United States dollar depreciated; and, with it, the value of dollar reserves held by other countries, including Australia, were also depreciated. Inflation was not the result of the OPEC increase in oil prices, nor was it caused by wage rises and welfare payments in Australia. The blame for Australia' s inflation can be placed fairly and squarely on the irresponsible financial policies of the United States Government because America's productive capacity did not match its huge exports of capital during the 1950s and the 1960s. Thus wage rises are not the cause of inflation. Other cost items are the cause, such as interest rates, overseas freight charges, rent rises, land values and the price of raw materials. It is noteworthy that in the period from 1970 to 1983 the share of Australian workers' wages as part of the gross domestic product actually declined, which again is another indication of the falsity of the claim that wage rises cause inflation. Since 1975-76 real labour costs have grown by 11 per cent and productivity by 12 per cent as the 1982-83 Budget Papers make clear. It is ludicrous for Liberal-National Party Opposition members to blame the present Government for the calamitous state of the economy, when one bears in mind the decades of neglect under successive Liberal-National Party coalition governments. For the period the Liberal-National Party was in government it made no attempt to make our economy more independent of volatile international primary commodity markets and less dependent on foreign investment capital for our economic development. In fact Australia has become even more dependent on foreign investment over the years. We have adopted a virtual semi-colonial role both economically and politically. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(10.18) —I wish to support the remarks made in this chamber on Tuesday by my colleague the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) concerning the combined effects of decisions by both the Federal Government and the Victorian Australian Labor Party Government on country students wishing to further their education in tertiary institutions in Melbourne. As my colleague said, the Federal Government, through the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) has reduced the assistance available for residential colleges and halls by 25 per cent. Furthermore, in the Federal Budget this Government has cut in real terms the value of the tertiary education assistance scheme allowance and has scrapped the students loan scheme. All this re-enforces the view that is now so prevalent in rural areas that this Government cares little for country people in general, and in particlar cares little about helping country students obtain tertiary education away from home. I deal now with the particular problem in Victoria. There are four hostels for country students seeking tertiary education in Melbourne. The Victorian State Labor Government is planning to close them at the end of this year and to sell them. These hostels are: Alan Ramsay House in Queens Road, Cowabee in St Kilda Road, Warwillah also in St Kilda Road and Pinamani in Clayton. These hostels are owned by the State Government and are run for country students seeking accommodation in Melbourne. Over 200 beds are available in these four hostels. In addition there are two more hostels in Melbourne-Minimbah and Frank Tate House. These hostels will be changed from providing accommodation for tertiary students to providing accommodation for secondary students. Between these two there are another 150 beds. Thus, all told, the State Labor Government is proposing to abolish accommodation for 350 country tertiary students in Melbourne. The State Government has very kindly offered the Federal Government first option to buy these hostels. The State Labor Minister for Education, Mr Fordham, says that he hopes the Federal Government will take up this option. But the Federal Minister for Education and Youth Affairs said in answer to a question today in the Senate on this matter that she has not received any representations from Mr Fordham to this effect. Mr Hodgman —None at all? Mr HAWKER —No, none. This leaves the students in these hostels in the untenable position of not knowing where they will be living next year or, in many cases, whether they can afford to continue or to finish their tertiary education. Of course, the overriding question that comes from this is which government, State or Federal, accepts the responsibility for providing hostel accommodation for country tertiary students. Will both governments just wash their hands of the whole matter? This is an urgent matter, as I can assure this House that there are many very worried parents in country areas right now. I believe we cannot sit back and let this buck passing between the State and Federal governments jeopardise the education future of several hundred country Victorian students. The matter is far too important to allow a delay in ensuring the future of these hostels and, more importantly, of the students who are living in them, who should not be left in any further doubt. In conclusion, I say that it is time both the State and Federal Labor governments started to realise that country people are both Victorians and Australians. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(10.22) —I take this opportunity to make a number of remarks on the Korean airliner disaster and its aftermath. It is necessary to make a number of points on this matter as it has become clear that because these events are being interpreted a certain way in some quarters and certain inferences are being drawn there are grave implications for the prospects of world peace. Nobody can condone the actions of the Soviet Union in this matter. This conclusion is not mitigated, even if one accepts the version of events which holds that the Soviet pilot and his ground controllers failed to identify the aircraft as a civilian airliner. It is, of course, an atrocity to fire upon an unidentified aircraft. When this is coupled with the complete lack of candour displayed by the Soviet authorities in the aftermath, unflattering conclusions about the nature of the Soviet military and political establishment are inevitable. Nonetheless, I believe that we are being asked to accept a version of the events that gives a quite inaccurate picture of the motives and reactions of the Soviet leadership. We have been presented with a scenario in which the intercepting Soviet aircraft positively identified the Korean airliner for what it was; this information was transmitted to the ground control and thence to military and political headquarters in Moscow. The leadership, in possession of the full facts, then made a deliberate decision to order the destruction of a civillian airliner. At least that is the version of events which is being presented to us. It has become clear with the passage of time that this version is simply inaccurate. An excellent analysis on this matter by Robin Morgan and Patrick Forman appeared in the Sunday Times. This was reprinted in the Australian of 12 September. I would recommend that honourable members opposite have a look at that article because it might enlighten them somewhat. This report makes a number of points. Firstly, contrary to earlier reports, there was an attempt by the Soviet aircraft to make radio contact with the Korean airliner -as I have said, not that that mitigates the atrocity of firing on an unidentified aircraft. The Soviet aircraft was never less than two kilometres from the Korean Air Lines plane. This was only momentarily. There was only a quarter moon that night, hardly enough to make a positive identification at two kilometres range. Far from stalking the aircraft for more than two hours, the Russians scrambled four flights just 30 minutes before the jumbo was shot down. It was 10 minutes before the pilots pinpointed the aircraft on radar and its silhouette was not visually sighted until eight minutes before the missiles were launched. Even the words attributed to the ground controller instructing the pilot to 'take aim at the target' and 'fire', which honourable members will recall was the version that came out a day or two after the episode took place, do not exist on the available tape. They are attributed to unnamed Japanese persons. The Sunday Times article makes a number of other points which time does not permit me to outline. Mr Hodgman —That is the Moscow version. Mr BALDWIN —Rubbish. That is absolute nonsense, as the honourable member would know if he had listened to what I said about the whole matter in the first instance. I am no apologist for the present Soviet leadership. But suggesting that that leadership knowingly perpetrated a mid-air massacre of civilians is ill-founded and is being promulgated in some cases in pursuit of quite sinister objectives. It is now generally accepted that the decision to fire was probably taken at the middle rank military level. Even if one ascribes the worst motives to the Soviet political leadership, it clearly does not serve its interests to perpetrate an act of this type. Nobody doubts that the Soviets are acutely concerned to present a favourable propaganda image of themselves to the world. The worst aspect of this is the sorts of inferences that are being drawn, which are exemplified by Ronald Reagan's observations in his weekly radio address that the lesson to be drawn is the need to prepare for 'prolonged ideological struggle' with the Soviets and to continue the military buildup. Such a response vastly exceeds the evil of the incident itself. There can be little doubt that to depict the Soviet leadership with all of its very real faults-I reiterate that I am certainly not an apologist for the Soviet leadership or the Soviet political system-in the way encouraged by some Western leaders and to draw inferences like Reagan's will increase the likelihood of nuclear war, with all that that entails. Mr O'KEEFE(Paterson)(10.27) —I am pleased that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is in the House tonight because I want to take up the matter of meat inspection fees. After many years of representations to the Minister for Agriculture in New South Wales and the Federal Minister for Primary Industry, success was achieved for a single meat inspection service. We thought it would be an efficient and cost saving service. The charges applying as from 1 October to export abattoirs by the amalgamated Department of Primary Industry inspection service are anomalous and iniquitous. It is incredible that export abattoirs are being levied $5.40 per head for cattle compared with $2.20 for cattle slaughtered at the local works in New South Wales. For sheep the amounts are 54c and 40c and, for pigs, $1.80 and $1.90. The unfairness of this situation is abundantly clear and belies the contention of the Federal Minister in a recent statement that the amalgamated service will prove cost efficient. Most export works in New South Wales are faced with an additional cost of anything from $1,500 to $2,000 per week. Considering the extreme cost pressures faced by the export abattoir industry, present and past, this additional expense upon export works could well be done without. Clearly, the new export inspection fee has been poorly handled, given amalgamated meat inspection in New South Wales and a common inspection service. The proprietors and managers of these works are very concerned about the difference between these inspection fees. The inspections are carried out by the one inspection service and there should not be any difference of this nature between export and domestic abattoirs. Without question, a case exists for a single fee for domestic meat inspection irrespective of the place of slaughter. The present situation is ridiculous. I have met many executives of the meat industry-I have in my electorate splendid abattoirs at Gunnedah, Aberdeen, Mudgee and Maitland, all export works-and they have been strongly requested to take up this anomalous situation with the Minister. I seek his urgent attention to this most iniquitous anomaly in the dual service operations of export abattoirs in New South Wales. Mr CHYNOWETH(Flinders)(10.29) —This evening I bring to the notice of this House the financial burden which is being directed to many residents on the Mornington Peninsula because of the high charges imposed on them by Telecom Australia for the use of an essential tool for living in the 1980s-the telephone. Over the past six months I have made several representations to the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) on behalf of the thousands of concerned constituents of the Flinders electorate regarding Telecom charges. The Flinders electorate adjoins the metropolitan zone of Dandenong. It appears to me to be an anomalous situation that the Dandenong area should be included in the metropolitan zone. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Mr Kerin —Mr Speaker, I require the debate to be extended. Mr SPEAKER —The debate may continue until 10.40 p.m. I call the Minister for Primary Industry. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(10.30) —I wish to respond quickly to comments made tonight by the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite). He did not advise me that he would speak on the sugar industry. I put on the record that I am sick of the lies by the National Party in Queensland . I am sick of the distortions, the misrepresentations and the gobbledegook. In Queensland the tired old flabby Government is so fearful of losing power that it will resort to any tactic at all. I am terribly sorry that a man of the prestige of the honourable member for Dawson should be sucked in by this. He and the National Party constantly misrepresent the Australian Labor Party. They misrepresent and lie about us at the Federal level and the State level. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Minister to be careful with his use of the word ' lie'. He knows my attitude to it and I ask him to avoid it. I call the Minister. Mr KERIN —Thank you, Mr Speaker. The honourable member for Dawson said, first of all, that the ALP before 5 March promised to underwrite the sugar industry, promised to give loans and promised this, that and the other. I have here the election policy document. We said: In the current crisis we will give sympathetic consideration to an industry loan to the established Queensland and New South Wales industry. We gave that consideration. The Leader of the Labor Party, now the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), at a meeting in Townsville said that we would also give sympathetic consideration to underwriting. The whole problem was that the previous Government had referred a question to the Industries Assistance Commission on the whole question of underwriting. We now have the draft report before us. It is incredible that when the Queensland Minister for Primary Industries, Mr Ahern comes down to Canberra, sits in my office and I tell him what is happening about domestic pricing and underwriting, he seems to understand and agree. He then goes back to Queensland. Before 1 July he said that the Commonwealth Government would not increase the domestic price. I told him that we would increase it by $48 or $49 and we did so. He failed to acknowledge that. I explained to him that the previous Government had made a reference to the IAC about underwriting. If I had time I would read out the terms of reference. But Mr Ahern said that the Commonwealth Government would walk away from underwriting. The National Party in Queensland constantly perpetuates this nonsense and these lies. It has got to the stage, having received the draft report of the IAC, that if we dragged every IAC commissioner on the sugar inquiry out and shot him, as well as all the officials in the IAC, and then burnt the place down, the Queensland National Party would say that that was further evidence that the Commonwealth Government will implement the recommendations of the IAC. It goes much further than that. Some of the gobbledegook by the Minister for Primary Industries in Queensland is beyond comprehension. I have a statement of his of 29 September. He said: Three Ministers, Mr Bowen, Mr Walsh and Mr Hayden, all have indicated that the Australian Government strongly supported the need for protectionism for Australia's primary industries. His next sentence reads: Three very senior Federal Government Ministers are advocating exactly what is contained in the IAC report. The IAC report did not say 'protectionism'; it said 'deregulation'. Two paragraphs further down he said: Mr Hayden, Mr Bowen and Senator Walsh had indicated they favoured the importation of sugar- They are lies- and last week Mr Hayden has referred to what he called the overprotected, geriatric insulation applying to the primary industry sector. That is a misquote, first, because I have Mr Hayden's speech before me. Secondly , his comments in that context referred to the manufacturing industry sector. Let us go a little further. I have a Press release from Mr Ahern, the Queensland Minister for Primary Industries. He referred to the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler). It states: Mr Ahern was referring to recent Press reports in the Innisfail Advocate quoting Mr Gayler as defending the IAC. We got hold of the Innisfail Advocate. It did not even say that. We referred this matter to a Queen's Counsel. It is actionable; it is a complete and utter lie. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I made a request to the Minister for Primary Industry. He is defying the Chair. I ask him not to continue in that way. I call the Minister. Mr KERIN —I seek your guidance, Mr Speaker. When I am talking about a Minister in another parliament who is telling mistruths- Mr SPEAKER —There are other forms the Minister can use. Mr KERIN —I have another quote here in which he quotes me as saying that the Federal ALP has not ruled out the implementation of the IAC report. This, again, is a complete mistruth-if that word is acceptable. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. If no other Minister rises, the Minister may continue. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(10.35) —In the latest telex from the honourable member for Dawson he says that I want to have the IAC report fully implemented. Again, this is completely wrong. From the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) down we have condemned the IAC report's draft recommendation and the claim is completely specious. The only recommendations of the IAC on which I have equivocated is the finding that $300m has been transferred from the producers' pockets to the consumers' pockets due to the inadequacies of the domestic formula. I find that very helpful when we are negotiating another administered price for this industry but if the National Party does not like to have that on record, it is going against the interests of the sugar industry. I am sick to death of this constant misrepresentation. The IAC terms of reference, specified by the previous Government read: (a) the terms of the Sugar Agreement 1979 between the Commonwealth and Queensland which terminates on 30 June 1984, (b) the domestic price of sugar and the method of determining that price, (c) the export sugar rebate arrangements, and (d) the operation of the embargo on the importation of sugar into Australia The terms of reference clearly address themselves to the four most contentious points about the sugar industry. Mr Hodgman —You are twisting. Mr KERIN —I am not twisting. The honourable member should not be such a fool. Perhaps he wants to read the terms of reference. He could not understand them. He cannot even read. The latest statement comes from the honourable member for Dawson who in the 2 August version of the Daily News was quoted as saying: 'A new call for Ord Sugar'. Of course, it was Mr Johannes Bjelke-Petersen in Queensland, with his mate Sir Charles Court- Mr Braithwate-Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. This matter was subject to a personal explanation this morning. Mr SPEAKER —That is no point of order. I call the Minister. Mr KERIN —Of course, it was Johannes Bjelke-Petersen and his mate, Sir Charles Court. They assisted the Queensland Government- Mr Braithwaite —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. The Minister is deliberately misrepresenting the situation. He is not telling the truth. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Dawson must raise a point of order and not make a statement. Mr KERIN —Mr Bjelke-Petersen assisted Sir Charles Court with the exploration of the possibilities of growing sugar on the Ord. Now the honourable member is quoted in the Daily News of 2 August 1983 as saying that sugar can be grown successfully in the Ord River dam region and that growers should get an export licence. He said that if an export licence were not granted, Ord sugar would flood the domestic market, possibly at reduced prices. Mr Porter —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. As I understand the Standing Orders, a Minister can ask for an extension of the adjournment debate in order to answer matters that were raised during that debate. The Ord River scheme has not been mentioned during the debate. Mr SPEAKER —The sugar industry has been mentioned. Mr Porter —The IAC was raised. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister is relevant. Mr KERIN —As I said, the honourable gentleman gave some reasons for saying that. Does he not realise that we are bound by the International Sugar Agreement and that we are trying to renegotiate that agreement Mr Braithwaite —Where were you last week? Mr KERIN —That is interesting, is it not? The honourable member's mate the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) criticised me because I went to Geneva. This is just so much nonsense. Mr Ahern said that we would get an International Sugar Agreement in May and in September, now he says that we will get one in February. Where is his proof? He keeps on kidding the sugar industry along. We know exactly what the situation is and how difficult it is but this man likes to kid people along. He likes to tell people mistruths. He likes to tell people that there will be no increase in prices. Mr Hodgman —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. That is a personal reflection. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. I call the Minister for Primary Industry. Mr KERIN —I should quote a few more things to honourable gentlemen opposite but I simply say to them- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. The debate having concluded, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday next. House adjourned at 10.40 p.m. The following paper was deemed to have been presented on 6 October 1983: Australian National University Act-Statute-No. 169-Parking and Traffic. The following papers were presented: Mr Dawkins- Dawkins, Brigadier Alec Letts-Extract from Who's Who in Australia 1974. Pecuniary interests-Letter to Mr Hawke (Prime Minister) from Mr Dawkins concerning his return of pecuniary interests and a report outlining his interests in Commel Pty Ltd. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 330 Mr Blanchard asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: How many pensioners aged 70 years or over will be affected by the introduction of an income test on aged pensions and what is the mean income of those pensioners who will be affected by the introduction of such an income test. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Age pensioners aged 70 years and over have not been required to disclose their income in order to receive the fixed-rate pension. Therefore my Department has only limited data on the income distribution of such fixed-rate pensioners. It has been estimated that some 60,000 age pensioners will lose all pension entitlement as a result of the new income test on the age pension for persons 70 years and over, and that a further 60,000 will have their entitlement reduced. There is insufficient income data on which to calculate the mean income of these pensioners. Question No. 378 Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) What clandestine actions or categories of clandestine actions are (a) financed, (b) authorised or (c) allowed by the Government or its predecessors, which are contrary to international or other law, including actions which could become the subject of investigation by the International Court of Justice if discovered. (2) What actions have been taken by the Government to (a) prevent, (b) deter or (c) restrain such actions whether on behalf of Australia or on behalf of others. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: In conformity with long-standing and bi-partisan practice of successive Australian governments, I do not propose to comment on matters of an intelligence or intelligence-related nature. Such matters are at present the subject of inquiry by the Royal Commission on the Security and Intelligence Agencies. Question No. 406 Mr Gear asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 25 August 1983: Can the Minister supply up to date information for the electoral division of Tangney on the number of persons receiving payments from the Department of Social Security in each suburb (not postcode) by (a) types of benefit, (b) pension and (c) payment received, for each month from March to August 1983. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Information on the numbers of persons receiving social security pensions and benefits, and the payments received, in each suburb in the electoral division of Tangney is not available. Statistics are available only by postcode (not suburb) for pensioners at 30 June 1983 and beneficiaries at 27 May 1983. The postcodes included in the electoral division of Tangney as advised by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, are (the bracketed percentages represent the proportion of the postcode's population which was in Tangney at the 1976 census): 6102 (100 per cent), 6106 (95.4 per cent), 6107 (95.1 per cent), 6108 (110 per cent), 6109 (100 per cent), 6110 (100 per cent), 6152 (50.5 per cent), 6153 (56. 1 per cent), 6154 (26.6 per cent), 6155 (100 per cent), 6163 (7.6 per cent). Due to the changes to electoral boundaries of the electoral division of Tangney in 1979, the figures supplied are only an approximation. This information is not yet available for the 1981 census. The above percentages have been applied to the numbers of pensioners and beneficiaries in the postcodes to estimate the numbers in Tangney, as shown below. Numbers of pensioners in institutions paid by group cheque in the electoral division are also included. Question No. 408 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 6 September 1983: (1) How will the farm home be assessed when the asset or means test is reintroduced. (2) Will the value of the house be exempted as is the case with the home of every other Australian or will it be included in the overall value of the farm. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The terms of the legislation have yet to be finalised. However, based on previous practices it is proposed that where the farm home is the pensioner's home it will be an exempt asset. If it is not the pensioner's home, its value will be assessed and taken into account in determining pension entitlement. (2) See (1). Question No. 416 Mr Ewen Cameron asked the Minister for Science and Technology, upon notice, on 6 September 1983: (1) Can he state the current position regarding the biological control of Paterson's curse. (2) Is he prepared to legislate to implement a biological control program for this problem. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The program to control the declared noxious weed Paterson's curse (Echium plantagineum, which is also known by the common name Salvation Jane, in South Australia) was approved by the Australian Agricultural Council in 1979. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation began experimental field releases of a potential control agent, a moth imported from the mediterranean homeland of the weed, in 1980. It apears that none of these releases led to the establishment of surviving populations of the insect. Shortly after the program was begun four plaintiffs, two beekeepers and two graziers, succeeded in obtaining from the High Court an interim injunction preventing CSIRO from continuing with the program. After protracted legal negotiations, the proceedings were settled before the Supreme Court of South Australia in June 1983. Under the settlement, CSIRO submitted to a permanent injunction restraining it from continuing with the program, but with liberty to apply back to the court. The latter provision was intended to cover the situation if subsequent legislation were to come into force positively authorising the program. (2) The Australian Agricultural Council, at its meeting in August 1983, endorsed the development of complementary Commonwealth and State legislation to provide a mechanism for assessing and, where appropriate, approving proposals for the biological control of weed and pest species. Further action by the Commonwealth in relation to this resolution is the responsibility of the Minister for Health. Question No. 426 Mr Wells asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 6 September 1983: What Commonwealth funds, listed by purpose, in the form of (a) grants, (b) Subsidies, (c) special purpose grants, (d) dollar for dollar contributions or (e ) other contributions have been partly or totally (i) received or (ii) returned or refused by the Queensland Government, from December 1972 to August 1983. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a)-(e)- (i) Since 1979-80, the Commonwealth has offered the States assistance towards the provision of additional State-operated translating and interpreting services in areas of prime State responsibility. Specific purpose payments (recurrent purposes) received by Queensland under this scheme are set out below: Financial year $'000 1979-80 . . 1980-81 . . 1981-82 48 1982-83 78 1983-84 (estimate) 101 (ii) No funds have been returned or refused by the Queensland Government. Details of payments to the States since 1979-80 and estimated payments in 1983- 84 are contained in Budget Paper No. 7 in the relevant year. Question No. 452 Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister for Defence, on notice, on 6 September 1983: Is the Minister able to provide an analysis of claims for compensation resulting from repetitive strain injury in the Minister's Department for each of the years 1978 to 1983. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No. My Department cannot provide the analysis you require of repetition strain injury compensation claims during 1978-83. However since 1 July 1983 a register of such claims has been maintained and the following information is supplied: No. of No. of No. of claims outstanding Sex of claims settled claims claimants Type of work causing injury 24 11 13 10 male Typing (8 cases) 14 female Data Processing (3 cases) Word Processing (3 cases) Carpenter (1 case) Gardener (1 case) Kitchenhand (1 case) Clerks-writing (2 cases) Running or P.T. (3 cases) Gauging Shells (1 case) Unknown (1 case) Question No. 459 Mr Blanchard asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 7 September 1983: How many appeals against the withdrawal of unemployment benefits were (a) conceded by the Department of Social Security, (b) upheld by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, (c) disallowed by the Tribunal, (d) disallowed by the Department after favourable recommendation and (e) withdrawn in 1982-83. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The statistics of appeals relating to unemployment benefit do not categorise the subject matter of appeals to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (as, for instance, decisions not to grant unemployment benefit, or to cancel, suspend or vary the rate of a benefit or to recover an overpayment). Accordingly, there are no statistics relating to the 'withdrawal' of unemployment benefit as such. However, concerning the 2134 appeals relating to unemployment benefit which were finalised in 1982-83: (a) 654 were conceded by the delegate of the Director-General without reference to the Tribunal; (b) the Tribunal recommended that 440 be upheld in whole or in part; (c) the Tribunal recommended that 576 be dismissed; (d) the delegate of the Director-General dismissed 75 appeals after the Tribunal recommended in favour of the appellant; and (e) 464 appeals were withdrawn or lapsed before consideration by the Tribunal. Question No. 460 Mr Blanchard asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 7 September 1983: Does the Department of Social Security contract work to sheltered workshops; if so, what work was given to these workshops in 1982-83. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Yes. In 1982-83 the following work was given to sheltered workshops: (a) Industrial therapy units, Inala, Queensland; Supply of female work slacks; $675.00 (b) Holy Cross Laundry, Wooloowin, Queensland; laundering industrial clothes etc.; $215.50 (c) Paraquad Industries, Western Australia; Supply of furniture; $84,970.10 (d) Tadpac, Tasmania; printing; $553.30 (e) Royal Tasmanian Society for the Blind and Deaf, Tasmania; Supply of Braille 'Dymo' machine and Smiths Ringer Timer; $46.06 (f) Koomarri Industries, Canberra; Wrapping and addressing news-sheets; $13,200 .00 (estimated). Question No. 462 Mr Blanchard asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 7 September 1983: (1) Which organisations received grants towards the cost of senior citizens' centres under the States Grants (Home Care) Act in 1982-83. (2) In each case what was the amount contributed by the Department of Social Security. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's questions: (1) and (2) In accordance with Part III of the Act, grants were paid to State Governments in respect of the following organisations: New South Wales $ Shire of Balranald 41,431 City of Bankstown 159,267 Shire of Baulkham Hills 94 ,845 Shire of Bellingen 12,635 City of Blacktown 4,677 City of Blacktown 214, 903 City of Blue Mountains 51,285 City of Camden 53,333 Municipality of Concord 5,120 Shire of Coonamble 79,333 City of Greater Cessnock 20,873 City of Greater Cessnock 14,446 Shire of Hawkesbury 10,304 Shire of Hornsby 149,485 Shire of Lake Macquarie 110,356 City of Lithgow 51,333 City of Maitland 41, 870 Shire of Muswellbrook 254,123 Shire of Nambucca 72,353 City of Penrith 154,493 Shire of Port Stephens 20,126 Shire of Richmond River 40,010 Municipality of Shellharbour 95,844 Shire of Shoalhaven 202,769 Shire of Shoalhaven 58,911 Shire of Shoalhaven 300,000 Shire of Singleton 100,667 Municipality of Taree 59,689 Shire of Warringah 152,266 City of Wollongong 32, 168 City of Wollongong 5,417 City of Wollongong 46,567 2,710,899 Victoria $ Municipality of Avon 20,913 Shire of Bairnsdale 16,667 Shire of Ballan 1,306 Municipality of Barrabool 6,453 Shire of Bellarine 174,857 City of Brighton 5, 027 City of Brunswick 1,306 City of Camberwell 20,167 Shire of Charlton 62,028 City of Coburg 888 Municipality of Cohuna 78,083 Shire of Corio 3,970 Shire of Corio 15,183 Shire of Cranbourne 32 Shire of Cranbourne 452 Shire of Diamond Valley 17,613 City of Doncaster/Templestowe 7,984 City of Fitzroy 13, 354 Shire of Flinders 24,548 Shire of Flinders 240 City of Frankston 6,000 City of Glenroy 954 Shire of Goulburn 91,927 Municipality of Hampden 100 Municipality of Hawthorn 37,667 Shire of Heytesbury 86,293 Shire of Huntley 24,280 City of Keilor 9,048 Borough of Koroit 3,047 Shire of Maffra 33,602 Shire of Marong 188,828 Shire of Melton 3,179 City of Mildura 2,730 Shire of Minhamite 64,701 City of Moe 143,333 Municipality of Moorabbin 273 City of Mornington 8,072 Shire of Mount Rouse 11,688 Shire of Narracan 12,445 City of Nunawading 220,269 Shire of Otway 93,591 Shire of Portland 8,399 Town of Portland 26,567 Municipality of Rutherglen 97,849 City of Sandringham 9,350 Borough of Sebastopol 24 City of South Melbourne 9,846 Shire of Walpeup 59, 797 Shire of Waranga 121,654 Shire of Warracknabeal 1,778 Shire of Werribee 6, 833 City of Whittlesea 12,143 Borough of Wonthaggi 1,659 Shire of Yackandandah 75,171 1,944,168 Queensland $ Bribie Island Senior Citizens' Committee on the Ageing 223,591 Carina and District Senior Citizens' Committee on the Ageing 124,406 Chermside District Senior Citizens' Committee 16,870 Clifton and District Committee on the Ageing 86,884 Gladstone and District Senior Citizens' Committee on the Ageing 20,329 City of Gympie 16,997 Ipswich and District Committee on the Ageing 44,828 Killarney Senior Citizens' Welfare Association 121,406 Mermaid Beach Senior Citizens' Committee 207,088 City of Rockhampton 19,802 Sandgate and District Senior Citizens' Centre Building Fund Committee 15,623 Warwick Senior Citizens' Committee 1,696 Woodridge and District Committee on the Ageing 33,995 933,515 South Australia $ District Council of Berri 33,603 Corp of City of Burnside 127,174 Corp of City of Elizabeth 207,392 City of Enfield 6,787 District Council of Kanyaka/Quorn 20,169 City of Kensington & Norwood 819 District Council of Kimba 345 Lacepede District Council 5,667 Town of Moonta 15,480 Aged Cottage Homes of SA District Council of Port Elliot and Goolwa 50,626 Town of Walkerville 236 City of West Torrens 10,258 City of West Torrens 126,151 City of Willunga 42,667 647,374 Western Australia $ Town of Armadale 20,000 Shire of Bayswater 7,080 Shire of Belmont 6,148 Shire of Esperance 12,379 Shire of Kojonup 104,589 Shire of Merredin 3,730 Shire of Narambeen 8,427 City of Perth 26,667 City of Perth South 95,313 Shire of Ravensthorpe 6,111 City of Stirling 12,929 City of Stirling 100,794 Wanneroo & District Council 20,142 424,309 Tasmania $ Municipality of Clarence 61,533 Municipality of Devonport 2,748 Corp of the City of Hobart 29,931 Corp of the City of Hobart 168,221 262,433 Question No. 464 Mr Blanchard asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 7 September 1983: What is the estimated time of waiting for (a) aged persons and (b) disabled persons accommodation in each State for (i) residential untis, (ii) hostels. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Under the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act and Aged or Disabled Persons Hostels Act, my department subsidises the construction of self-contained units, hostels and nursing homes for aged or disabled people. The administration of the homes, however, including the recording of a waiting list for the accommodation, is solely a matter for the management of the home, and such statistics are not supplied to my department. I would add that organisations' waiting lists would not necessarily reflect true need for such accommodation. In some cases, aged or disabled people register their names with several different homes, and in other cases, when a person's name is reached on the list, they may change their mind, not wishing to move into the home at that time.