Wednesday, 12 October 1983 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers. Issue of Writ Mr SPEAKER —I inform the House that I have today issued the writ in connection with the by-election for the division of Moreton, and that the dates fixed were those announced to the House on 7 September 1983. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: Chiropractic Services To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows- That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complimentary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the high cost of health care in Australia. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilizing chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Adermann,Mr Braithwaite,Mr Dawkins,Mr Fisher,Mr Les Johnson,Mr Lloyd,Mr Saunderson,Mr Scholes and Mr Uren. To the Honourable, the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to Undermine civil liberties and religious freedoms. Entrench abortion funding and render liable to action hospitals, doctors and nurses who conscientiously refuse to become involved in normally objectionable operations. Deny to parents their rights to insist that the school ''community'' provide an environment conducive to the development, including the moral development of their children. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: Should amend the Bill so as to prevent the possibility of its use in the manner stated above and urge, because of the importance to society of the principles involved, that a conscience vote on the Bill be permitted to all members of parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burr,Mr Newman and Mr Snow. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that Whereas the Government of Australia has signed the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states that 'The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the State'. And Whereas the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women would violate the above Article 23 (1) We humbly pray the Government to refrain from ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; believing that its implementation would result in: 1. Undue cost to the nation at this time. 2. 'The elimination of any sterotyped concept of roles of men and women at all levels' as described in Part 3 Article 10 (c), being a disruption of traditional parental roles, is likely to result in emotional disturbances of childhood. 3. The strong encouragements to mothers to join the workforce, with the provision of networks of creches and child care centres as outlined in Article 11 of the convention is likely to result in maternal deprivation and psychological disturbances among children with an increase in childhood psychiatric illnesses. 4. The sexual role changing as recommended in Part 3 Article 10 (c) is likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our nation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron and Mr Hawker. 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, Convinced that Australia can provide equal opportunity for all citizens without foreign treaties, Concerned that ratifying 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 UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women And we will always thus petition. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. 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 nineteen and a half years, on behalf of the people of Australia. And that: your petitioners consider that the monies raised in the recent public appeal have been so raised for restoration to ensure the continuing seaworthiness of the 'Krait' for the purpose 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 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 export of kangaroo products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Dobie. To the Honourable, the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we, the undersigned, citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That television reception at Stanwell Park, New South Wales, in the Federal Division of Hughes, is hopelessly unsatisfactory and that there is an urgent need for the Federal Department of Communications to institute appropriate action to overcome the problem by installing equipment necessary to enable residents to enjoy television programmes transmitted by Sydney and Wollongong channels. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Les Johnson. 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 Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth: Last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; Alcohol is a factor in 50 per cent of road deaths; Alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; Alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ban the advertising of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. Petitions received. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House deplores the improper harassment of Mr Marjan Kovac, an Australian Citizen, and calls upon the Government to ensure that Australian Citizens are not subjected to political pressure and intimidation directed by Diplomatic representatives of their former countries. Mr PUNCH(Barton) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the inhumane and unnecessary slaughter of thousands of dolphins per year by Taiwanese fishermen in and around Australian waters, as revealed at a recent meeting of the State and Commonwealth representatives of the Standing Committee on Fisheries; (2) notes that four species of dolphin may be threatened with extinction; and (3) calls on the Government to urgently investigate the matter with a view to stopping this massacre immediately. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses its grave concern over the Government policy of constant upward revaluation of the Australian dollar for the purpose of discouraging capital inflow and artificially reducing the Consumer Price Index, and (2) notes that the present value of the Australian dollar does not reflect its value in terms of Australian productivity, and that its recent increases in value will have a proportionate downward effect on the competitiveness of Australian exporters and manufacturers of products for home consumption, including the embattled car industry. Mr HAND(Melbourne) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House- (1) condemns the failure of the Queensland Government to establish a Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee, and (2) notes that the rejection of this proposal by the Premier of Queensland and his fellow National Party Government has been seen by the people of Queensland as an admission that public funds and taxpayers' money have been spent without the approval of the Queensland Parliament. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House-condemns the Government for its- (1) policy of destroying freedom of choice in education and health; (2) damaging Australia's good relations with its ASEAN neighbours; (3) unprincipled attacks on pensioners and superannuants; (4) its policy of politicising the Public Service; (5) practice of allowing our defence forces to run down to dangerous levels; and (6) failure to initiate policies to improve long-term job opportunities for the Australian people. Debate resumed from 5 October, on motion by Mr Holding: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —Mr Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill and the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1983 as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr SPEAKER —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering both these measures? As there is no objection I will allow that course to be followed . Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(10.38) —The Opposition will not oppose the bulk of the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill as it brings in a number of measures which will be of considerable value to people who are in difficult circumstances , financial or otherwise, because of handicaps. The increases in benefits are quite substantial. I think it is worth pointing out to the House that the total amount spent on social security in the Budget for 1983-84 is $14,500m, which is 25.6 per cent of total Budget outlays and represents an increase over the last financial year of $2,330m. That is an increase of 19.2 per cent which would, depending on the inflation rate, be a real increase of the order of 10 per cent. I make these remarks not in any parsimonious way but merely to indicate that when the House is generous with taxpayers' money in meeting the needs of the more disadvantaged members of the community it nonetheless has to realise that the costs are very substantial indeed in budgetary terms and that honourable members are taking upon themselves the responsibility to levy those taxes on the working population. In a time when people are concerned about the impact of taxes, particularly on lower income families-the ones who are in employment-we certainly should not lose sight of the fact that over this financial year they are contributing very substantially in addition to what they contributed last year for the help of the disadvantaged. There are a number of measures here. I will deal purely with the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill. My colleague the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) will speak to the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill; so I will not deal with the aspects of that legislation. Before moving on to an area in the Bill which mightily displeases the Opposition, I draw attention to one aspect of the outcome of this Bill which is unfortunate in that it affects the balance between rewards for educational purposes and unemployment benefits. I refer to the increasing gap between unemployment benefits and the tertiary education assistance scheme allowance. In the Budget the Government decided in its wisdom to restrict increases in TEAS fairly substantially and in this Bill it increases unemployment benefits in a number of ways. One of the outcomes of those two actions is that there is a widening gap between the money paid to those who are unemployed and the assistance given to those under means and income tests for education. I would like to read to the House a quotation from the present Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan). When speaking in October 1981 which, of course , was well before she took up her present responsibilities, she said: It seems to us in the Labor Party and I think also to the Australian Democrats that the Government's-- There she is referring to the Fraser Gov- ernment- strategy of forcing students out of full time study and on to the dole is totally irrational and indefensible.... While ever there is such a disparity between the level of payment available for unemployment benefit and the level of assistance for full time students, students from modest backgrounds will from time to time be forced out of universities and tertiary institutions and on to the dole. How the Government can possibly defend and maintain that system really defies rational understanding. Those remarks by Senator Ryan in 1981 could easily be applied to the measures which she and her colleagues have introduced in this year's Budget. She said earlier, in May 1981: I think that while this positive financial incentive to go on the dole exists, the Government's claims that it is really serious about reducing youth unemployment are shown to be absolutely hypocritical. There ought not to be such a positive financial incentive. I merely put those remarks by Senator Ryan, who is now the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, against the net effect of the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill which makes a number of changes to the unemploynent benefits, all in an upward direction, of course, and against the measures which the Government introduced in the Budget in relation to TEAS. The joint effect of those two sets of measures was very definitely to widen the gap between payments for unemployment and payments for students. On those grounds I think we will apply the Minister's remarks to herself and to the Government and point out, as my colleague Senator Baume has in the Senate, that the Government is acting once again against the sorts of principles it espoused when in opposition. The aspect of the Bill which really worries us is that relating to the payment of unemployment benefits to people who are put out of work because of strike action. Perhaps I should remind the House, as it is a week since the second reading speech was made, what the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) said in that speech: This Bill also provides for the modification of the existing rule that disqualifies a trade unionist who is not himself on strike from receiving unemployment benefit if his unemployment is due to other members of his trade union being on strike. The existing rule was introduced in October 1979 and has the effect of discriminating against trade unionists. Under the proposed amendment, a trade unionist will not be disqualified for the purposes of unemployment benefit if the industrial action did not occur at the place where he was employed. With the introduction of this amendment, the rules governing qualification for unemployment benefit in strike situations will be as follows- (1) direct participants in a strike will not be qualified for benefit. That is obviously okay. To continue: (2) members of a striking union at the establishment at which a strike takes place will not be qualified for benefit. Again that is okay. To continue: (3) members of other unions at the establishment at which a strike takes place who are not themselves on strike will be qualified for benefit. There we run into difficulty. To continue: (4) persons stood down at other establishments as a result of a strike will be qualified for benefit, irrespective of their union membership. There were very good reasons for bringing in restrictions on payment to people put out of work because of strike action in October 1979. Because of the growing sophistication of the trade union movement in arranging strikes, work bans and various other devices so that the maximum amount of disruption could be brought about with a minimum loss of pay, it was necessary to look at various ways in which on the one hand those going on strike would certainly suffer the full costs to themselves of that action and, on the other, the taxpayer was not being called upon in effect to support the strike action by supporting through unemployment benefits those thrown out of work because of that strike. One can argue that people who are totally innocent in a situation-this, of course, will be the argument of the Government-who are thrown out of work because of the strike deserve to be paid unemployment benefit. It is no fault of theirs that they are thrown out of work; they belong to a different union. They might believe as a result that they should receive unemployment benefit. That must be weighed against the argument that, if those benefits are available, that would have an effect on the decision-making processes and thoughts of the people calling the strike in the first place. If those who call the strike are not only held responsible for those thrown directly out of work within their union, who because of that feel the pressure of the loss of income on their decision-making processes, but also are made to be concerned, as is the existing rule, about those members of another union thrown out of work as a direct result of their strike action, they will have to be more concerned about the effects of their decisions. We must be very careful with this new Government, because it is bound under its platform not to remove privileges of the trade union movement which have been built up over a very long time-in fact for most of this century-but to extend those privileges. Some people in this community-I am certainly one of them- believe that the balance of power in these matters has moved very substantially over a period in the direction of the trade union movement. I am one of those who believe that that balance of power has gone too far in that direction. Certainly, I suppose that members of my family during the latter days of the last century and the early days of this century would have been very active in trying to achieve satisfactory justice for workers in Australia. If one reads the early history of the trade union movement and of the labour movement in Australia, one would certainly have enormous sympathy for the struggle of those people to achieve elementary justice and satisfactory bargaining power within the overall community. Legislation, of course, was introduced not only in this country but overseas-certainly in the United Kingdom and the United States of America with whose economies we are very familiar-to bring about at least, people hoped, a balance between the power of organised labour and the power of organised corporate business. That was certainly achieved quite successfully. Over the years, these powers that have been given to the labour movement have been added to. If one takes a balanced view of the situation in 1983, an objective observer would have to say that the balance has now gone very much the other way and that there are certain privileges which the trade union movement appears to have gained not only under the law but by custom and practice, particularly since the penalties for failure to meet one side of an agreement went by the board. Certainly, it has an immunity not only under the law but also by practice, in a way which gives it a substantial bargaining position. This affects not only those situations which cause grave disruption to community life , but also in the most direct way, as we know, the economy of the whole country. It gets to the heart of organised power in order to extract wages which can be beyond the capacity of the community to pay. The end result of the accretion of decisions of this kind, or arrangements, or bargains which are driven under the imbalance of power that we now have is that we have come to a point at which, when there is a downturn in the economy, we have a very much larger number of unemployed than we had in previous years. I think the House has to examine this whole matter very seriously indeed and it should do it almost de novo. In other words I believe that we should examine from scratch the privileges that are granted to the trade union movement and begin to wonder whether they are really appropriate for the remainder of this century and into our third century as a nation. Two points have come up recently. One of them is that the Government is moving in the direction of extending privilege to an already over-powerful group. The other one is in possible amendments to the Trade Practices Act. Section 45D was the subject of a question the other day when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) gave a somewhat unsatisfactory response to a query from this side of the House as to whether there would be an amendment to remove that item from the Trade Practices Act. I am not going to refer to that matter today because it is outside the scope of this Bill. However, I want to put the Government and the House on notice that the Opposition will be watching very carefully and closely indeed any point on which it believes that the Australian Labor Party in accordance with its platform-of course its platform is available to all-seeks to remove even further trade unions from sanctions of the law or to extend privilege in one form or another. This case is the first clear legislative act in that direction. We are utterly opposed to the conscription of taxpayers, in effect, to provide strike pay. I know that strike pay in this case is not being provided to those who are directly concerned in the union that calls the strike. The overall success of the strike will depend on the extent to which people can be cowed and the community can be held to ransom by the actions of the strikers. If as a result of a strike 100,000 people, for example in an extreme case, are out of work and the union knows that the taxpayer will pick up the bill through the unemployment benefit for those 100,000 people who are not directly in the union concerned, that has a powerful incentive effect on those calling the strike. It is part of their calculation as to their chances of success or otherwise in that strike action. As I mentioned earlier, we are in a situation in which we are asking the taxpayer to extend the social security bill by 19.2 per cent in one year. A very large part of the $14 1/2 billion being spent on social security is unfortunately being spent on unemployment benefit-unemployment benefit which has been paid out justifiably to people who, in our current economic conditions, are unable to find work. Nobody in this House will try to stop that from happening. Surely we have to ask in times such as these, or at any time, this question: If there is to be any extension of that social security bill should that money be going to people who are thrown out of work purely because of strike action on the part of other workers? Should people who are struggling to meet the weekly and monthly requirements of their families, who are paying high tax, be asked to pay even higher tax, in this case to give those who are calling a strike greater leverage in trying to secure the success of their strike action? I think any reasonable person in the community would have to agree that even if there were a satisfactory case for doing so, to do it at a time such as this, with the Budget deficit we have and with the very large demands we have, and quite legitimate ones, over a very wide range of benefits that have to be increased in this Bill- we are not opposing those, as the Government knows-is not appropriate. Heaven forbid, even if there were a good case, one would surely hesitate to bring in such a measure at this time. I can only say that we on this side of the House are fearful that the balance of power between organised labour, and organised business and organised government-if one could call it that-has moved unduly in the direction of organised labour. I certainly believe that this is a major factor in the current unemployment situation and in the incapacity of the National Economic Summit Conference to come up with a satisfactory scenario for the reduction of unemployment. Honourable members will recall three scenarios: Scenario A, scenario B and scenario C. Scenario A was favoured by the Government and was to continue with unemployment of the order of 9 per cent over three years. Scenario B, which is actually the one we are getting closer to, given the building industry settlements that appear to be coming through, shows even higher unemployment over three years than we have now. Honourable members will recall that scenario C was a tougher scenario because of the wages part of it. It showed a bit more hope-but not a great deal more-for the reduction of unemployment over three years. The Government, in its paper to the Summit Conference, said that it was unrealistic for industrial reasons for scenario C to be possible. 'Unrealistic for industrial reasons' is just another set of words for saying that the balance of power within the community between organised labour, and organised business and government is such that it is not possible for our society to decide on a scenario or a set of economic objectives which will lower unemployment within a reasonable period. That, in fact, was what the Summit Conference said-that it was impossible because of these constraints. Instead of going on to question those constraints and to ask what rigidities there were in our society and in our system of wage settlements that were preventing the satisfactory outcome of employment, the Summit settled for the lowest common denominator that was available from those people present from organised business, labour and government. It settled for a scenario which held out very dismal prospects indeed for the unemployed. To follow that up with this measure is to reinforce that unfortunate paragraph in the supporting statement to the Summit and to indicate that the Government not only accepts that it is largely helpless in the face of organised labour to take a determined action against high unemployment but also seeks in this legislation to extend those privileges and that power. I think that is a dreadful thing for the Government to do. I think that if the Government proceeds also to amend the Trade Practices Act in the same way, and if it proceeds beyond that in line with the accord and with the industrial relations platform of the Australian Labor Party, which calls for the removal of even more sanctions and legal constraints on trade unions, it will be pursuing a course which will be absolute disaster for the unemployed in Australia. So in a Bill whose general purpose is to be compassionate-indeed, most of it is , it is carefully drafted in a whole lot of ways which are quite beneficial to those who are least able to help themselves-this particular part is a blot on the whole framework. Indeed, it is a measure which will have the effect of increasing the dependence on the unemployment benefit, on which we are spending so much money and about which, of course, the community is really so desperately concerned. The Opposition will not vote against the second reading of this Bill but during the Committee stage it will seek to amend the Bill to remove that sub-clause which reintroduces this privilege for the trade union movement. I return to the words of the Minister in his second reading speech. This is the Hawkespeak aspect of it: The existing rule was introduced in October 1979 and has the effect of discriminating against trade unionists Surely that is turning words upside down. There is some concern about amendments . We will actually be voting against a clause. Mr Holding —We are not moving an amendment. Mr CARLTON —We are not moving amendments. I am sorry. There was some alarm amongst the top table about that. Mr SPEAKER —We do have some problems with procedures at times. Mr Ruddock —Like the reference to the top table. Mr CARLTON —Well, that is what it is. On a Wednesday we can refer to these things. What I am concerned about is that if we adopt the phraseology used by the Government, we begin to argue the case on the trade unionists' terms. In fact, that is how almost the whole of our industrial relations debate is conducted. It is conducted in a kind of language which turns life upside down. In this case, the Fraser Government's move to remove unemployment benefits from people put out of work because of strikes is called discriminating against unionists. In fact, the purpose of the measure was to prevent discrimination against taxpayers and against the community. The effects of the strike action are two-fold: First, disruption and, secondly, the economic effect. The effect of the strike action will push wages beyond what a market would pay and what the community can indeed effect- Mr Holding —Unionists are taxpayers too. Mr CARLTON —The Minister mentions that unionists are taxpayers. Indeed, they are . Any market opinion surveys that are conducted of unionists as to their real views about these matters-the Minister will be aware of Dr Rawson's research on this matter; it is all published-have surprising outcomes when we ask unionists what they really believe about the power of trade unions and whether they think it is too great. We find that the majority of people, even those who are members of unions linked with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, in the Rawson studies indicated that they have very great doubts about the extension of those powers. I am quoting from the actual figures. I have not got them with me so I cannot quote them in percentage terms, but all that research material is available. Analyses of votes by trade unionists in the recent election in the United Kingdom, have shown how many votes went to the Social Democrats and the Conservatives. The Labour Party in the United Kingdom was getting about a third of the trade union vote. So there is a lot of questioning within the trade union movement amongst the general membership about these directions. The people who are organising the strikes, organising the unions and the people appearing before the tribunals and all those who are part of the club are the ones who use this kind of language; they are the people who try to be guileless on the television every night as to the merits of their case. When we have governments using this kind of language- saying it is discriminating against trade unionists to pay unemployment benefits in this particular case-we have to make it absolutely clear that we stand for consumers and taxpayers. Of course, many of those people are trade unionists. We believe that rank and file trade unionists would support us in this action. Certainly those in a particular area and in a particular case in the short term might be very concerned about not being able to apply for unemployment benefits. We believe anybody looking at this matter from an overall point of view as to their medium and long term self-interest would certainly agree with the arguments we are putting up. We will not be voting against the second reading of the Bill. We support the generous but necessary provisions of the Bill for those most in need. We are concerned about the increasing gap between unemployment benefits, education allowances and the tertiary education assistance scheme allowances that have come out of this Budget. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind honourable members that it is not the practice to consult across the aisle with advisers in the boxes. There is a proper procedure . It has been happening on both sides of the chamber. I do not want it to continue. The proper way is for the honourable member to leave the seat and consult. I call the honourable member for Mackellar. Mr CARLTON —We will, in Committee, be voting against the particular clause that relates to the unemployment benefit being paid to those who are affected by strike action. Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(11.06) —I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill as it is something about which I feel very strongly as I have been involved in community and charitable work for a long time. However, before I get to the real guts of the Bill I think I should take this opportunity to refute some of the pathetic statements made by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). It is obvious, from some of the ridiculous statements that the honourable member for Mackellar has made, that he does not understand anything about trade unions. I refute completely the honourable member for Mackellar's cynical view on the attitude of unions that-to use his words-'Unions would use greater leverage to support their strike action claims in this particular legislation'. In the short time that I have available to me perhaps I could just educate the honourable member for Mackellar as to the way in which trade unions operate. I ask the honourable member for Mackellar to listen to what I have to say. There have been many occasions when the business of a boss or employer has gone bad and he purposely forces a small group of unionists out the gate and the rest of the employees are stood down. This suits the employer because none of these people are on the payroll. This legislation ensures that, in the scandalous position where an employer forces strike action upon the responsible unions, the unions that are affected through no fault of their own are covered. I emphasise that point because I am quite proud of this legislation. The Bill provides for the modification of the existing rule that disqualifies a trade unionist, who is not himself on strike, from receiving the unemployment benefit, if his unemployment is due to other members of his trade union being on strike. Nobody could disagree with that, certainly nobody on this side of the House. The existing rule was introduced in October 1979 and has the effect of discriminating against trade unions. Under the proposed amendment a trade unionist would not be disqualified for the purposes of the unemployment benefit if industrial action did not occur at the place of employment. With the introduction of this amendment the rules governing qualification for unemployment benefit in strike situations will be as follows: Firstly, direct participants in a strike will not qualify for benefit; secondly, members of a striking union at the establishment at which a strike takes place will not qualify for benefit; and, thirdly, members of other unions at the establishment at which a strike takes place, who are not themselves on strike, will qualify for benefit. Any clear thinking person who has been involved in any trade union advocacy or employer-employee industrial relationship could not argue with that in any way whatsoever. The honourable member for Mackellar, who quite possibly was a good Minister for Health, obviously knows nothing whatsoever about the effectiveness of this legislation. I wish he would learn a little bit more about it without using the usual tactics employed by some of his colleagues-that is, bashing the unions, bashing the workers and this type of thing. Quite frankly, it does not suit the honourable member for Mackellar. It would be much better if he were constructive about the benefits of this Bill. The Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill is extremely beneficial to those two million people who are living below the poverty line. The No. 1 thrust of this Government, when it came to office, was to lift the living standards of all those people below the poverty line. I am extremely proud to be part of the Government which certainly has put those wheels in motion. I am happy also to be part of a team headed by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), who is seated at the table. He has certainly done a lot for the Aboriginal people-the forgotten people of Australia. There has been a 27 per cent increase in the Budget allocation. I am extremely happy to be a part of the Government and to have as a colleague a sensitive and caring Minister in that field. The implementation of the initiatives contained within the 1983-84 Budget were certainly astronomical for the underprivileged. Of the total Budget outlay, 25.6 per cent is directed to the area of social security. This is an amount of some $ 14,500m. It certainly represents a very large lift in benefit for those people who certainly need it. It shows our concern as opposed to the attitude of the Opposition. In 1982-83, the former Fraser Government-the honourable member for Mackellar was part of that Government-allocated only 19.2 per cent of its revenue to social security. This was a total outlay of only $2,330m. Honourable members can see that the Labor Party has never run away from the fact that it cares for the underprivileged. The people at the bottom of the socio-economic scale are certainly being looked after by this Party. I say in this connection that, in my large electorate of Grey, many people are on various pensions of one form or another. Unemployment is certainly running at higher than the average level throughout Australia. I pay tribute to the voluntary organisations such as the St Vincent de Paul Society and the Salvation Army which have done tremendous work in trying to assist these people. I am pleased to say that, since this Bill was introduced, these voluntary organisations have approached me saying how glad they are that they finally have in Canberra a government that cares for the underprivileged. I am delighted that the Hawke Labor Government has honoured an election pledge that no longer will the unfortunate people who are unemployed be treated as second class citizens. For instance, since May, the single unemployed 18-year- old has had his or her single unemployment benefit lifted to $73.60 a week. This has affected 452,000 beneficiaries. The 16-year-old and 17-year-old unemployed- the young people who are often forgotten-have had a $5 a week rise to $45 a week . The previous Government did not care about the young unemployed. I am pleased to see that this Government has given a priority to the young kids who cannot get jobs. Certainly all of us, and particularly those on this side of the House, have been inundated with cases of young people who want to work but cannot find jobs. We are showing that they certainly have a place in our society and that we care very much about these people. The Labor Government has shown its commitment to the maintenance of the family unit, which I wholeheartedly support. The Government has shown its total obligation to all families whether they are made up of pensioners, beneficiaries or low income working people living in poverty. In the past, too many families raising young Australians were caring for their children on unacceptably low wages or incomes. This certainly will not continue because I am sure that this Party, the Bob Hawke Labor Party, will be in government for a long time. Certainly in the foreseeable future, those people who live below the poverty line will have their standards lifted and will not have to just exist on the mere pittance they were given over the years. They certainly will be able to live in a happy environment knowing that they will be suitably catered for by a party that really cares for them-the Australian Labor Party. In this Bill, across the whole spectrum of social welfare and social security areas, there is some assistance for every section of the community whether it be child minding facilities or assistance for supporting mothers, supporting fathers and all other beneficiaries. Everybody has been catered for. It is extremely gratifying to see-there is happiness on this side of the House-that finally the Australian Labor Party has been swept into office. We are caring about the people who supported us. Certainly all the Christian people within this community know that we are a caring Party, not like the Opposition and not like the honourable member for Mackellar. The only thing he could do in his pathetic display was to attack the unions, tongue in cheek. The honourable member for Mackellar did not get to the guts of the Bill. His speech was hopeless. He did not have a clue what the Bill was about. He could not attack anything; all he could do was have a go at the trade union movement, and he really did that rather pitifully. I conclude by saying how happy I am to be part of a government-the Australian Labor Party Government-that cares for the underprivileged people. Certainly, this is only the beginning of lifting the living standards of the people who live below the poverty line. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(11.15) —I welcome the opportunity of participating in this debate. I shall direct my remarks particularly to the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill. I will not avoid commenting, at least in part, on the observations of the honourable member who spoke before me, the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil). Honourable members opposite, all too readily, are prepared to articulate the view that they are the only people with a conscience, the only people who care. The honourable member suggested that the Australian Labor Party was a caring party. If honourable members opposite look at some of the speeches I made when they were last in government they will realise how readily those sorts of remarks can be turned against them. When one sees, as a result of government policies, significant increases in levels of unemployment-we saw that in 1973, 1974 and 1975-and when one can sheet them home directly to the policies that were pursued at that time one appreciates how much these sorts of arguments can be turned against the Government of the day. Of course, later, we saw very different circumstances as a result of what I would describe as much more international factors. There were significant increases in the levels of unemployment as a result of circumstances that were beyond the control of the former Government. The drought was significant. I know that honourable members opposite accept the injunction of their Leader that perhaps they had some impact on the breaking of the drought, but I do not accept that there has been any such divine intervention. I think the honourable member ought to be a little more prepared to examine the capacity of his own Government to grant the sorts of requests that he is making, to appreciate the limitations on governments-I refer not only to the previous Government but also to his own- and to acknowledge that high deficits have an impact and limit the capacity of all governments to give the sorts of benefits that they would like to see put in place. We have before us the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill which is to give legislative effect to the Government's Budget decisions and to make amendments to the repatriation and defence service homes legislation. Those words were largely taken from the opening words of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) when he introduced this legislation on behalf of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt). The Bill, however, does not implement all the Government's Budget decisions affecting veterans and social service recipients generally. In particular, it fails to give details of the Government' s proposed assets test which will affect the eligibility for pensions of veterans and war widows in particular. The Bill, however, has a number of facets. Included amongst its main provisions are provisions for the Deputy Chairman of the Repatriation Commission to be appointed by the Governor-General; indexation of income levels for the provision of fringe benefits from November 1983 for persons who receive a service pension; the extension of eligibility for the guardian's allowance to a veteran who has the custody, care and control of a child or children when he is separated from his wife because of illness; extension of the eligibility for a service pension to the husband of a severely handicapped female veteran where he is required to provide constant care and attention for his wife; and the introduction of a remote area allowance for service pensioners living in remote areas at the same rates as those outlined in the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill which we have been discussing. The Bill also includes an increase in the rates of attendant allowance; an increase in the rates of orphan's pension; an increase to pensions payable to amputees and those suffering a loss of vision, in line with the consumer price index rises; an extension of the authority for the Defence Service Homes Corporation to make available out of accumulated deposits an amount for insurance for a dwelling and allowing the Defence Service Homes Corporation to undertake insurance of improvements to dwellings and buildings and materials for such improvements. I mentioned those matters because I acknowledge that they are important extensions of benefits. I hope that honourable members opposite, in accepting that accolade, also acknowledge that the previous Government significantly extended benefits that would affect veterans. I shall mention some of those because they provide an interesting catalogue as well. I think it is important to recognise that we all accept the obligation to provide adequately for those who have served Australia as veterans did in such a distinguished way to protect our future. Of course, the previous Government in its last Budget put in place a number of decisions. The amount of allowable income for the maximum pension was increased from $20 to $30 a week for single people and from $34.50 to $50 a week for married people from November 1982. Fringe benefits for eligibility income limits were raised to $54 a week for single people and to $90 a week for married couples. The pension was extended to veterans who had served in allied forces and to Australian, Commonwealth and allied merchant seamen. A proportion of disability pension, disregarded when assessing eligibility for service pension, was increased from 60 per cent to 100 per cent from November 1982. Increased pensions and benefits were announced in the 1982 Budget generally. In the benefits area pensioner health benefits were extended to British Commonwealth veterans and dependants who received Australian service pensions. The issuance of personal treatment entitlement cards to all pensioners eligible for free medical and hospital treatment and to war widows was a new initiative. A new temporary incapacity allowance was introduced. Repatriation funeral benefits were increased to $500 and eligibility tests were eased. Australian mariners who were prisoners of war and veterans with service related amputations or loss of vision or an eye were eligible for free medical treatment for all conditions. Repatriation benefits were extended to all members of peacekeeping, observation and monitoring forces, and repatriation medical and hospital treatment for all disabilities was extended to all World War II veterans receiving at least 50 per cent disability pension and service pensions from November 1982. In the hospitals area, in the 1982-83 Budget improvements were announced for repatriation hospitals, including new operating theatres, wards, the employment of more nurses, the reopening of wards and new specialised equipment. I mentioned those matters because I think they put in balance the nature of the sorts of changes that were implemented by this Government. I acknowledge that they are worthwhile advances, but equally the previous Government always looked at the range of benefits and, as Budget positions allowed it, ensured that those benefits were extended where possible. These were very positive amendments. Of course, the Opposition acknowledges that the amendments proposed by the Government in this legislation are worthy of support, and in that regard we offer support to this Bill. There is, however, one matter which I want to raise in regard to which the Opposition has some reservations. The Minister, in his second reading speech, made this reference: . . . savings will be generated by the removal of the exemption from income of payments by trade unions and friendly societies, but they cannot be estimated as it is not known how many service pensioners receive such payments. Removal of the exemption is justifiable on the ground of equity. That was a Budget change about which very little was said, but I think it is important that honourable members be aware of the way in which this Budget will affect friendly societies. I understand that friendly societies have been operating in Australia for approximately 150 years and have been a means by which individual Australians could provide for their welfare needs through mutual aid. While an increase in the proportion of welfare needs has been made available by governments, friendly societies have modified their roles and activities so as to provide Australians with additional welfare needs, wants and priorities, particularly those members who have been involved in those mutual societies. Naturally, society benefits and the services provided have been built upon the long-standing status which societies have enjoyed under Commonwealth taxation and social security legislation, particularly in relation to the veterans' area about which I am speaking in this debate. This status has existed for quite a number of years. Consequently, members have an understandable expectation as to the level of benefits to be derived from their participation in society activities. Thus any legislative change which would have a sudden effect on the capacity of societies to fulfil these long-standing expectations could reasonably be expected seriously to disrupt the circumstances of a number of members. Whilst the Government is not able to quantify it, I think it must be accepted that numbers of people will be affected. The services to aged villages and nursing homes which rely on subsidies from friendly societies could be curtailed as a result of the overall financial situation of societies being adversely affected by legislative changes-those foreshadowed as well as those in this legislation. The friendly societies welfare movement in the Australian community extends to some 2,000 hostels, I am informed, and a number of holiday and nursing homes, not to mention a number of dental clinics. Changes to the current taxation, social security and veterans' provisions could go so far as to affect the viability of some friendly societies and, eventually, the viability of the activities in which those societies are involved. This would not only disrupt the arrangements and expectations of existing society members but also disadvantage friendly society employees, many of whom could face difficulty in finding alternative employment in the current recession. No doubt the Government's decision not to use friendly societies and other health funds as vehicles to administer Medicare will also have an effect upon the viability of some of those organisations. I think it is important in that context to recognise the nature of these organisations, the work in which they have been involved and the extent to which this legislation may affect their viability. Of course, the Government, while it suggests that removal of this exemption is justified on the grounds of equity, is not able to give any indication of the way in which these changes as well as the changes that are envisaged in the area of taxation as a result of the introduction of Medicare, are likely to affect those organisations. Representatives of friendly societies have pointed out that the practical effect of the proposed removal from the social security legislation and the veterans' affairs legislation of the provisions which exempt friendly societies from payments of pension and benefit income tests is in the area of sickness benefits only. According to friendly society sources, this is a declining area of friendly society activity and the payments involved are small. But those representatives have made the following points: The sickness benefits are limited to a maximum of $95 per week under legislation, but in most cases payments would be less than $20 a week; total annual payments of sickness benefits by friendly societies are less than $1m; and the average age of contributors to friendly society sickness benefit funds is around the mid to late fifties, and many sickness benfit recipients are over 70. In addition friendly society representatives argue that the removal of the exemption from the social security and veterans' affairs legislation should not require existing members to become liable for income testing. On evidence provided it would appear that any change would have a negligible effect on the overall welfare spending, particularly if the number of benefits and contributors is declining. I mention those matters because I think it is important that the position of the friendly societies be put. We do not oppose the removal in this instance but I think if it is found that these changes have a significant effect upon the viability of friendly societies it is important that honourable members be aware that this is a possible consequence of the changes that have been introduced in this repatriation legislation as well as the social security legislation, and coupled with other changes that are likely to affect these organisations. Mr Deputy Speaker, I mentioned that, while the Minister said this legislation gives effect to all the Government's Budget decisions, no particulars have been given of assets testing of veterans' benefits generally. This Bill purports to deal with the Government's Budget changes but it does not provide the detail of the proposed assets test which was outlined in the Budget. We know that in the mini- Budget in May the Government proposed certain changes affecting pensioners over 70 years of age and introduced a new income test for them. Of course, we have the movable feast involving superannuation benefits, changes which were also foreshadowed in May. One would have thought, insofar as the Government is concerned to deal with double dipping which was one of its stated objectives, that it would have been unlikely in the light of those changes in May that further changes would have been announced in the Budget. Yet there was an announcement that there is to be an assets test. Read with the earlier changes, it does not constitute by any stretch of the imagination a comprehensive policy. Rather, honourable members would appreciate that it seems that two very different and substantially inconsistent policies are being pursued. In that context I think honourable members need to appreciate that the Budget assets test now seems to supersede the earlier income test for the over-70s announced in May. If the assets test was proposed in May, why did the Government propose to income test those over 70 ? The cost of doing so is very considerable. Numbers of pensioners over 70 years of age have expressed to me their concern about the detailed information they have to provide about their personal circumstances. That test will apply for about 12 months if the assets test changes are introduced and then new provisions will have to be put in place. In the Budget debate in the Senate it has now been revealed that the cost of the May announcement for that one year's change in relation to people over 70 years of age will be of the order of $3m. As I have said, pensioners have been put to very considerable embarrassment, cost and inconvenience for a new system which will last for only about 12 months if the Government proceeds with this new assets test. I regard conduct of that sort as harsh and unconscionable, particularly when it is viewed against some of the comments of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs who, during the period May to August when the Budget was introduced, was at pains to make the point that the Government did not have in mind introducing an assets test for pension recipients. One wonders to what extent he was involved in the Budget decisions when one looks at his statements of June and July. I would like to quote to the House in the short time available his statements of 20 June and 6 July, because I think the comments I have been making are very much reinforced by the Minister's statements. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs on 20 June put out a news release which, in part, stated: The Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Gietzelt, today reminded the Australian community of its costly obligation to accept responsibility for the Repatriation of ex-servicemen and women. However, Senator Gietzelt said there are thousands of people who have considerable assets yet are still applying for and receiving pensions through the Repatriation system. He gave the following examples of such cases: A person who has assets of over $600,000 yet manages to convert his declared income to only $16 per fortnight Another whose business revenue totalled over $1 million for the year, yet after so-called expenses were taken into account showed a net profit of $159. Yet another who retired with a lump sum of over $170,000 yet receives a full Service Pension plus fringe benefits. He said that in a time of economic difficulty, we must look to sharing the burden. Those who could most afford to, should be looking to help others. Unfortunately that spirit was not being followed by many who wished to avoid their responsibilities. Those comments need to be looked at in the light of the comments of the present Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) during the Lowe by-election. I note that the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) is to speak later in this debate. The Minister had this to say: The argument about millionares receiving pensions is a cruel and emotive device to cover up the Government's real intention . . . to justify ripping the pension off ordinary people with modest savings they have worked for all their lives. Those comments apply very much to the observations of Senator Gietzelt who is using a mallet to deal with a number of very special circumstances which could be dealt with in a much more specific way. In the comments made by Senator Gietzelt in his statement of 6 July-I encourage honourable members to read it-he responded to suggestions that he was about to impose an assets test on pension recipients. He said: That is not what I am talking about at all . . . I am seeking further information about just how widespread are the abuses of the kind I have already discovered, and what we can do to modify the income test on pensions to prevent such abuse. Some who have contacted my office have expressed a fear that their few accumulated assets might be subject to a test that would determine their eligibility for a pension. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(11.35) —We are debating the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill and the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill. I am delighted to have the opportunity to make a few comments about this legislation because, like all honourable members, I am continually interviewing constituents with pension problems or veterans' affairs pension problems. All honourable members should have become expert at handling these inquiries because they see a wide variety of difficulties with pensions and the various situations that confront the ordinary Australian senior citizen seeking to obtain a benefit or pension to augment his or her income in retirement or declining years. The Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill is an important Bill because it amends a number of Acts. First, it amends the Social Security Act. This amendment will implement one of the Government's major election commitments which was to restore progressively the rate of unemployment benefit for single adults to parity with the standard rate of pension. Another election commitment was that the rate of benefit for single unemployed and sickness beneficiaries aged 16 and 17 would be increased by $5 to $45 a week from November 1983. I was also pleased to note in the Bill a provision to deal with remote area allowances . Having last year been in the Kimberleys in Western Australia where I was confronted with the cost of goods and services in remote parts of our nation, I congratulate the Government for implementing this remote areas allowance. Another area of great significance in the legislation is the proposal to introduce a spouse carer's pension from December 1983. This pension will assist men providing constant care and attention for their aged or invalid pensioner wives at home. At present men in these circumstances who have to care for invalid or infirm wives can qualify only for the special benefit. There is a harsher income test in relation to the special benefit; no pensioner fringe benefits are payable and there is no entitlement to the State fringe benefits such as rate rebates and transport concession certificates which are often important. I congratulate the Government for bringing in this spouse carer's pension. It is very sad for any of us to interview an elderly man who tells us that his wife is bedridden at home and needs his constant care. Naturally he finds that the family savings are soon exhausted because of sickness, his inability to work and the cost of medication and pharmaceuticals. I noted that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), in the second reading speech, could only guess as to the number of men who will become eligible for a spouse carer's pension. He put the figure at about 2,000. From November 1983 the basic income limits will be $57 a week for a single pensioner and $94 a week for a married couple. The existing additional benefit of $20 a week for each child will continue to apply. The Minister pointed out in his second reading speech that currently 1.7 million Australian pensioners and beneficiaries are eligible for fringe benefits. I also want to touch upon the commendable action being taken by the Government to amend the stringent conditions laid down by the previous Government in relation to the payment of unemployment benefit to people out of work because of strike action. I commend the Government in this regard. I was appalled by the comments of the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) who talked at length about the great work of his forebears. I had the privilege of knowing the honourable member's grandmother. Mrs Carlton, who lived in Ashfield, was a great and wonderful lady who would not have stood by and seen families starve because of a strike in a factory. If ever I have known a person who had compassion and sensitivity, it was the honourable member's grandmother. I am sure she would be appalled today by the attitude that her grandson is taking in this House. The Government will not pay the unemployment benefit to direct participants in a strike, nor will members of a striking union at an establishment at which a strike takes place be qualified for benefits. But members of other unions at the establishment at which a strike is taking place, who are not themselves on strike, will qualify for the benefit. Persons stood down at other establishments as a result of a strike will qualify for the benefit, irrespective of their union membership. Two weeks ago I visited the Ford Motor Co. of Australia Ltd plant in my electorate at Homebush. I found that the 700 employees in the factory were all members of one union. I was delighted to learn from the Honourable Joe Thompson, MLC, of the Vehicle Builders Union that there had not been an industrial stoppage at the Ford factory at Homebush in Sydney since 1967. This says something not only for the union membership and leadership but also for the management of the Ford factory at Homebush. Yet I was informed that because companies do not stockpile equipment if there is a strike in Victoria at one of the plastics or moulding plants Ford could be without supplies in Sydney within a matter of a few days. So a strike in Victoria could throw out of work 800 people in Sydney. Under the former Government's test those people would have been denied the unemployment benefit. Of course, it should be pointed out that the spouse and the children of the worker were entitled to a special benefit, so perhaps the whole family did not starve. But the former Government had a nasty attitude in relation to paying the unemployment benefit during a strike. It was an emotive response when there should have been a clear-headed, conciliatory approach. The former Government's aim was to inflame the situation and in doing so all it achieved was to hurt the families. It does not say much for the Liberal Party's philosophy if it is a philosophy of strikes and starving the families of strikers. Certainly, no evidence has ever been given to me that its philosophy of not paying the unemployment benefit to people who are unfortunately out of work due to a strike which takes place somewhere else would have settled the strike one day earlier than it would otherwise have been settled. Other important matters are contained in the social security legislation. There is a new scheme under, and amendments to, the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act . The Government is changing the method of funding as from 1 January 1984. That is just as well, because in my electorate St Mary's Concord Community Aid Centre for the Aged is about to build 40 units. The centre is concerned about this new scheme. I will be able to assure it that the legislation will be passed and that the grant it has received from the Department of Social Security will be paid promptly, because the new scheme comes into effect from 1 January 1984. The only other matter I wanted to comment on, which other speakers have not referred to-except the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil)-was the additional payment as from 1 January of separate meal and accommodation subsidies to centres caring for homeless men, such as the Sydney City Mission, the Salvation Army's centres and the Matthew Talbot Hostel in Sydney. The subsidies to those approved centres will be 50c for a meal and $1.50 for a night's accommodation. I pay credit to the people who work in a voluntary capacity at those centres and who care for homeless men. Of course, the situation is exacerbated by the economic circumstances of our nation. Many itinerant persons cannot obtain jobs and are forced to live in hostels and in accommodation provided by these important charities. The estimated cost of these measures will be $1.6m in the current financial year and $2.5m in a full year. I pass briefly to the repatriation legislation. I do so because the Concord Repatriation General Hospital is situated in my electorate. It is certainly the largest hospital in the electorate of Lowe. It has an important community input. Twenty per cent of the patients are community patients. I am always pressing for a greater community involvement and a greater intake of community patients. To give the widest possible case range to the medical students in such a major teaching hospital it is essential to have more young patients and women patients so that a total range of community problems is represented The hospital is also the largest employer in the electorate of Lowe. Of course, I have many official contacts with the hospital every year. I make representations on behalf of the staff. I am delighted that the present Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) visited the hospital at my request. I cannot say the same for his predecessor. The repatriation legislation contains a number of important areas. One that particularly appealed to me was that, to bring it in line with the social security legislation, it will pay the burnt-out diggers pension to the husbands of returned service personnel who served in a theatre of war. I am told that there are about 32,000 recipients of what we call the burnt-out diggers pension and about 4,000 of those people are women. Many women approach me about receiving the burnt-out diggers pension, or other pensions, for serving in the war. They point out that women were discriminated against during the war and were kept here, driving trucks, out of theatres of war. I know the Government will deal with this important point so that women do receive their full recognition for what they did between 1939 and 1945 and for their national input to our war effort. The legislation also contains provision for a remote area allowance. Another area deals with the friendly societies and trade union income . They are the matters which I put before the House today. I commend the legislation to the House. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory)(11.48) —The Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill contains many initiatives in the social welfare field, an area in which this Government has a genuine and deep interest. A special initiative is contained in the Bill, which will be of particular importance to people living in remote areas; that is, the introduction of a remote area allowance. As from 1 May next year an unmarried person will receive $7 a week and a married person $6 a week, or a combined amount of $12 a week; there will be a payment of $3.50 a week per child. I believe that this initiative shows the Hawke Labor Government' s real concern for the people who are living in the bush, in remote areas. It is interesting to look at the history of this initiative. It was first raised publicly in the report of the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty in 1975. That report recommended: . . . remote area allowance, to be determined after investigation of actual cost of living differentials, be paid to pensioners and beneficiaries living in the Tax Commissioner's Area A. This initiative, of course, applies to the area known as tax zone A. In 1981 the public inquiry into zone allowances noted: . . . serious problems for such people, particularly pensioners, because their income is often insufficient to meet the costs of living in such localities and/ or making their residency more pleasant. The report continued: . . . there is a strong case for the government to consider an additional social security payment to pensioners living in the prescribed zones when they are unable to fully benefit from the zone allowance rebates. At its 1982 National Conference the Australian Labor Party confirmed in its policy a commitment to introduce a special zone allowance for social security recipients in remote areas. In February this year the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) announced in Darwin that this allowance would be introduced on the election of a Labor government. The Minister, in February this year-of course at that stage he was shadow Minister-said: It is Labor's intention to give some recognition of the fact that cost of living and transport costs in these areas are high and that though wage and salary earners have had some relief from these extra costs through the tax system, pensioners have up until now missed out on a similar loading. As I have already indicated the allowance will be introduced for people living in zone A. An estimated 24,000 people who are in that zone are receiving social security pensions. About 13,000 people are living in the Northern Territory and receiving social security pensions. That is about 10 per cent of the population of the Northern Territory. The allowance will not make those people rich; it will simply assist them to remain in areas such as the Northern Territory rather than move to southern capitals after they retire or when they receive a social security pension. It will have a direct social impact in that there has been a tendency for people, after they retire, to leave the Northern Territory. As a result, grandparents and older people do not make up a large part of the population of the Northern Territory. With this allowance, which, as I have said , will not make people rich, it is expected that people who would otherwise go south may stay in the Northern Territory after their retirement. It is a very important initiative and an indication yet again that this Government, in seven short months, has acted to show its real, deep concern for not only people receiving fixed incomes and social security pensions, but also people in the bush. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(11.53) —Townsville has been the birthplace of many veterans who have served in the armed forces of Australia. Indeed, from airfields located near the Townsville region, allied aircraft ventured forth to engage in the vital battle of the Coral Sea. Even before that time at the beginning of World War I a ship carrying a Townsville contingent attacked the German outpost at Rabaul. That in itself is a measure of the enthusiasm with which north Queensland people have shouldered the burden of the defence of their country during time of peril. Consequently, the people of north Queensland take a great interest in the provisions of the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1983. This Bill introduces a number of amendments which give recognition to the need to provide adequate financial recognition to veterans and their dependants in Australia during the 1980s and the years ahead. In 1920, the Australian Soldiers' Repatriation Act was passed by the Parliament . It was a consolidation of other Acts. The 1920 Act laid the foundation for payment of compensation to those who were injured and the dependants of those killed during World War I. During the years following 1920, many amendments to the Repatriation Act were made. Service pensions were introduced in 1935. One distinguishing feature of repatriation legislation at that time was the acceptance by all political parties of the need not only to provide but also to continue to provide adequate compensation to veterans and their dependants in respect of injuries incurred by veterans during war service. Since World War II, the original Act has been amended on numerous occasions in line with changes in social conditions but more particularly in recognition of the sacrifice made by veterans during times of conflict. The previous Labor Government ensured that benefits paid under the repatriation legislation were extended to serving members of the peacetime forces who satisfied certain conditions of service. Benefits were extended to veterans who served in the Korean war, the Malaysian conflict and other areas of conflict since that time. Veterans have also welcomed the provision that eligibility for a service pension will be extended to include a man providing constant care to a severely disabled female service pensioner. Veterans living in remote areas of Australia, such as the northern and western parts of Australia, will welcome the introduction of a remote area allowance for service pensioners. The guardians allowance will be extended to a veteran who is separated from his wife because of her ill health and where the veteran has care of the children. The introduction of indexation of income limits in respect of fringe benefit eligibility will remove a major irritant to eligible veterans who may be in receipt of a small indexed income. Fringe benefits are an essential feature of the total income package to service pensioners. In this respect, eligibility for medical treatment is of paramount importance. Rebates for local authority rates, telephone rental and transport concessions are benefits which are constantly availed of by service pensioners. The Hawke Government-an authentic Australian Government-is concerned at the additional costs incurred by Australians living in areas remote from major population centres. In the economic statement announced by the Hawke Labor Government earlier this year, special provision was foreshadowed to be made with respect to veterans and to ease the burden on veterans. That was never achieved during the time of the Fraser Government. Despite the fact that taxpayers in remote areas receive concessions, service pensioners who are not taxpayers do not receive any concessions to assist them with higher costs of goods and services. From 10 May 1984, a remote area allowance will be paid to those service pensioners who live in those areas recognised under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 as remote areas. It is my hope that zone B, as defined in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, will be enlarged and extended to include those areas of northern Queensland which are not presently part of zone B. I believe that a disability is being suffered by veterans living in areas from Mackay north, who are not part of zone B as defined in the Income Tax Assessment Act of 1936. For eligible pensioners living in remote areas, this will mean an additional $7 a week for a single person, $6 a week for each married couple and $3 a week for each child. Regulations to this Act will provide indexation of disability pensions payable to about 60 Papua New Guinea veterans. In November 1983, the rates of disability pension for Papua New Guinean veterans will increase by $45.39 to $205.44 monthly for a totally incapacitated member; by $21.39 to $122.24 for the widow of a member and by $5.08 to $23.03 for an orphan under 16 years of age of a member. Disability pensions for Papua New Guinea veterans will be automatically adjusted each May and November to take into account future movements in the Papua New Guinea consumer price index. This will apply from 10 May 1984. The 60 Papua New Guinea indigenous veterans and ex-policemen who served in special units raised during World War II will be recipients of the benefits of these amendments. Some of these veterans were attached to Australian forces in Papua and New Guinea. I congratulate the Hawke Government in ensuring that these amendments are being brought into effect at present. Papua New Guinea pensions will give real value and real assistance to those veterans who assisted Australian soldiers in the Papua and New Guinea campaigns. This Government is not parsimonious with veterans. As a result of these amendments additional benefits paid to veterans will cost the Government $0.92m in 1983-84; $2.225m in 1984-85 and $3.34m in 1985-86. Additional costs will be incurred by amendments to the regulations. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs ( Mr Holding) said: The biggest single cost is the indexation of fringe benefits levels: $0.565m in 1983-84; $0.488m in 1984-85 and $2.578m in 1984-86. Despite a Budget which has attempted to restrain expenditure and reduce costs, veterans who are seriously handicapped and have a total or substantial dependence on government financial recognition of their service during wartime will applaud the measures introduced in this Bill. In relation to some latter clauses in the Bill, I mention that in 1980 the Defence Service Homes Act was amended to allow purchasers and borrowers to insure their homes with an insurer other than the Defence Service Homes Corporation. The amendments to section 29 of the principal Act will remove all doubt that excess credits paid by borrowers against their mortgage indebtedness can be used for the purpose of payment of insurance premiums with insurers other than the Corporation. At present the Corporation is empowered only to undertake insurance of a dwelling house or certain building materials associated therewith . The definition of a dwelling house in the Act does not include, for example, a garage, shed or other permanent domestic improvements associated with use of the house usually covered under householders insurances. Furthermore, section 38 is amended to provide cover in respect of any legal liability for certain cases of accidental bodily injury and accidental damage to property attaching to the insured in his capacity as owner of the property. This innovative provision, which brings into line insurance under the Defence Service Homes Act with commercial insurances which attach to ordinary private dwellings, is a welcome initiative in this Bill. Clause 36 of the Bill validates payments made to claimants properly claiming under statements of conditions of the cover where there is a possible doubt as to the legal validity of payments made pursuant to the statement of conditions of the cover at the time. I mention that the total estimated expenditure for the Veterans' Affairs portfolio for 1983-84 is over $2.818 billion-an increase of $355m or 14.4 per cent on actual expenditure of $2.463 billion in 1982-83. That record is consistent with the record of the Australian Labor Party with respect to the defence services and to the provision of benefits for veterans. No other government in the history of Australia has been more to the fore than the Labor Government in times of crisis in this nation or in providing assistance to veterans virtually from the time that the consolidated Australian Soldiers' Repatriation Act was introduced in 1920. I would like to place on record recognition of the efforts of Labor Party administration in the Federal sphere and recognition of the innovative legislation that has been introduced during those times. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(12.04) —in reply-I would first like to thank the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), the honourable member for Grey (Mr O' Neil), the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher), the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves) and the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay ) for their valuable contributions to this debate. I particularly refer to the contributions of the honourable member for Grey, the honourable member for Lowe, the honourable member for the Northern Territory and the honourable member for Herbert, whose important contributions to this debate indicate the extent of their continuing and important contribution to the formulation of government policy-not merely in the Parliament but within the Government itself. To no little extent the positive measures contained in this legislation are a tribute to the hard work of all those honourable members. It is important that that contribution is recognised in the Parliament because it deals with these important issues, not merely in terms of theory but in terms of the very real and continuing needs of people in the electorates of honourable members. On behalf of the Government, I publicly and thankfully acknowledge their contributions. I suppose that if one were listening to this Parliament and its debates over the last two days one would think that we were a discordant assembly. One of the better aspects of this debate is, of course, the very large measure of agreement that exists between the Opposition and the Government on this legislation. I think it is probably not a bad thing on those occasions when there is agreement for the contributions and the attitudes of the Opposition on these important matters of social benefit to be noted and acknowledged. The honourable member for Mackellar, I think, made two essential points in his contribution to the debate. One was his concern about the differentials that are growing between tertiary education assistance scheme payments and unemployment benefit. I think that point ought to be acknowledged. I will certainly bring it to the attention of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan). His other point however contained, I think, a substantial philosophic difference. As the honourable member will be moving an amendment in respect of this matter, I feel that I should enable him to have the benefit of having the Government's position more fully explained so that he might deal with it in the Committee stage of the debate. The honourable member for Mackellar began-I suppose in some ways, having regard to his history, it was not necessary for him to do so-by suggesting that he publicly acknowledged that in the history of the trade union movement and its development in Australia there were many strikes which were both necessary and justified in order to advance the overall social and economic position of members of the trade union movement. I accept that viewpoint of the honourable member for Mackellar, but I am bound to say that if one looks at the history books containing the history of the trade union movement and of the political forces which in this House are represented by the honourable member for Mackellar one will see that not once have those forces ever acknowledged that a contemporary strike was a justified strike. Not once during the period in which the honourable member for Mackellar was a distinguished member of the Fraser Government was there an industrial dispute in which any small amount of merit could be discovered by the honourable member for Mackellar. I think that point ought to be noted, not abrasively, but in terms of the general philosophic position of the Opposition. The doctrine that the Opposition is seeking to defend by way of the amendment it proposes to move has no real history in the industrial relations of Australia ; that is, the concept that if a trade unionist finds himself unemployed not as a result of any decision that he has made or of any action that he has taken, he ought to be entitled, like any other Australian citizen, to unemployment benefit . The notion that that unionist and his family ought to be disadvantaged has no real history in the industrial legislation of this nation. It was essentially a Fraserian concept. It emerged out of the attitude of the previous Prime Minister , whose attitude towards the trade union movement-everyone knows it, and it coloured the entire approach of his government-was that every strike was unconscionable and unjustifiable. If we had to starve every member of the community into submission, as far as he was concerned, that would be a completely politically acceptable proposition. Of course, although the former Prime Minister has retired to the farm, some of those odd concepts from time to time have survived and emerged through some of his former Ministers. Let me take a very simple example, that of the most recent air pilots strike. Let us assume that that strike had run for five or six weeks. The honourable member for Mackellar says that all the people who might have been consequently unemployed-the people who work at aerodromes, the people who fuel planes, the humble cleaner who walks around airport facilities, the small carrier who is delivering express parcels, who has to stand drivers down by virtue of that strike, of which they are victims as much as, if not more than, other members of the community-are not entitled to unemployment benefits. What argument does he give? He says: 'To do that is an extension of trade union power'. What palpable nonsense. This is where there is a serious philosophical difference between the Hawke Government and honourable gentlemen opposite, who still walk in the befuddled atmosphere that was created by the former Prime Minister. We take the view that, wherever there is an industrial strike, it is the duty of the Government, first of all, to endeavour to conciliate and settle that dispute. Does anybody seriously say that the first and prime duty of the Government should not be to conciliate and settle the dispute? This Government has not merely shown a record of a capacity to do that but also reached an accord with the trade union movement which makes industrial confrontation far less likely than it ever was during the days of the Fraser Government. Under the Fraser Government industrial confrontation was the order of the day. If the trade union movement in many areas was not prepared to go on strike in order to maintain people's living standards against the excesses of the former Government, Malcolm Fraser was more than ready time and again to forment industrial stoppage. He regarded that as essentially part of his view of how to run Australian society. That was his perception. That was the way he governed and that is one of the reasons honourable gentlemen opposite are consigned to the Opposition benches. Until there is a change of heart and a change of attitude that is where they are doomed to stay. Let us examine the implications of the previous Government's concept. The second duty of any government in a modern democratic society where industrial stoppages occur is to try to relieve, wherever practical and wherever possible, the hardships and inconveniences that are created by that kind of industrial stoppage. Does anybody seriously argue against that proposition? If one is ameliorating hardship and is concerned to see that suffering is kept at a minimum, is it an overgenerous and irresponsible act-this was pointed out by the honourable member for Lowe-to provide benefits to, say, a group of workers in Sydney, not necessarily unionists, who find themselves unable to work and unable to maintain the level of payments on their house, refrigerator or car because they are unable to work, not by virtue of any action of their own but by virtue of a set of industrial circumstances over which they have no control at all? I ask whether it is an act of generosity or an extension of trade union power to say to each of those people: 'You will have the same rights as every other Australian citizen. You are an innocent victim. You are, therefore, entitled to the benefits of an unemployment allowance'. These people will not be dining at the Ritz on the unemployment allowance; they will not be meeting the backers of the former Liberal Government in the flash restaurants of Sydney when they get their unemployment benefit. Mr Carlton —Not even at E.J.'s. Mr HOLDING —Not even at E.J.'s restaurant. They will not be mixing with honourable members opposite who have never had to face the problem of rearing a family when income stops and they are powerless to control events. This Government has a mandate for this legislation. When the Australian people rejected the Fraser Government they rejected some of these outlaw notions. I am deeply distressed to see that the honourable member for Mackellar, despite an honourable try, has not been able to convince some of the backwoodsmen in his party who are still in a state of some confusion and political shock at their rejection by the Australian people. They do not have any positive attitude on trying to reach an industrial accord with the trade union movement and they do not have any policy or philosophy in this matter. What are members of the Opposition forced to do? They are forced to grab the old style philosophy, cling to the old style mentality of the Fraser Government. The Valder report, the report of the Liberal Party Committee of Review, says they are not too good. We did not make any contribution to that review; we let the Committee make its own judgment about it. When we look at this issue we should clear our minds from the blinkers of the past. We realise there is a crisis in the Opposition. One could choose to be an old wet or one could be like the honourable member for Mackellar , a reborn dry. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) does not quite know what he is. He is a kind of Gucci blue-partly dry and certainly a little bit wet . I suggest, having regard to the real principles and the real benefits of this Bill, and having regard to the larger measure of consensus that has been reached , the members of the Opposition would be well advised not to proceed with the amendment which they propose. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(12.19) —I move: Clause 30, page 17, omit sub-clause (2). I did explain in the second reading debate why the Opposition is opposed to this particular sub-clause being included in the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill. I remind the House what the outcome of this clause would be. The rules governing qualification for unemployment benefit in strike situations would be: (1) direct participation in a strike will not be qualified for benefit (2) members of a striking union at the place at which a strike takes place will not be qualified for benefit (3) members of other unions at the establishment at which a strike takes place . . . will be qualified . . . (4) persons stood down at other establishments as a result of a strike will be qualified for benefit, irrespective of their union membership. The Opposition is opposed to this measure. When in government, it brought in a measure of this kind to deny the unemployment benefit to certain persons put out of work as a result of strikes for a very good reason-that is, that strikes would have a tendency to be extended if those organising the strike knew that they could call upon the taxpayer to pay the equivalent of strike pay to those who were thrown out of work as a result of their actions. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), who is seated at the table, brought up an example of a strike by airline pilots and he said that if it went on for six weeks surely all those people thrown out of work as a result of that strike should receive unemployment benefit and that would be the decent thing-- Mr Holding —Not 'should'-'should be entitled to'; there is a difference. Mr CARLTON —He said that they should be entitled to unemployment benefit and that that would be the decent thing to do. All I say in response to that is: If that message is generally available then the chances of that strike going on for six weeks are at least doubled. It just has to be understood that we are not living in a vacuum. The situation in Australia is made very clear when we look at the economic scenarios given at the National Economic Summit Conference. We are looking at scenarios which lead to extended unemployment over a long period. One of the main reasons for that unemployment is that the people who are in employment who are able to organise strikes are extracting more out of the community than it can afford. As a result , enormous numbers of people are left on the scrap-heap. Part of the Bill about which we are talking deals with paying unemployment benefit to those out of work , for quite genuine reasons, in this period of economic downturn. The Government is saying that it will extend those payments, extend the call on the taxpayer, to place a further implement-a further weapon-in the hands of those who seek to carry out strike action-strike action which may or may not be justified. I do not go into the merits of any particular strike. But anybody who organises a strike goes into it knowing that those who call strikes have certain penalties imposed on them. They, in turn, impose certain penalties on the public and on other workers. If those penalties are to be reduced by subsidy from the taxpayer so that the net effects of that strike on some people will be less but worse on the whole community, that is something that we cannot abide with. The Minister spoke as if the rest of the world is not here. Not only our domestic situation will be involved as a result of unemployment but also the world outside will treat us very badly indeed if we continue to write out cheques on an account that is already overdrawn. We are in a situation where our standards of pay, compared with other parts of the world, are too high at this stage for us to be truly competitive. We are coming into a situation in which elsewhere in the world the recession is starting to die down and we could benefit from that. If we get ourselves into a situation where our costs are too high, relative to our trading partners and to the rest of the world, we will maintain the level of unemployment from which we unfortunately suffer at the moment. Therefore, I think that anything which shifted the balance of power further in the direction of those who can organise strikes in this period of economic recession should not be supported by this House. We believe this very firmly indeed. We believe that we are speaking on behalf of the vast body of consumers and taxpayers. We are speaking on behalf of all those who hope that people within each workplace could come to an agreement on wages and conditions; that they could do it without strike action; and that they could remember all those who are on the dole queues and all those who are unable to enjoy the privilege of employment in the present situation. Certainly we hope that those people would not be calling on the general body of taxpayers to subsidise the outcome of their strike action. We believe that that is a perfectly justifiable proposition. I think ordinary members of the community would accept it and, as I said in my speech in the second reading debate, I believe that ordinary rank and file trade unionists would regard it as being acceptable. The Australian Labor Party has a tendency to create principles out of nothing without economic reality. It is all very well to list a whole series of so- called rights in society. The Labor Party is very fond of doing this in almost every area. The sum total of rights, as enunciated by the Labor Party in its platform, is equal to at least twice the gross national product of Australia. We have to substitute the word 'requests' for the word 'rights' until the rights are proven to be genuine rights. In this particular case I do not believe that there is a right on the part of those who will be affected by strike action to call on the taxpayer to pay unemployment benefit. If that benefit is not available there will be immense pressure on those who call these strikes to resolve them in the fastest possible way. Certainly, if the measure goes ahead as now planned by the Government, I believe that strike situations, be they pilot strikes as mentioned by the Minister or strikes by anybody else, are likely to be extended as a result of the taxpayer conscription for strike pay which will be brought about by this legislation. The Opposition will vote to exclude the second part of clause 30 which attempts to introduce this measure. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(12.26) —The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) continues to be confused about this matter. I invite him to indicate to the Committee a single strike which took place during the history of the Fraser Government in which the provision for non -payment of unemployment benefit to people who were the innocent victims of that strike produced any kind of industrial result. Mr Carlton —Yes, a lot of strikes did not happen. Mr HOLDING —The actions of the former Government made it the most strike prone government in recent history. The honourable member for Mackellar cannot produce one piece of evidence that will show that any group of workers contemplating strike action said: 'We will not have a strike because it will cause some kind of disruption further down the line and people will not get the unemployment benefit'. That presumption shows the honourable member's complete lack of knowledge about the way in which industrial relations operate in this country and the way in which these sorts of decisions are taken. I borrow the terms of the honourable member for Mackellar who said: 'Every strike imposes penalties upon the public and other workers'. I do not disagree with that and I do not disagree with the argument that that will vary from case to case. But I do say that, if any Australian citizen is an innocent victim of that-this is the point that the honourable member for Mackellar will not face-he should not, by virtue of the fact that he is a unionist, be deprived from an entitlement to an unemployment benefit in that situation. That is the difference between us. I suppose it remains a matter of political and industrial philosophy. The Government remains unconvinced by the arguments of the honourable gentleman opposite. Question put: That the sub-clause proposed to be omitted (Mr Carlton's amendment) stand part of the Bill. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr J. B. Mildren) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 23 —— Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Johnson, LesBeddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Keating, P. J.Brown, John Kelly, R. J.Brown, Robert Kent, L.Brumby, J. M. Kerin, J. C.Campbell, G. Klugman, R. E.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J.Cross, M. D. Mayer, H.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. M. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, K. L. Scott, J. L.Fry, K. L. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Steedman, A. P.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R. Adermann, A. E. Lusher, S. A.Aldred, K. J. McGauran, P. J.Andrew, J. N. MacKellar, M. J. R.Braithwaite, R. A. McVeigh, D. T.Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ian (Teller) O'Keefe, F. L.Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Dobie, J. D. M. Shipton, R. F.Drummond, P. H. Sinclair, I. McC.Edwards, Harry Spender, J. M.Fisher, P. S. Street, A. A.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Howard, J. W. White, P. N. D.Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C.Lloyd, B. Bilney, G. N. Burr, M. A.Blewett, N. Coleman, W. P.Bowen, Lionel Fife, W. C.Morrison, W. L. Goodluck, B. J.Child, J. Groom, R. J.McLeay, Leo Hawker, D. P. M.Jacobi, R. Hicks, N. J.Keogh, L. J. Hodgman, P. C.Gorman, R. N. J. Millar, P. C.Cohen, B. Newman, K. E.Morris, Peter Rocher, A. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Holding)-by leave-read a third time. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I inform the House that, following the departure last night of the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Trade and Leader of the House (Mr Lionel Bowen) to represent the Government at a memorial service in Seoul in honour of those Ministers and officials who lost their lives in the Rangoon bombing, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is Acting Minister for Trade, the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) is Acting Leader of the House and the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) will represent the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) in this chamber until the Deputy Prime Minister returns. Mr SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the Speaker's Gallery this afternoon Mrs Lynda Chalker, MP, Under-Secretary of State for Transport in the Government of the United Kingdom. On behalf of the House, I extend to her a very warm welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I welcome him back. Is he aware that the admission made by the Minister for Finance last night means that, as well as the Minister having a liability under the recoupment legislation passed last year at the behest of the Fraser Government, he will have a liability under the so-called recoupment legislation proposed by the present Government and now before the Parliament? Does the Treasurer recall saying in this House on 7 September this year that, in opposing the present Governnment's legislation, the Opposition was protecting rorters, dodgers and rip-off merchants? Does he apply this description to his colleague the Minister for Finance? If so, which element of the description is relevant, or do all parts apply? If he does not believe that his colleague is a rorter, a dodger or a rip- off merchant, by what double standard does he excuse him? Or will he admit that, in using that description in the first place, he has been guilty of a monstrous smear? Mr KEATING —I was not in the Parliament last night to hear what my colleague had to say; but, quite obviously, a clear procedure is laid down in the legislation introduced by the former Government and applied by the Commissioner of Taxation in which, of course, I have no discretion. If the purpose of the question is to disguise the extraordinary behaviour of the Opposition in opposing the legislation currently before the Senate, it is a very poor camouflage indeed. The phoney distinction which is made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition between legislation which he introduced in the period of the last Parliament and that proposed in this Parliament by the present Government in respect of the same tax dollars, to which he can find some point of objection, just illustrates that, out of government, the coalition parties are simply in the position of resiling from the principles which they embraced in the last Parliament. When it comes to the whole question of tax avoidance they are, as usual, soft on the tax avoidance industry and those who have been associated with tax avoidance. At no time have they displayed the sort of consistency or the principles which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition articulated in his party room when he was Treasurer of this country last year. I have nothing further to add to what my colleague said last night. There is no discretion on my part in this matter. Indeed, the former Treasurer last year, when the report of the Costigan Royal Commission into the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union was made public, spent a week hiding behind the so-called secrecy provisions which apply to the Commissioner of Taxation. Finally, when he was flushed out from hiding behind that provision, we found that there had been a telephone book full of-- Mr Howard —You waited until I went to the IMF meeting before you had the courage to attack me. Mr KEATING —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition goes on with this ruse which apparently he went on with while I was at the meeting of the International Monetary Fund. He claims that, when he was at the IMF meeting last year, I in some way attacked him when in fact, in his absence, I should have been silent on the whole tax avoidance issue. It is worth just recalling what happened. Last year when the Costigan report came down, the one thing which the former Treasurer and the Prime Minister of the day hid behind was the secrecy clause. They talked about the secrecy provision which applied to individuals and stated that, therefore, these individual cases could not be brought before the Treasurer of the day. In fact, as we pointed out-I pointed this out ad nauseam- including during the period when the then Treasurer was away, it was the purpose and the intent of the schemes and the remedies for the schemes which were important, and not the names of the companies participating in the schemes. The former Treasurer hid behind that provision until he was flushed out by me and others when he returned from the IMF meeting. At that time his whole administration of the Income Tax Assessment Act was being called into question by the Costigan report, which exposed the fact that he had sat upon tax avoidance and had done nothing about it through all the years when he was Treasurer. After repeated letters from the Taxation Commissioner, to the effect that he had been sitting on it, his reliance simply upon this shabby line of argument that in some way there was a secrecy provision was a very poor line of argument indeed. I had no compunction then, and I have none now, about attacking the honourable gentleman for his performance in the administration of the Income Tax Assessment Act and his responsibilities as Treasurer of this nation. In fact, I lay down the basic conditions. When the honourable gentleman knew that he was under attack he not only left the IMF meeting but also drifted off to half a dozen other places on the way back so that he could avoid answering the substantive issues which arose. I made no apology then and I make no apology now. In respect of the basic thrust of the question, it is just another shabby attack upon my colleague, using the privilege of the Parliament in relation to a matter in which obviously the former Treasurer knows I have no discretion and no responsibility. Mr WELLS —Has the Prime Minister received a request from the Leader of the Opposition for Government assistance to enable him to make an early visit to Queensland? Is the purpose of the visit to demonstrate to the electorate that not all the Liberal politicians engaged in the election campaign are, first, aged in their 70s; secondly, from Tasmania; or, thirdly, out of step with their party? Mr McVeigh —You are a bigger drongo than you look. Mr HAWKE —Tom, things are good in Toowoomba. Don't worry. Mr McVeigh —Yes, after you left. Why don't you come again? I will get another 10 ,000 votes. Mr HAWKE —We will see. I welcome the question from the honourable member for Petrie. He asked about assistance in respect of Queensland. As all honourable members-- Mr Anthony —Are you going to build the Burdekin Dam again? Mr HAWKE —He is in again, Mr Speaker. I am reminded by the Leader of the National Party that this Government is already providing a great deal of assistance to Queensland, not the least of which is our very formidable assistance for the construction of the Burdekin Dam. I inform the Leader of the National Party that, when I was in Townsville last weekend, everywhere I went the people were saying: 'Thanks for the Burdekin, Bob'. They know where to go when they need their real interests looked after. They were saying some terrible things about the fellow sitting on the immediate right of the Leader of the National Party. They call him 'Hotchpotch' because that is where he was going to put the Burdekin Dam. He said that, if he had had his way, he would have put the Burdekin Dam into hotchpotch with a whole lot of other things. I suggest that the Leader of the National Party should keep on asking about the Burdekin Dam because the people of Queensland have a very clear idea now as to who is responsible for their State at last getting the Burdekin Dam. It is this Labor Government. Opposition members interjecting-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. Mr HAWKE —This suits me fine, Mr Speaker; they can take up as much of Question Time as they like. Mr SPEAKER —It rather annoys me, I must admit, and I may have to take action. Mr HAWKE —It is their time which they are using, Mr Speaker. The thrust of the question from the honourable member for Petrie was whether we had any request from the Leader of the Opposition for assistance to enable him to go to Queensland. Of course, I had understood, until this State election, that the normal practice was for Federal leaders of parties to take a high profile in election campaigns in support of their own parties when a State election was on. Opposition members interjecting-- Mr HAWKE —I can understand the sensitivities on the other side of the House just as much as I can understand the problem about the Liberals going to Queensland. They seem to have a great deal of difficulty in establishing in their own minds on whose behalf they would appear if they went to Queensland. I had to inform the House yesterday of the great difficulties that Mr Gray, the Liberal Leader from Tasmania, was having in making up his mind. Of course he is going to Queensland to support the Nationals. As we read the Press today we find that not only is Mr Gray having the problem but also Sir Henry Bolte is. Mr Steedman —Senility. Mr HAWKE —The honourable member talks about senility. The Liberals and the Nationals have been having some very nice things to say about one another in regard to this matter of senility too. I refer to the report in today's Australian in which the State Director of the Liberal Party had something to say about that great father figure of the Liberal Party, Sir Henry Bolte. I understand him to be a very close friend, confidant and, one would have thought hitherto, supporter of the Leader of the Opposition. The State Director of the Liberal Party in Queensland had this to say about Sir Henry Bolte: As for Sir Henry Bolte, he is just a voice from the past, but maybe some geriatrics on the Gold Coast might want to listen to him. That was said by Mr Neat, a friend of the Leader of the Opposition. I assume that he is a friend of the Leader of the Opposition. That was the State Director of the Liberal Party talking about another friend. I also refer to an article in today's Age concerning a former Victorian Liberal member of parliament, Mr Jennings, who is now with the National Party. He knew where to go. The article states: . . . when Sir Henry retired from politics he was the last cornerstone of the Victorian Liberal Party. Mr Jennings said Sir Henry's retirement was the beginning of the end of that party . . . There is the analysis of what has happened to the Liberal Party. The article states: Earlier yesterday, Mr Terry White said the Liberals who were coming out in support of Mr Bjelke-Petersen were so old, 'I expect them to appear in black and white'. He certainly cannot expect them to appear in grey and white because Mr Gray is appearing for the Nationals. Mr Anthony —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Standing order 145 states that answers are to be relevant. What relevance does this answer have to the Prime Minister's responsibility in this House? Mr SPEAKER —The Leader of the National Party has raised a point of order with regard to relevance. He knows the rulings that have been given with regard to relevance. The Prime Minister, in referring to Queensland, is within those bounds of relevance. Mr HAWKE —Thank you, Mr Speaker. The issue is a very serious one, as I understand it, on the other side. I can understand why members of the Opposition would want to silence us on the issue. As is stated in the editorials of both the Age and the Australian newspapers today, it is a great tragedy that the Leader of the Opposition is not showing leadership in this matter. The editorials are saying that he just cannot wash his-- Mr Anthony —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. You made the point that the Prime Minister is talking about Queensland and that therefore his remarks are relevant. If he talks about the world does that make any answer relevant? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party will resume his seat. I call the Prime Minister. Mr HAWKE —I am indebted once again to the Leader of the National Party. Of course, in respect of the vast divisions and the chaos in the Liberal Party which are caused by this current campaign in Queensland, I suppose more than anything what is emerging is the problem which is highlighted by an article in today's Brisbane Daily Sun. Mr McVeigh —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order-- Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! During the last couple of days of sitting the conduct of honourable members in the House has reached a stage at which the interjections and behaviour have reached the limits of tolerance. I issue a general warning to the House: I intend to enforce the Standing Orders very strictly for the rest of this sitting. Mr McVeigh —Mr Speaker, my point of order is this: My Leader quoted a certain standing order to you. I remind you that previous occupiers of your position not only strictly invoked the Standing Orders but also indicated that there was a spirit and that questions and answers should be brief. On many occasions Speaker Snedden, when interpreting the Standing Orders, also interpreted the spirit of the Standing Orders. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to adopt the practice of Speaker Snedden and stop the Prime Minister from abusing Question Time. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. The honourable member for Darling Downs reflected on the Chair and cited precedents which I ask him to check. I have been a member of this Parliament for long enough to have seen the honourable member as a Minister answering questions. The honourable member knows that the question of relevance has always been a bone of contention , as has been the length of answers by Ministers. I invite the Prime Minister to conclude. Mr McVeigh —Mr Speaker-- Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for Darling Downs must be careful that he is raising a point of order. Mr McVeigh —My point of order is this: You asked me to cite precedents. On several occasions the previous Speaker asked the previous Prime Minister to sit down. He also asked me to sit down. I abided by his decision. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is not citing precedents. I ask the honourable member to resume his seat now. I call the Prime Minister, I trust, in conclusion. Mr HAWKE —The great difficulties which obviously concern those opposite are made most clear, I suggest, by an article in today's Brisbane Daily Sun to which I shall refer very briefly. It is a very interesting article and is relevant to the question that was asked. Mr Oakes, in this article, relates the difficulties to which I have been referring to the forthcoming Moreton by-election. He quoted a senior Queensland Liberal as having had this to say: When we start talking terms for a coalition, there will be blood all over the floor, . . . The article went on: Realising this-- Mr Anthony —How long does this go on for? Mr SPEAKER —I ask the Prime Minister whether he could perhaps give the reference to members of the Opposition so that they could read it for themselves. That would assist in Question Time. Mr Howard —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 142 which states: Questions may be put to a Minister- and that of course would include the Prime Minister- relating to public affairs with which he is officially connected, to proceedings pending in the House, or to any matter of administration for which he is responsible. I put it to you, sir, in all seriousness that the question directed to the Prime Minister was about the internal affairs of the Liberal Party and the relationship between the Liberal Party and the National Party. It is an absolute tissue of technicality to argue that because the Prime Minister was invited to provide assistance the question was related to anything other than the internal affairs of the Liberal Party. Mr SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in the final statement of his point of order, has gone to that part of the question of the honourable member for Petrie which was in order when he asked the Prime Minister whether a request for assistance had been received. I ask the Prime Minister to conclude his answer. Mr HAWKE —Yes, Mr Speaker. I invite not only members of the Opposition but also all members of the public to read the article because the suggestion is there made that in fact a request is going to be made for a moratorium for a fortnight after the election in Queensland on 22 October on discussions about the question of a coalition so that there will not be any interruption to the campaign in respect of the Moreton by-election. In the circumstances it is not surprising that the Government has received no request from the Leader of the Opposition, about which I was asked by the honourable member for Petrie. But I suggest that it would be a very good idea if the Leader of the Opposition did go there to try to get some order into the Liberal Party. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Treasurer. Are Press reports correct that assessments have been issued to shareholders in Metro Industries Ltd who were holders at the time its subsidiary Treamog Pty Ltd was sold to bottom of the harbour operators on 12 December 1976? Will the Treasurer inquire of the Commissioner of Taxation and advise the House why Coomel Pty Ltd has not yet been issued with a tax assessment in respect of its bottom of the harbour involvement? Does the Treasurer recall the Minister for Finance saying that people who avoided the payment of tax should return it to the people of Australia and that 'it is necessary to make cheats pay'? When does he expect the Minister for Finance to pay? Mr KEATING —The Leader of the Opposition knows quite clearly that, as Treasurer, I do not undertake or share the statutory responsibilities-- Mr Howard —Are you going to hide behind secrecy? Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind honourable members that I have issued a general warning, and I intend to act. Mr KEATING —I do not share the statutory responsibilities which obtain in respect of the powers of the Commissioner of Taxation. I am not aware of when assessments have been issued, and that quite properly is the preserve of the Commissioner of Taxation. Mrs DARLING —I direct my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to reports of the detention of Korean nationals in Burma following the atrocious murder of Ministers of the South Korean Government and others a few days ago. Can he inform the House of any more recent developments associated with this matter? Mr HAYDEN —The honourable member for Lilley has raised a matter of the gravest concern to all Australians. I reiterate the deep sense of compassion and sympathy expressed from all sides of this Parliament yesterday to the people of Korea, particularly the bereaved who lost members of their families in this outrageous incident. There have been two reports of quite recent date about the possible identity of the people responsible for this outrage. One as recently as yesterday suggested that five people of European and Middle Eastern background and of terrorist bent had been moving through the area. I must say that there is some uncertainty about the substance of this report at this point, and until something more substantial is obtained I think it best that further consideration of those reports be put to one side. Of more recent moment have been reports that three people identified as Korean nationals were detected in Burma. In an exchange of gunfire one escaped, one was killed and a third was arrested. The arrested person is now critically ill and receiving medical treatment, and it has not been possible for any interrogation to take place. That person was critically injured in an effort to dispose of a hand grenade against pursuers, which grenade exploded in that person's hand. To this stage we have had no report as to whether the people are identified as either North Korean or South Korean. In respect of those very narrowly focused matters I can report no more. However, it is proving of much more than passing interest that a North Korean vessel, the Tong Oae Gv Kho, berthed in Colombo harbour on 29 September with a general cargo en route for Alexandria. It was there for seven days. It was asked by the Sri Lankan authorities to leave. It did so, but it moved to Sri Lankan waters, anchoring there until the 10th instant when, suddenly and without being observed, it departed without going through the usual procedures of notification and clearances. I think all of these circumstances have to be seen in the context of quite evident and heightened behaviour which one might describe as neurotic on the part of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in response to what has been clearly a series of notable international successes on the part of the Republic of Korea; for instance, the Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference venue is Seoul and the Asian Games and the Olympic Games are to be held in the Republic of Korea. Furthermore, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea-the inclusion of ' Democratic' is an indication of how the English language can be corrupted at times-has shown quite evident agitation at the possibility of there being a Soviet delegation to the IPU Conference and at evidence of marginally improved, quite low level, unofficial contact between the People's Republic of China and the ROK. I am not sure how well known it is, but it seems fairly clear that about two years ago, when President Chun was visiting Canada, an attempt to assassinate him was made and the evidence seems to be that the DPRK was implicated. One of the most distasteful aspects of all this has been the release of what might be rather inaccurately described, I suppose, as a condolence message from the DPRK in the last two days. I now read some extracts from it to show the lack of taste and the crudeness, indeed the viciousness, of thinking that dominates the DPRK so much in its expressions towards the ROK. It said: Traitor Chon Tuahwan was greeted with a strong bomb-explosion in Rangoon, Burma , in the first leg of his trip to South East Asian and Oceanian countries . . . 16 persons including puppet Deputy Premier and Economic Planning Minister So Sok -Chun . . . were killed on the spot . . . About 100 South Korean puppet security guards were in the building when the explosion occurred. Traitor Chon Tuahwan escaped unhurt as he arrived at the scene of the explosion several minutes behind the original schedule. Extremely terror stricken by this shocking incident, traitor Chon Tuahwan decided to return to South Korea by cancelling his tour of Southeast Asian and Oceanian countries. 'Chon', of course, is President Chun of the ROK. This is clear evidence of the very unstable and tense situation that exists in the peninsula of Korea. It is also evidence of the pressing need for the DPRK to adopt a saner and more responsible and responsive attitude to the existence, which cannot be denied, of the Republic of Korea. Since I became Minister for Foreign Affairs there have been several approaches to me, albeit oblique-and I stress 'oblique'-rather than direct and formal, from the DPRK about re-establishing diplomatic representation in this country. Very properly and for several reasons, those approaches were deflected. I must say that if there is any further such approach it will be regarded with a fierce, basilisk eye. Mr TUCKEY —Was the Prime Minister aware of any of the matters disclosed by me or those admitted in the House last night by the Minister for Finance when he transferred responsibility for the administration of the Australian Taxation Office from the Minister for Finance to the Treasurer on 28 June this year? Will the Prime Minister table the declaration of interest by the Minister for Finance to him made under cover of an undated letter and accompanied by a letter dated 26 July 1983 from Touche Ross and Co.? Is the Prime Minister satisfied that the return of pecuniary interest signed by the Minister for Finance on 20 September is satisfactory in every respect? In particular, is he satisfied with the Minister leaving eight questions unanswered in that return? Is he satisfied that the questions left blank represent a nil return in each case? Has he inquired whether these blanks are to avoid making a false declaration, as in the case of the Minister's wife's income which he failed to declare in his return of 20 September? How many declarations of interest has the Minister for Finance made to the Prime Minister-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member to conclude his question. Because of the detail in the question, it really should be placed on notice. But I will allow the honourable member to finish his question. Mr TUCKEY —To what extent-- Mr Peacock —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. We understand that there is a time limit for the asking of questions. But it has always been the practice in this House that there be a time limit; admittedly, more time is afforded to a Prime Minister than is generally afforded to other Ministers for the answering of questions. The reality is that despite the effluxion of time in the giving of answers which has been significant on the part of Ministers today, you have not intervened without the raising of a point of order. But you have intervened with regard to the honourable member for O'Connor without any member on the other side drawing it to your attention. Mr SPEAKER —If the Leader of the Opposition reads Hansard, he will find that from time to time I have requested Ministers to round off their answers. I call the honourable member for O'Connor to complete his question. Mr TUCKEY —Mr Speaker, I will resume at this point: How many declarations of interest has the Minister for Finance made to the Prime Minister and to what extent are they materially different? Mr HAWKE —With regard to the first part of the lengthy question, as I recall it the transfer of ministerial responsibility took place on 1 July. The honourable member and the House will therefore see, as is the case, that there is absolutely no connection in any way between the change of ministerial responsibilities in respect of the Australian Taxation Office and any of the matters to which the honourable member subsequently referred in his question. Mr Howard —Did you know? Mr Peacock —Did you know at the time? Mr HAWKE —No, I did not. Mr Howard —You have answered the first part of the question. Mr HAWKE —I think I have probably answered many parts of the question in giving that reply, as I was about to do. I say quite clearly that I repudiate unequivocally any implication in the series of questions by the honourable member for O'Connor that the Minister for Finance has in any way kept anything from me or from the House-- Mr Howard —Oh! Mr HAWKE —The honourable member should let me finish-in the statement which has been published in the House which in any way goes to the point of the step which the Government has taken; that is, it should be quite clear that there is nothing in the private interests of members of this Ministry which could conflict with their public duties. I say quite clearly to the House and, through the House, to the people of this country, that I have total and unequivocal confidence in the Minister for Finance. Mr Howard —Did you notice the round of applause that got from your own supporters? Mr HAWKE —I understand that honourable members on the other side have been complaining about the time being wasted in Question Time. They are the greatest wasters of that time. Mr Hurford —When are we going to have the Opposition's statements? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister for Housing and Construction will observe the rules of the House. I call the Prime Minister. Mr HAWKE —I repeat the confidence I have in the Minister. I have put it in unequivocal terms. I make this point with regard to the events of yesterday: The Minister did as he promised he would do to me and the House. He investigated fully the questions that were raised by a question in the House. He then made a full disclosure to the House. I suggest to all members of this House and the people of Australia that it is very strange that there should be any attempt by members of the Opposition to try in desperation to create some embarrassment for this Government on this issue, because we are the Government which put forward these matters publicly. If the Government or Ministers had anything to hide, of course we would not have taken the steps and the actions that we did. The matters are before the House. I repeat: In respect of the Minister, when the questions were raised he came forward in the House-- Mr Peacock —He misled the House. Mr Howard —He misled it. Mr HAWKE —I do not accept that he misled the House. It is to the credit of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that I understood him-I listened very carefully to him yesterday-to say, quite clearly, because I noted in my mind, 'full marks to you', that he did not allege any impropriety on the part of the Minister. He was absolutely correct in making that statement. It seemed to me that the only thing that emerged yesterday was that the Opposition suggested that in terms of some things the Minister had said in another capacity in this House last year in respect of Mr Reid, he had made observations in respect of Mr Reid which in the judgment of honourable members opposite did not sit well with his own position. I say two things in regard to that. Firstly-- Mr Howard —It would be to your credit if you agreed with that observation. Mr HAWKE —The honourable member should let me finish and then he will hear exactly what I am going to say. I say two things about what was said: Firstly, it is to the Minister's credit, in my judgment, that he apologised in the House about what he had said in respect of Mr Reid. Secondly, two Sundays ago I had the opportunity of being for a period of two or three hours in the presence of Mr Reid and the Minister. I was together with both of them. It was perfectly obvious in that period of two or three hours that I was in the presence of the Minister for Finance and Mr Reid that as far as Mr Reid was concerned-I suppose, finally, he is the one who ought to be concerned about this, rather than those opposite from whom we hear the hypocritical bleatings-he was perfectly at ease with and reconciled totally with the Minister for Finance. Mr BLANCHARD —I refer the Treasurer to the statements by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition last week to the effect that the Prime Minister is deluding himself about support from the business community for the economic policies of the Government. In light of his recent trip to a meeting of the International Monetary Fund and to Europe, can he inform the House of the attitude of the international business community to the economic policies of this Government? Mr KEATING —My attention was drawn to remarks made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition last week in a poor attempt to disparage the economic record of this Government and also to attempt to humiliate the Prime Minister by suggesting that he was deluding himself about support from the business community for the economic policies of the Government. The honourable gentleman inquired about the reaction of people abroad, the international business community, in respect of the economic policies of the Government. I indicate to the House that a high level of interest and enthusiasm was expressed by senior business people abroad with regard to Australia. Indeed, leading bankers expressed overwhelming support for the way the present Government is managing the Australian economy. On a number of occasions the Australian economy and Australia were referred to as the jewel of the international capital markets. Bankers everywhere seem keen to be associated with debt issues by such a prime borrower. This, of course, was best demonstrated last week in the Eurodollar bond issue which showed that the yield to investors that Australia was able to achieve was up 66 basic points below comparable United States Treasury's and had the finest yields and longest maturities of any borrower in the market in recent years. Just a couple of days later Canada let an issue in the same Eurobond market and found that the yields were slightly less fine than those which are issued to Australia. I think that I can go so far as to say that at the moment Australia is the prime sovereign borrower in the world. This is very much in distinction not only with the remarks made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition but also in reports which I saw last week of a survey taken by a journal. Domestically there are a number of indications of support, of growing consumer confidence, particularly support which has been given to the Government by representatives of business and business groups. The Confederation of Australian Industry-Westpac survey showed a revival in business confidence and a brighter outlook in respect of its respondents who expect new orders and output to expand significantly in the December quarter. Also the general business outlook was expected to improve in the next six months. In the words of that survey it was ' a more optimistic result than any for the last two years'. The same can be said for the Victorian Chamber of Manufactures survey which showed significantly improved trends for production, employment, forward orders, sales and capacity utilisation for the current quarter. The Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research survey, which was given fairly wide publicity, indicates general consumer optimism which that body indicated was the highest for more than two years. Need I say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the all ordinaries index of the stock exchange is up almost 40 per cent on the level that it was at when the Government came to office. I contrast those facts with the response abroad by the international business community. I was at the signing of our Eurodollar loan with the Deutsche Bank and the associated banks. Not only are they the most prestigous group of banks in the world but also the rates offered the finest yields and had the longest maturities that we had seen for a long time. I also note that in my absence the Chief General Manager of Westpac, Mr Bob White, who runs the largest trading bank in Australia, said that the Hawke Government's record was better than the Fraser Government's. He was 'more than happy with the new Labor Government since it came in' and was 'agreeably surprised' with my good self. The Government had been flexible whereas Mr Fraser had been a 'hardened regulator'. In an editorial last Friday the Australian observed that Mr White's view was more than just flattery. It stated: It is a view shared by a good many other people in the business and financial community. Of course, again there was no basis to the mealy-mouthed attack upon the economic policies and standing of this Government. We are held in the highest view abroad. Indeed I had to restrain some of the enthusiasm which was directed towards us. On the domestic front the capital inflow, which does pose some problems for monetary management, is an overwhelming vote of confidence by international investors and the international community in Australia. I think this point was again driven home the other day by David Potts in the Australian. He took the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to task over what is clearly demonstrable. Whether it is capital inflow, the all ordinaries index, attitudes abroad, Eurodollar loans or surveys, they all show that the records and policy of the Australian Government have very much the support of business both at home and abroad. Mr PEACOCK —My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance and it follows the Prime Minister's answer to a question asked by the honourable member for O' Connor wherein the Prime Minister said that the Minister for Finance did not mislead the House yesterday. I remind the Minister that he was asked whether he had been involved in any way with bottom of the harbour tax transactions. He replied, and I quote from page 1535 of Hansard: I suppose I have been involved to one extent; that is, to introduce into this House legislation which would recoup the money which was stolen from the Australian taxpayers by, amongst others, members influential in the Western Australian branch of the Liberal Party. As far as my personal conduct is concerned, absolutely no. How could the Minister have given such an absolute denial in view of the fact that Coomel Pty Ltd had held the relevant shares for three of the five years the Minister had been a director and had a legal responsibility for the accuracy of its annual returns? Mr DAWKINS —This is becoming rather like a sick joke. I indicated-- Mr Howard —This is the humble apology! Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr DAWKINS —I want to know who is alleging that I have misled the House. I am also keen to know who is alleging that I was involved in bottom of the harbour activities. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is not alleging that. He has indicated that he is not. Last night I said that I accepted my responsibilities when I was briefly a director of the company. I accepted full responsibility for the fact that the company sold the shares in Metro Industries Ltd, when they were at their lowest price ever, at a loss. Mr Lusher —On a Sunday? Mr DAWKINS —What the Opposition is trying-- Mr Lusher —On a holiday? Mr SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Hume. Mr Lusher —The first of January-a public holiday? Mr SPEAKER —I name the honourable member for Hume. The honourable member for Hume knows that a general warning has been given. I warned him. He defied that warning. I name him. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the honourable member for Hume be suspended from the service of the House. Mr Peacock —Mr Speaker, before the honourable member-- Mr SPEAKER —I will hear the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Peacock —Mr Speaker, those remarks were made virtually at the same time. You had only just completed your warning when the honourable member spoke. I ask you to give him the opportunity to withdraw the remark and perhaps the Minister will withdraw the motion. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I have listened to the Leader of the Opposition. It was quite clear that I warned the honourable member for Hume and that despite that warning he continued to interject. On a previous occasion I indicated that if that type of withdrawal was allowed the Chair no longer had any power in its hands to ensure behaviour. Mr Howard —Mr Speaker, I wish to speak to the motion. Could I suggest, with all respect, that part of the difficulty that has arisen is the very sharp difference in approach which is being taken on this matter by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance. I think it would be accepted that during the Prime Minister's speech he sought to convey the impression that this gentleman is entirely-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! This is irrelevant. Mr Howard —It is entirely relevant. Mr SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The question is that the motion be agreed to. All those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no. I think the ayes have it. The honourable member for Hume is suspended from the service of the House for 24 hours. Mr Hurford —Did the Opposition call for a division? Mr Peacock —We did, but he said no. Mr SPEAKER —Order! In that case, I apologise to the Opposition. I did not understand that it called for a division. If it requires a division, the House will divide. Ring the bells. Question put: That the honourable member for Hume be suspended from the service of the House. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 43 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Keating, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Brown, John Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J.Campbell, G. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Mayer, H.Chynoweth, R. L. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Everingham, D. N. Reeves, J. E.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Fry, K. L. Scott, J. L.Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Steedman, A. P.Hawke, R. J. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (teller) Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J.Johnson, Les Adermann, A. E. Lloyd, B.Aldred, K. J. Lusher, S. A.Andrew, J. N. McGauran, P. J.Anthony, J. D. MacKellar, M. J. R.Braithwaite, R. A. McVeigh, D. T.Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M.Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ewen (teller) Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ian (teller) Newman, K. E.Carlton, J. J. O'Keefe, F. L.Connolly, D. M. Peacock, A. S.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDrummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Street, A. A.Hodgman, W. M. Tuckey, C. W.Howard, J. W. White, P. N. D.Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C.Katter, R. C. Blewett, N. Coleman, W. P.Bowen, Lionel Fife, W. C.Morrison, W. L. Goodluck, B. J.Child, J. Groom, R. J.Jacobi, R. Jicks, N. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for Hume is suspended from the service of the House for 24 hours. The honourable member for Hume thereupon withdrew from the chamber. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I call the Minister for Finance. Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. I asked earlier that the Standing Orders be observed as far as behaviour is concerned. My request was not responded to. For the first time as Speaker, I have, unfortunately, had to name an honourable member. I ask the House to remain silent. I call the Minister for Finance. Mr DAWKINS —I shall complete the answer to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. The Opposition seems to be in some confusion about what it is really on about. It seems to be suggesting what was put forward in the words of the honourable member for O'Connor yesterday, who asked whether I was involved in any way with bottom of the harbour tax transactions. I have already indicated that a small parcel of shares was sold on 1 January 1977. Mr Porter —What day was that? Mr DAWKINS —It was 1 January 1977. The first of the bottom of the harbour activities of the Metro Industries Ltd group of companies took place a few days before that, on 10 December 1976. I have already indicated that we had the absolute genius of picking the lowest point in the market at which, in fact, to sell those shares. So, the question really revolves around whether we were involved in bottom of the harbour transactions. The evidence for this is apparently the fact that our former company is on a list, which is in the process of being determined by the Commissioner of Taxation, of those who held shares on 31 December 1976. I should indicate to the House that the evidence on which the Opposition is flying this particular kite is very flimsy indeed. Perhaps I can read from the advice of the Taxation Commissioner-- Mr Howard —No, it is the standards you adopted last year that are relevant to this and your absolute refusal to apply them to yourself. That is the issue. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I have allowed considerable tolerance to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I ask him to remain silent. Mr DAWKINS —I am not sure whether members of the Opposition want the answer. They may not like it, but they are going to get it. The Taxation Commissioner advised in the following terms: Any approach from the Taxation Office to those who were owners of Metro Industries at the relevant time would be in the form of recoupment tax assessments made after consideration had, on the basis of available information, been given to the law and to the relieving provisions that are contained in it. In particular, there would be a question whether, on the ground that the particular person enjoyed no benefit at all from the evasion, the discretionary power under sub-section 6 (18) to provide complete relief from the recoupment tax should be exercised. The Taxation Commissioner is saying that if there were no benefit the provisions of the law provide that there would be complete relief. The fact is that no assessments have been issued, as I have indicated, and indeed an assessment in the end may not be issued in relation to this company. What the Opposition really has to ponder for a moment is that, as I am advised, there are something like 300 computer pages which contain the names of people who held shares in Metro Industries Ltd at the time. Hundreds, if not thousands, of Western Australians were involved. Does that mean that members of the Opposition are saying that everyone on that list was involved in bottom of the harbour tax evasion? If they are saying that every one of the people on that list was involved in bottom of the harbour tax evasion, I ask them to ponder whether any of them, or any of the people associated with the Liberal Party of Australia, were in fact on that list. On the other hand, seeing that we are in the business of apologies in a big way these days, it may be that there is no liability in relation to the company to which they refer and in which I was involved. In the event that there is no liability, I expect that an apology will be forthcoming from the Opposition. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.02) —I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion: That the Minister for Finance be condemned for deliberately misleading the House in his answer to the honourable member for O'Connor during Question Time on Tuesday, 11 October. Mr Howard —I second the motion. Mr SPEAKER —The motion is seconded. Is it in writing? Mr PEACOCK —Yes, it is. Mr Holding —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 169 which states: The Speaker . . . subject to the provisions of standing order 233 . . . may . . . disallow any motion or amendment which is the same in substance as any question, which, during the same session, has been resolved in the affirmative or negative. The issue which has been specifically raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) was canvassed in the House last night. The substance of the matter was canvassed last night and was resolved by the House. Mr Speaker, I put it to you that unless the Leader of the Opposition-- Mr SPEAKER —I think I should interrupt the Minister at the moment. He perhaps misunderstands. The motion before the Chair is for the suspension-- Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I have already appealed to honourable members so that the procedures of the House can go on. Mr McVeigh —What is he doing? Mr SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Darling Downs. I point out to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs that the motion before the House is for suspension of Standing Orders. He may raise the matter at a later stage. I call the Leader of the Opposition. Mr PEACOCK —The Opposition moves the suspension of Standing Orders to draw attention to the fact and underline the reality that we have, in the presence of this Parliament, a man who misled this House with a blatant denial yesterday that he had anything to do with bottom of the harbour tax transactions other than the specious first answer which referred vaguely to the legislation that was before the House. When the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) addressed his own personal conduct he said: As far as my personal conduct is concerned, absolutely no. That was in response to a question asked by the honourable member for O'Connor ( Mr Tuckey) which could not have been misinterpreted. The honourable member for O 'Connor said: Can the Minister for Finance assure the House that he has not been involved in any way with bottom of the harbour tax transactions? The reality, and the reason for moving the suspension of Standing Orders, is that by dint of questioning in this place yesterday the Minister was forced to come into the House last night and admit that he had in fact been involved with such transactions-transactions that he denied any association with, or any involvement in only yesterday afternoon. If ever there were a reason for moving the suspension of Standing Orders, it is when a Minister deliberately misleads the House. Honourable members opposite should not tell me that they are prepared to put up with a situation where, at Question Time, a Minister can mislead on a basic fact like this and then deny it the next day. The other motivation for moving the suspension of Standing Orders is that the principal of those opposite is now coming into the Parliament today and associating himself with the Minister. Honourable members will recall the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said that the Finance Minister had not misled the House. The reality is that he did. We move the suspension of Standing Orders because nothing can be more important than that we receive the truth from Ministers when answering questions or, indeed, making statements in this Parliament. Parliament cannot function, it cannot operate if we are to doubt the word of a Minister. It calls into question the very honesty of the Government as a whole. If tax transactions can be carried on by this Minister, denied and brought about only by dint of our questioning, the honesty that is being proffered today compares abjectly with what was put yesterday. It is outrageous that the Government and the Prime Minister would try to conceal the lie. There was a disclosure of pecuniary interests-a document describing the disclosures and listing them all only three weeks ago. This is the twelfth occasion that there has been a change in that disclosure. Nine were tabled by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) when he was speaking on the matter; then there was a tenth that related to the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley); and now there are two that relate to the Minister for Finance. So much for open and public disclosure. The heart of the matter is that when questioned on elements relating to these matters the truth was not told; it was only flushed out later in the day. This is the man of morals who did not volunteer it and had to have it dragged out of him, the man who attacked people like John Reid. Mr Hurford —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. This is a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. I put to you that the substance of the motion is being canvassed wrongly at present in the House. I ask you to confine the Leader of the Opposition to the terms of the motion before the House. Mr SPEAKER —I suggest honourable members on my left might benefit their leader if they remain quiet. The mover of the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders is usually allowed a limited opportunity to deal with the substance of the motion that is predicted. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to take some note of that fact. I call the Leader of the Opposition. Mr PEACOCK —The reality is that we move this motion because the Minister did mislead the House and today has denied it. We have moved this motion because procedurally this is the only way to bring before the people the dishonour that has been brought not just on the Minister and the Government but on the House itself. We have to suspend Standing Orders and, in so doing, refer to what was said in this Parliament. The fact is that the Minister for Finance has been involved in a bottom of the harbour scheme. This was forced out of him. The Minister's hyprocrisy is exceeded only by the Government's contempt for the truth itself. The reason for moving the suspension of Standing Orders is that this is the man who, after all, spoke in this Parliament on 12 October 1982 saying, for example: We are not talking about some strict definition of law breaking . . . We are talking about morality, business ethics and cheating. Today he denied that he misled the House. Mr Speaker I remind you again, in speaking to the motion to suspend Standing Orders, that we are doing so because, when asked whether he had participated in bottom of the harbour transactions, he said: . . . absolutely no. That was a blatant denial yesterday flushed out at night when he was forced to come into the chamber and admit the transactions. Do not think this is some fabricated matter; it is on the record on page 1535 of Hansard. It nails the Minister for what he is-one who did not tell the truth regarding these bottom of the harbour tax transactions when asked in Question Time yesterday. We have to move a procedural motion to draw attention to this matter. We have moved for the suspension of Standing Orders to discuss the matter in far greater detail. It is interesting to note that the Prime Minister has associated himself with the Minister today. I only make that comment in passing. Honourable members will recall that, had it not been for members on this side of the House drawing attention to the fact that the Prime Minister was walking out on his Minister last night, he would not have voted in support of the Finance Minister. But some work has been done overnight and the Prime Minister is associating himself not only with the Minister's answer yesterday but also with the fact that there was an absolute denial. Therefore, the blunt aspersions that we are casting on the Minister for Finance can also be laid at the feet of the Prime Minister, who is embracing a Minister who has misled the House. It is necessary to suspend the Standing Orders- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition might return to the motion for suspension of Standing Orders. Mr PEACOCK —It is necessary to suspend Standing Orders to develop all these arguments in detail. Fact one is that the blatant denial is in Hansard. Fact two is the later answer given by the Minister which turned on its head the very answer given yesterday afternoon and now this afternoon the denial that the Minister had misled the House in any way. Unless we suspend Standing Orders we cannot go through all the other material that we have that has been forwarded to us about the Minister for Finance which would substantiate the substantive motion that we are seeking to put about the Minister's misleading of this Parliament. No country can have confidence in a government in which a Minister is prepared to mislead the House. No country can have confidence in a Government in which the Prime Minister embraces both the manner and the substance of that misleading. This Prime Minister has embraced his Minister and he is standing with him in the misleading of this Parliament. We need the suspension of Standing Orders to detail the charges. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Is the motion seconded? Mr Howard —Mr Speaker, I second the motion. Mr Dawkins —Mr Speaker, it might assist the Opposition if I indicate that the Government will not oppose this motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion of Condemnation Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.14) —I move: That the Minister for Finance be condemned for deliberately misleading the House in his answer to the honourable member for O'Connor during Question Time on Tuesday, 11 October 1983. Let us go back to the start. Yesterday the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) was asked by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey): Can the Minister for Finance assure the House that he has not been involved in any way with bottom of the harbour tax transactions? The answer given by the Minister for Finance commenced as follows: I suppose I have been involved to one extent; that is, to introduce into this House legislation which would recoup the money which was stolen from the Australian taxpayers by, amongst others, members influential in the Western Australian branch of the Liberal Party. He then went on, before starting to smear the honourable member for O'Connor, to make the following short remark: As far as my personal conduct is concerned, absolutely no. That means, therefore, that he was virtually nailing as a lie the implication in the honourable member's question. But we were to discover later that day that there was no implication of a lie in the honourable member's question. The lie was explicit and to the point in the Minister's answer: As far as my personal conduct is concerned, absolutely no. That is, he was saying that he had no involvement in any way with bottom of the harbour tax transactions. No responsible opposition can allow that situation to go through. In circumstances where we are questioning the matter one of our own members has been thrown out of the Parliament. There is a sense of outrage on this side of the House, if there is not on the other side, that the Minister can sweep aside a lie. He cannot sweep aside a lie. He has been nailed for what he is-the person who was holding himself out as almost the apotheosis of antiseptic morality, one who could not be questioned without getting a lie in return and who, the following day, denied that the lie even occurred. Why did the Minister mislead the House yesterday? He obviously did not realise that the Opposition had all the material that it still has on this matter. Apart from the bottom of the harbour tax schemes, we might well be advised to start looking at the capitalisation of the interest on the Minister's land deals, which could have been a very significant amount. We would like to know what taxation was paid on those deals. We would like to know whether the Minister disclosed it to the Prime Minister in this so-called open and frank inquiry. If he did, does the Prime Minister support him? If he did not, has the Prime Minister had the wit to recognise that this was contained within the material that the honourable member for O'Connor produced last Thursday night in the most devastating way which revealed the Minister for Finance for what he is? I hesitate to use adjectives that cover the sorts of descriptions that ought to be put at the feet of the Minister for Finance. But as the former Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), said last night, double standards have been applied-not just double standards but elements of hypocrisy leading to a total misleading of this Parliament. I said that the Prime Minister today linked himself with this misrepresentation , firstly, by seeking to ignore it and, then, by affirming that in fact the Minister had not misled the Parliament. The fact is that, by extracting this information with question after question, we found that the Minister was forced to come into this chamber and overturn his earlier answer. Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive. In moving the procedural motion for the suspension of Standing Orders I referred to the fact that the Prime Minister came into this Parliament and tabled the disclosure of pecuniary interests. Since then we have been told that Ministers have had difficulties putting down the amounts of money that their wives earn. 'Selective amnesia' was the correct interpretation given to it by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). Double standards also applied. Where is this Government's integrity if it is going to stand by a Minister who has lied to the Parliament, if it is going to sit behind a Prime Minister who embraces the lie and if the Minister for Finance is going to hold himself out in this Parliament as the same man of morals who did not volunteer one cubit of information on this form of bottom of the harbour transaction? He did not volunteer information to the Prime Minister or to the Parliament until we put the heat on him and had to extract it from him. As I said last night and I say in this chamber today, the thrust of this matter is that the Minister for Finance has had to admit that he has been involved in a bottom of the harbour scheme nearly three weeks after the Prime Minister tabled the document. I may have erred in suggesting last week that the Government was involved with organised crime. When I look at the way in which the Government has gone about its pecuniary interest disclosure I do not think the Government could be involved with anything that was organised at all unless it is a step back from that-namely, organised deceit, hypocrisy and lies. As I said this afternoon-I will reword it another way-the Minister's hypocrisy is perhaps exceeded only by his leader's contempt for the way in which this Parliament operates in that the Prime Minister joins with the Minister in the denial that the Minister misled the Parliament yesterday. What is the detail beyond the figures given to the Parliament last night? Beyond all that material in relation to Coomel Pty Ltd is the fact that the Minister had held the relevant shares for three of the five years that he had been a director and had a legal responsibility for the accuracy of its annual returns. Is this a denial of that legal responsibility? Does the Minister tell us now that he was in breach of a duty of care as the Minister? What form of common law actions could be brought against the Minister? Is it negligence, breach of a duty of care and breach of the duties of a director? Listed under the statutes of this nation is the fact that the Minister was a director for three of the five years of Coomel Pty Ltd when it held shares in the company that went to the bottom of the harbour. He had a legal responsibility for the accuracy of the reports and the accuracy of those annual returns. Will he tell us more on this matter? Will he in fact come forward and tell us about the capitalisation of interest on his land deals? What amount of money was made? Is he in fact-I will not walk down this path too far-going to stand by his actions and say that in regard to those land dealings it was the liquidator who handled everything, as he said in the Parliament last week? It will be recalled that when the honourable member for O'Connor interjected on the Minister asking him whether he was involved in the negotiations of these land deals, the Minister denied it. I simply pose the question-because we got a denial yesterday that he was not involved in any bottom of the harbour taxation transactions: Was he involved with the liquidator in these land deals? It would be hard not to think that perhaps it was likely that he took more than a passing interest in the matter. Why? Mr Hodgman —An amount of $1.6m. Mr PEACOCK —The total amount was $1.6m. In fairness to the Minister I say that there were other shareholders and other directors but those others were not in this Parliament proclaiming themselves as socialists, denying any interest in the capitalist system and accusing all others of being immoral-indeed, amoral- for being so involved. Mr Howard —Rorters, dodgers and rip-off merchants. Mr PEACOCK —Rorters, dodgers and rip-off merchants. Also, as the Minister said, we are not speaking about the strict definition of law breaking. That does not worry the Minister now and it did not seem to worry him before. What troubled him was that he was forced to talk about morality, business ethics and cheats. Will the Minister also tell us today why his company has not received the taxation assessment? When he was in charge of the Australian Taxation Office was he as vigilant in chasing his own affairs as he was in chasing others to ensure that he returned to the Australan people-to use his phrase-the money that was owed by him? Do honourable members remember that in September assessments were issued to shareholders in Metro Industries Ltd who were holders of shares at the time its subsidiary, Treamog Pty Ltd, was sold to bottom of the harbour operators on 12 December 1976? Others have got their assessments. What was the Minister doing when he was in charge-- Mr Dawkins —Who has got them? Mr PEACOCK —The Minister asks: Who has got them? I can quote from Press reports. I can get them and send them to the Minister. We can give the Minister that detail. Today I questioned the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on Press reports and I will be pleased to hear from the Minister on that matter. It may well be that he sought to stop everyone from getting an assessment. The reality is that the Press reports to which I referred indicate that assessments have been issued to shareholders who were holders of shares, as I have said, at the time the subsidiary Treamog Pty Ltd-the company with which the Minister knows he was associated through this transaction-was sold to bottom of the harbour operators. That is why I asked the Treasurer to inquire of the Commissioner of Taxation and advise the House why Coomel Pty Ltd was not issued with a taxation assessment. Interestingly enough, the Treasurer said that he could not comment on this matter because of the secrecy provisions. Only five minutes earlier we had heard him denigrating the former Treasurer for ever having utilised the phrase ' secrecy provisions'. So I asked him whether he will reveal the truth. But no, he had to use the same words as all Treasurers, naturally, have been bound by on that point. The hypocrisy goes from the Minister for Finance through to the Treasurer and, as I said earlier, through also to the Prime Minister. Mr Ruddock —It is corrupting them all. Mr PEACOCK —The corruption is reeking through Minister after Minister. Let us bear in mind the fact that the Minister for Defence Support (Mr Howe) came into this Parliament after he had indicated to the Prime Minister and through that report that was tabled, to the Parliament that there was a nil return so far as his wife's remuneration was concerned. It was $53,000, was it not? How could the Minister overlook half of his household income, an amount of that size? That is why I used the phrase to which the Minister objected-because it can be substantiated through not six, not seven, not eight, not nine, not 10 or not 11 but 12 changes already in this document relating to pecuniary interests. Mr Howard —The $53,000 is only beer money for the penthouse Left. Mr PEACOCK —It is beer money for the Left, my colleague says. The Minister for Finance-the apotheosis of the socialists in this House along with the Minister for Defence Support-is pushing the Left line but making as much on the side as he possibly can and seeking to hide it from the Parliament. Once it is discovered, he denies that he ever sought to hide it. What sort of standard is that by which to judge a government? What sorts of scurrilous dealings have also been going on? I want the Minister to address this question of capitalisation of the interest on his land deals because he has denied that he had anything to do with it. He has said that it was only the liquidator. Whether we take that answer or the denial on the bottom of the harbour taxation transactions, there is something rotten in the state of this Government and its handling of the matter. The Minister cannot come into this House and tell us that he has made an open declaration. The Minister cannot tell us that he has conducted himself properly as a Minister when he, in fact, had charge of the Taxation Office and had been fiddling the revenue himself. He cannot come into this House and simply ask me how many people have been issued with assessments when the Minister cannot indicate to me when the Treasurer can expect that that money will be paid . Do you remember, Mr Speaker, that the Minister for Finance said last year that people who avoided the payment of tax should return it to the people of Australia and that 'it is necessary to make the cheats pay'? If it is necessary to make the cheats pay, that means, in my view, because of the moral turpitude that was heaped about this place by the current Minister, that the cheats have to pay their tax and the cheats have to pay for the lies they tell. The payment of the latter is not in dollars and cents but in the standing of the Minister and those who have been prepared to stand with him as he has sought to cover up not only his shonky dealings but also the lies in relation to those shonky dealings. Mr Cunningham —Where is your evidence? Mr PEACOCK —The honourable member asks about the evidence. The fact is that the Minister produced it. After all the grilling, he produced it last night. The evidence leads to but one conclusion: That this Minister has been involved in a bottom of the harbour scheme and that he denied that he had such an involvement only hours earlier. He cannot rewrite the record. He may be able to change his behaviour in the future, and I assume that when we ask him further questions in the days or weeks ahead we will get truthful answers. I assume that we will be told as a consequence of the matters that are brought forward that the Minister now recognises that sufficient material has been brought into this Parliament showing the way in which Coomel Pty Ltd was associated with a bottom of the harbour tax transaction which may not of itself have been improper but which was improper, in the words of the Minister last year, in that the one salient impropriety that we focus on today is the impropriety of misleading this Parliament. There is not a man or woman in this place who would not affirm that the most fundamental duty of any person occupying the ministerial benches, when asked a question here, is to tell the truth. This Minister stood back from that. He turned it on its head. He lied to the Parliament, and he sought to mislead it again today. There was a bottom of the harbour tax transaction, he was involved in it and he denied that he was involved in it yesterday afternoon. The evidence confirms that he was so involved. We are talking, to use the Minister's own words, about morality, business ethics and cheating. That is why the Minister for Finance must be condemned for deliberately, not innocently, misleading the House in his answer yesterday. I say 'deliberately' because, as an occupant of the board of Coomel, as a director, he had the legal responsibility for the accuracy of its annual returns. He cannot in this Parliament deny any knowledge and claim ignorance because, as he has said himself, ignorance does not connote innocence. The Minister must be condemned. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Is the motion seconded? Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(3.33) —I second the motion. This motion is not about whether Coomel Pty Ltd should have owned shares in Metro Industries Ltd. It is not at the moment about the conduct of the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) or any member of his family so far as the ownership of shares is concerned or, indeed, about the events that led to the disposal by Metro Industries in 1976 of its subsidiary, Treamog Pty Ltd. This motion is totally and exclusively about the attitudes and conduct of the Minister so far as the whole range of tax avoidance matters is concerned. This motion would not have been necessary if a different attitude had been adopted by the Minister either during Question Time yesterday or in this chamber last night. To put it bluntly, the Minister was caught out yesterday. He was caught out red-handed. Had he had any decency, had he had any real courage and had he not skulked under the cover of the numbers of a government he would have said in this Parliament last night: 'Look, I was caught out. I admit that there was a connection with my family company. I am sorry about that. I know that I have adopted a double standard but you know as well as I do that my family did not do anything wrong in a strict moral sense and that I should not really be condemned for that arrangement'. Had he adopted that attitude, had he come clean, in this Parliament last night, I think he would have won a bit of credit, even from people on this side of the House. But the Minister for Finance found it absolutely beyond his capacity to do that. In taxation matters the Minister for Finance has almost written a new expression into the Australian code of language so far as tax avoidance matters are concerned. We all remember the debates last year; we all remember the smears . We were told that no matter what the connection was, no matter how tenuous, nominal or innocent, if one was connected in any way one was a crook, a robber and a cheat. That was the attitude taken last year by the Minister for Finance. Is it any wonder that people on this side of the House and people outside the House will take the Minister at his word? They will say: 'You are connected with a bottom of the harbour scheme. Does not that, according to your definition, make you a crook, a robber and a cheat?' Of course it does, and until the Minister has repudiated that definition, until he has expunged that criticism of honest and decent people, we on this side of the House, and people outside it, are entitled to take the Minister at his word. That is precisely what we have done. We gave the Minister an opportunity yesterday in Question Time and in Parliament last night, when he admitted the accuracy of the question that I had asked him, to recant on what he had said and to repudiate the scurrilous traducing of the reputation of Mr John Reid that he had engaged in with the then Leader of the Opposition, to his great discredit, during stages of the tax avoidance debate last year. But he passed all of those opportunities up. He continued his truculence and his venom. He even failed to take the hint from his own Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I say this for the Prime Minister: Although he associated himself in a formal way with what the Minister for Finance had done, he was trying to persuade the House during Question Time today that the Minister for Finance had apologised to Mr Reid. If the Minister for Finance has apologised to Mr Reid, why does he not say so? He does not need the Prime Minister to say it on his behalf. This just illustrates the problem. He does not have the intestinal fortitude to do that. When he has been caught out, when he has been judged by his own standards, and when his smear tactics have come home to haunt him, he cannot do the manly thing and admit that, under the cover of parliamentary privilege, he unfairly attacked Mr Reid and many other people. Let us go back to the events of yesterday at Question Time. That really is fundamental to this motion. It is on the behaviour of the Minister at Question Time that this motion should be judged by this House. It is phrased in very deliberate terms. We accuse the Minister for Finance of deliberately misleading this House. Let us examine what the Minister for Finance said yesterday. Let us examine his answer very carefully. When it is examined carefully, our case builds into a very strong one. The Minister was asked a very simple question by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) who, through his great courage and to his credit, has been responsible for many of these matters being raised in this Parliament. I think that fact ought to be acknowledged. The Minister was asked a very simple question by the honourable member for O'Connor. He asked: Can the Minister for Finance assure the House that he has not been involved in any way with bottom of the harbour tax avoidance transactions? In the course of his usual smearing sort of answer, the Minister said: ' Absolutely no'. There was no equivocation about it. He did not say: 'I do not believe so. I will go away and find out.' Any prudent person, recognising some limits to his own genius, might do that and any sensible Minister ought to do that if he has a difficult matter to handle. But, no, the Minister for Finance was beyond the trammels of mere mortals when it came to matters like that. Instead of saying 'I will take the question on notice and go away and look at it ', he said 'Absolutely no', and proceeded to heap scorn on the Opposition for asking the question. That was the end of the matter until I asked the honourable gentleman a question about the ownership of Coomel Pty Ltd and Metro Industries Ltd. That is where the interesting part of the honourable gentleman's response comes in. He was obviously ready for that question. He had obviously gone into a lot of research on this subject. He was full bottle on Metro; there is no doubt about that. The Minister has been full bottle on Metro Industries for a long time. He was able to tell us that there were six Metro subsidiaries and that the shareholders were currently receiving assessments. He was able to say that on the last count there were 1,800 shareholders. In other words, he was very well informed on all other aspects of Metro Industries; yet he did not know whether his family company was a shareholder. Let us examine that point. The Minister is inviting us to believe that yesterday afternoon when he said 'absolutely no' to the honourable member for O' Connor he knew how many subsidiaries had been owned by Metro, he knew how many shareholders had received assessments on the latest count and that the assessments were going out but yet, strangely, he did not know that his own family company was one of those shareholders. I put it to the House that one of the reasons why the Minister for Finance knew that there were 1,800 shareholders on the last count, one of the reasons why he knew that assessments were already going out, and one of the reasons why he knew so much about Metro Industries-why he was full bottle on Metro Industries-is that his family company, to his knowledge, owned shares in Metro Industries. He knew that yesterday when he gave that answer. The very detail in the answer that he gave to me yesterday, the fact that he had that detail prepared, the fact that he came into this House with that detail , indicates to me a guilty state of mind. That is the reason why we do not say there was an accidental misleading of the House or that there was an innocent misleading of the House; that is why we say there was a deliberate misleading of the House. That was not enough for the honourable member for Fremantle, the Minister for Finance. Having done that and having given us chapter and verse on Metro Industries-everything about the matter that probably triggered his original inquiry-and after having heaped vilification and scorn on members of the Liberal Party and members of the Opposition, the Minister for Finance proceeded along his truculent way. He demonstrated once again the double standards that he adopted when he was in opposition. After all it is the Minister for Finance, the present Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the then Leader for the Opposition-and there were other people on this side of the House-who introduced all these pejorative terms. To their credit there were some in the then Opposition on that occasion who hung their heads in shame at some of the descriptions that were used. I reckon some of them are hanging their heads in shame at the fact that they belong to the same Government as the present Minister for Finance. I hope they have the intestinal fortitude to tell him and his leader that his conduct is not acceptable to the Australian Labor Party Government in this country at present. This person, in the language he used, the attitude he took, the double standards he displayed, and the misleading of the House that he demonstrated over the last 24 hours, has destroyed any confidence on this side of the House and, I believe, so far as his own side of the House is concerned. Let us remember that these pejorative terms were introduced by the Minister himself. The Minister himself established the absolute standard. All of us know that absolute standards are very dangerous things. And they are very dangerous things for one reason-that is, it is very hard for any of us to live up to them. That has been the great error of the Minister for Finance. He went into the unchartered, dangerous waters of establishing an absolute standard. He ought to know-he is very good at Biblical quotations, as we know from previous exchanges in the House-that when one gets into that area absolute standards are very dangerous. I would not be game to start using those types of absolute standards, and any rational person in this Parliament would not be game either. That did not deter the honourable member for Fremantle. The bully boy from the West could burst through those constraints on mere mortals. So, he decided to introduce this absolute standard into the tax avoidance debate. That absolute standard consisted of one thing and one thing alone-that is, if one is connected or linked with a bottom of the harbour tax transaction or with a company that had been involved in a bottom of the harbour tax transaction, irrespective of whether one had any benefit, irrespective of one's knowledge, motives or understanding of the transaction, one is automatically guilty to the hilt. One is absolutely caught, absolutely liable and absolutely likely to be condemned under the cover of parliamentary privilege as being a thief, a robber and a cheat. That is the absolute standard that the Minister for Finance dared to bring into the Parliament in September and October of last year. That is the absolute standard of his own making on which he is now being judged-and rightly being judged-by the Opposition and ought to be judged by this Parliament. It is because of that that the Minister for Finance stands condemned. It is because he introduced absolute standards into this tax avoidance debate, when he was asked a very simple question, he gave an absolute response and an absolute denial. He has now had to admit that that absolute denial had to be turned on its head within a matter of six or seven hours. He had to come into this Parliament because we had flushed him out, because we put him on the spot and because we put the heat on to him, and admit that he was wrong. It is even worse than that because he was not even able to say: 'Look, Mr Speaker, I am terribly sorry for the following reasons: It was a purely innocent mistake on my part; I did not know; you could not really expect me to know; I am very uneducated in these matters; I do not know anything about all this complicated tax avoidance stuff- that is for other people; I was responsible for the Australian Taxation Office for four or five months, but do not expect that to mean anything; I did not understand any of this; please forgive me; I made an honest mistake; I should not have said it; I am sorry; I apologise to the House.' If the Minister had done that, he might have had a bit of respect and understanding from this side of the House. But, no, he did not even have the decency to admit last night in his speech that he had misled the House. He did not even have the decency to say : 'I am sorry that I misled the House'. It is as simple as that. He could not even bring himself to say: 'I am very sorry; I misled the House'. It shows the contempt in which he holds this parliamentary institution and it shows the contempt of those opposite in this parliamentary institution that they would continue to support a Minister for Finance who adopts that sort of truculent attitude. When we look below the surface, we see that the situation is really worse than that. He knew darn well when I asked him that question yesterday that what I asked was correct. He knew it was correct. The proof that he knew it was correct is to be found in the detail to the answer he gave about Metro Industries when I asked that question. Why else would he inquire about the number of shareholders? Why else would he want to know that the assessments were going out? Why else would he know that there were six or seven subsidiaries of Metro Industries? He did that because he knew his own family company was involved. We condemn his deliberate misleading of the House. We condemn his double standards. We remind him that it was he who established an absolute standard and it is he who should perish according to that standard. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance)(3.50) —We have seen here this afternoon not so much a re-run of the attack on me as a talent quest for the Opposition. We have seen the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) create an opportunity to display his parliamentary prowess. He wanted to get into the act because he was embarrassed that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), the would-be Leader of the Liberal Party and the person who will be the Leader of the Liberal Party within, say, 12 months, had apparently stolen the thunder and had apparently been able mortally to wound the Government and me. So the Leader of the Opposition, not to be outdone, had to demonstrate today in a most courageous way that he was the true Leader of the Liberal Party and he was not going to be overshadowed by his deputy! In fact even that has failed as well because anybody who has listened to the last two speeches in this place can tell who will be the Leader of the Opposition within about 12 months. The Leader of the Opposition will regret as long as he tries to make this place a forum for the contest between him and his deputy that he will lose out on every occasion. Of course, yesterday and today will go down in history as the watershed of the Peacock leadership. From now on it is all downhill. That is why this issue was raised again today. It is not about me. It is not about my misleading the Parliament. It has nothing to do with me at all. The Government has at every opportunity allowed the Opposition unlimited time to develop its claims and its allegations, to produce the evidence and to allege the misconduct or whatever as far as I am concerned. On the first occasion the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) was given a full hour by leave to go through a rambling, interesting, highly manufactured, highly coloured and made-up history of what was involved in the affair. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister for Finance will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition were heard in relative silence. I suggest that in an important debate such as this the same courtesy be extended to the Minister. Mr DAWKINS —The honourable member for O'Connor had unlimited time to develop his case, a case which fell to the ground entirely. Yesterday afternoon the Opposition took up the entire Question Time with questions to me and to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on this matter. Last night the Opposition was provided with the opportunity to move a substantive motion, which it decided to move, condemning me. Again today the Opposition has had the opportunity to move this motion, and again today we have heard nothing new. We have heard no substantiation of the facts. We have just had a string of allegations, a string of claims, a string of abuse at me and a string of absolute lies as far as I am concerned. The basis of the motion today is that I misled the House in my answer to the honourable member for O'Connor yesterday. The honourable member for O'Connor asked me whether I had been involved in any way with bottom of the harbour transactions. I said no, which is absolutely the truth. If honourable members opposite do not believe me, why do they not believe the Deputy Leader of the Opposition? Last night he said: I move this motion not because I wish to allege that on the evidence available to this House the Minister for Finance, or indeed any member of his family, has been guilty, of an illegality, nor do I believe on the evidence that is so far available to this House that the Minister for Finance or any member of his family had been guilty of tax evasion. So the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did not claim last night that I was associated in any way with tax evasion or bottom of the harbour activities. Of course the Opposition now claims that I am, but no new evidence has been produced in the two long and rambling speeches we heard from the Leader of the Opposition and his deputy. We heard a re-run of what we heard last night. I have been waiting breathlessly for the Opposition to come up with some new allegations, some new claims or some new evidence. Of course, it cannot do so because there are none. Members of the Opposition know as well as I do that the whole of their case is an absolute charade. They say that, at a time when I was a director of a company, that company had 600 shares in what was then a highly reputable Western Australian public company , one of the biggest public companies in Western Australia. We, along with hundreds and thousands of others in Western Australia, held shares in Metro Industries Ltd. Members of the Opposition then say that, because we sold the shares about two weeks after the directors of Metro Industries sent one of the subsidiaries of that company to the bottom of the harbour and in so doing avoided payment of about $5m in tax, that associates me in some way with bottom of the harbour activity. Of course that defies all logic; it defies the law. It is just an indication of the desperation of members of the Opposition to try to ensnare me in some illegal practice or some impropriety. Of course they would love to be able to prove that. They would love to be able to prove that I was involved. The fact that they have had to base their case on this flimsy and inaccurate evidence is simply a measure of their desperation. I suppose it is flattering in a way that they would devote so much attention to me. I suspect it is because they know, and particularly the people in Western Australia know, that we in Opposition were able to prove effectively beyond any doubt, not on the basis of specious allegations in this House or by scurrying around looking at company records ourselves but on the basis of evidence produced by public inquiries such as the McCabe-Lafranchi inquiry and the Costigan Royal Commission into the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, that tax avoidance went right to the corrupt heart of the Liberal Party in Western Australia. That is what they have not got over and that is what the Liberal Party in Western Australia will never get over. The fact that I had a role in that is something of which I am deeply proud, and I do not resile from it in any way at all. The Opposition is trying to say that, because our company is on a list of shareholders who had shares on 31 December 1976, I am involved in a bottom of the harbour activity. Mr Howard —That is your standard. Mr DAWKINS —Let us look at what my standards were last year. My standards last year were simply this: If someone who was a director of a company which had dealings with-- Mr Howard —No. Mr SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition had 15 minutes in which to speak . I suggest he give the Minister for Finance a chance. I have been very tolerant . I call the Minister. Mr DAWKINS —So have I, Mr Speaker; extremely tolerant. I have been through this day after day, hoping for some new evidence. What I said last year and what I have maintained this year is that a director of a company which had dealings with a bottom of the harbour operator who was responsible for a transaction which meant that shares in the company were sold at a price which reflected the non-payment of company tax was guilty of participating in a bottom of the harbour activity. On the other hand, I did not say that shareholders who just happened to sell shares and receive that inflated price for the shares were guilty of tax dodging. I said that, if they received a benefit, they ought to pay back the money. That is still my position. It is not a question of guilt or innocence; it is a question of whether or not someone derives a benefit. On my standards, which apparently, have become the new acid test on the part of the Opposition, of course, not only did we not derive a benefit; in fact we derived a loss. Let me quote again what the Commissioner of Taxation said: Any approach from the Taxation Office to those who were owners of Metro Industries at the relevant time would be in the form of recoupment tax assessments, made after consideration had, on the basis of available information , been given to the law and to the relieving provisions that are contained in it . In particular, there would be a question whether, on the ground that the particular person enjoyed no benefit at all from the evasion, the discretionary power under sub-section 6 (18) to provide complete relief from recoupment tax should be exercised. Not only has the company not yet received an assessment, but it may never receive an assessment. Indeed, even if it did receive an assessment, it may not have a liability when that particular clause is invoked by the Commissioner. As to why I did not reveal the fact that the assessments had gone out, the fact of the matter is that they have not gone out. A representative group of shareholders has been advised and given an information paper and the tax commissioner is in the process of moving towards the issue of tax assessments in relation to that matter. Why did I know about the affairs of Metro Industries? Because an aggrieved Metro Industries shareholder came to see me in my electorate office a couple of weeks ago and told me about his particular circumstances and the distress that was being caused to hundreds of shareholders in Metro Industries who had held their shares for years, who had seen the shares rocket up to $4 and had been left holding them now that they are valued at about $1.20. The reason for that particular exercise was that Denis Byrne Horgan, the former Finance Director of the Liberal Party in Western Australia, had quit his shares at about $4 and had left all the other shareholders with the responsibility to pay the tax bill that he should have paid. I have been through all of this before. I do not want to go through it all again because there is no point. But let me say-honourable members opposite should listen to this very carefully-that what this is really all about is that members of the Opposition hope that by this campaign they can scare us off in our intention and our determination to have a proper register of pecuniary interests. One of the reasons why they do not want a register of pecuniary interests is what it might reveal in relation to their affairs. I have been perfectly open and frank. There has been full disclosure in relation to my activities, as there always will be. I wonder whether members of the Opposition have seen a cheque form which was tabled in the Senate today by my colleague the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh). The cheque form is signed by one Christo Moll. What is the name on the cheque butt? Crichton-Browne! Is this another piece of evidence which will demonstrate that tax evasion in Western Australia and involvement in bottom of the harbour schemes, the whole lot, goes right to the heart of the Liberal Party in Western Australia? How many ill- gotten funds that were deprived from revenue have found their way into Liberal Party coffers? That is what we want to know and that is why the Opposition is determined not to have a register of pecuniary interests. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(4.05) —The motion before the House states: That the Minister for Finance be condemned for deliberately misleading the House in his answer to the honourable member for O'Connor during Question Time, Tuesday, 11 October. Misleading the House has become fairly special for this particular Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins). A few minutes ago he told us how they lost money on a share transaction. Yet when we look at the balance sheet of Coomel Pty Ltd dated 30 June 1977, we see that his accountant or company secretary has written: 'Gain on realisation of shares, $2,071'. We do not know which shares they were, do we? But it is a fact that this Minister can specifically tell us that he knows which ones on which they lost money. He suggested that they were foolish to sell at the bottom of the market. They were selling shares out of a probate avoiding company to a shareholder, namely, his mother. You can bet that they wanted to sell them at a high price! The lower, the better. That is how they sold land adjoining other land that they sold for $550,000. If those shares had gone on the open market, who knows what they would have brought. But they would have had a very poor demand on 1 January when they were sold. What truths does he tell us? He told us in his speech of 6 October, in regard to the sale of lot 631, now known as 'White Rails': The liquidator has responsibility for the affairs of the company and has had since the company went into voluntary liquidation in 1978. Because-- and this is the point- 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 . . . If that was not enough, after I had spoken, on the same night he said: 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-- I interjected: 'Do you deny that you negotiated the sale?'-meaning the sale of lot 631. Mr Dawkins said, as recorded in Hansard: The negotiating and the finalising of that contract were done entirely by the liquidator. The liquidator has, as I have indicated, provided a report . . That was a total misleading of the Parliament. This man and his brother Roger had constant and continuous negotiations with Graham Robinson of Frenesi Pty Ltd over a period exceeding 12 months. Let him stand in this House and deny he did that and make a further misleader or liar of himself. He has tried to dodge these issues all the way through. Let us remember that this matter has been on notice to the Minister for Finance for a week today. He knew, as a certain person in Perth knew about this matter. That person rang my office, when all that had been stated in the Press was the matters I raised on Wednesday night. The person rang my office and said: 'By the way, I have just read the West Australian. I can guarantee you that everything you have said about Dawkins is correct'. That was a reader of the West Australian. He anonymously rang my office. We do not have to worry any more. He knew who I was talking about and so did the Minister for Finance. What were the charges that I raised on that occasion? I charged the Minister with active-- Mr Beazley —An anonymous caller! Mr TUCKEY —If the Minister wants to side with him, he should stand up and say that he supports tax evasion. I accused the Minister for Finance of active participation in asset stripping of a company formed to avoid probate on $1.6m. I now extend that figure to $2m, because on further study of the balance sheets we find that they leaked out all the other property that I have referred to at bargain basement prices, including the shares, before they declared $1.6m in their statement of solvency. They deliberately set out to defraud the probate revenue of the Western Australian Government and the Federal Government of $2m. It does not matter whether it was a trick that everyone else was playing. He was a party to it. He sat down night after night with his brother Roger and worked it all out. If he can say that that is not the case, I imagine that lightning will strike him dead. That is not all that I charged him with. I charged him with active participation in the evasion of income tax revenue exceeding $100,000. Further, I accused him of active participation in the evasion of State stamp duties. They were all specific allegations. Figures were quoted and company returns were referred to. This Minister gave us another story. His final defence was to produce a photocopy of a bit of paper that he claims relates to a member of the Liberal Party. That is his defence. The other day a Government member did the same thing. He claimed that two wrongs make a right. If that is the case for him , that is fine. We are talking about a Minister of the Crown whose activities have now been defended by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating). If that is the message let me look at one of my accusations. The accusation is-it stands proven and it has certainly not been denied-that substantial interest was capitalised into the sale of property. The message to the householders of Australia now is-it is delivered to them with the imprimatur of the Prime Minister-that if they sell their homes on terms, they should capitalise the interest because if they do not, if they are genuine and charge interest in proper commercial terms, they will be taxed. However if one follows the example of the Minister for Finance one does not have to pay tax. That is the example; it has not been denied. Even a letter from Touche Ross and Co. agrees to the fact that that was the transaction. The Minister tried to get out of it by blaming a paid employee. He suggested that 30 per cent of the value of his assets could be negotiated purely and entirely by a paid employee. The Minister, his greedy brothers and their greedy mother would not have turned around-- Government members-Oh! Mr TUCKEY —Do not worry; they were greedy because they defeated the probate duty . If Government members think that that is all right, they should stand up one by one and say: 'We agree with it'. The Minister does not have to worry; he has one of the safest seats in the Commonwealth. Some honourable members who hold marginal seats should be worried about what the Minister is doing to them. Do not let us worry about all that. Specific allegations have not been answered. Mr Steedman —You will all be in marginal seats after the next election. Mr TUCKEY —That is the honourable member's hope. I thought that I was giving him good advice. Specific allegations were made but no specific evidence has been given. When we get answers on some shares we are told: 'That was a mediocre transaction. They were a loss.' However, the balance sheet reveals that there were profits on shares. I suppose that they are the ones which were sold to the poor, unsuspecting public. The shares that the Minister's mother got showed a loss; so we do not know whether that profit should have been many thousands more or whether it would have qualified for the taxation of capital gains on shares that exists on certain transactions. Let me look at the total excuse that we have had and which the Treasurer now says is fine. I think that tax avoidance lawyers must be coming out of the woodwork at the rate of one thousand per cent. Tomorrow they will all be advising their clients to capitalise their interest like the Minister for Finance. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer say that that is okay! That is the message for tax avoiders for next week. It is interesting to read the letter that the Minister wrote to R. J. L. Hawke and forgot to date stamp. He said: I have done this because it has come to my notice that inquiries are being made about transactions of Coomel Pty Ltd by persons who may be politically motivated . Does that mean that if the Minister had not had that information he would not have told this to the Prime Minister? Mr Deputy Speaker, I submit to you that that is exactly what he would have done. He would definitely not have bothered to tell the Prime Minister. Only when, as the Minister for Finance said, he thought that somebody was ferreting around did he write to the Prime Minister and say: 'You had better be careful, Bob; they might nail us on this one.' Maybe in time the Prime Minister will get nailed for having so much cash in his hotel room that someone thought it worth stealing. Let me look at what Touche Ross and Co. said. That company has been held up as the sole excuse and sole support for the Minister for Finance. It is on the record that other Ministers in this Parliament have bought certificates from the Commissioner of Taxation to guarantee that they are clean. I wonder whether the Commissioner of Taxation would say to the Parliament: 'I condone the practice of asset stripping'. That is what he has to say to support this Minister. He has to condone the practice of capitalising interest in a land sale to a promoter, to a profit taker. As I have said, there is evidence, from features of the transaction, that the Dawkins family was an arms length partner with their close friend Graham Robinson who was frequently in their homes. The Minister says: 'He came to their homes, had a beer with them, had a cup of tea with them but never ever talked about a half a million dollar sale for which they must eventually give the okay to the liquidator'. Is that the way it goes? I bet that it goes that way. Let this Minister-he has already told the House but he is caught again-swear that Graham Robinson did not come to his house. Let him say that Graham Robinson and the liquidator can give evidence on oath to a properly appointed inquirer and that they will swear that on no occasion and at no time did that happen. Let the Minister ask them to perjure themselves on his behalf. We will see, firstly, whether they will do it and, secondly, what happens to them as the evidence that is compounding around the Minister compounds around them too. I do not know much about Touche Ross but I did notice that at one stage the company had a suit for a considerable amount against it relating to the activities of its profession. I do not know how reputable that makes it. It may have been an accident but it has been pretty careful with the Minister. It goes to lengths to say that it has not carried out an audit of such records. This letter says: 'If everything the Minister supplied to us is correct and we have not audited it'-I bet they do not want to-'he is clean'. That is what they are telling us. This is a message for Government members. The Minister is a member of the Government. Government members do not have to tolerate him as a leader. All they have to do is look at the facts and examine their consciences. Mr Hollis —We would love to see your record. Mr TUCKEY —The honourable member can see my record very clearly. Let me look at other things that Touche Ross tells us. We are told that the company purchased freehold land from Alec and Muriel Dawkins in June 1964. That is a traditional scene for a probate avoidance scheme. As I brought to the attention of this House the other night, this is scenario A. In fact, they already have the property-the property located at Armadale, Forrestdale and Melaleuca, the present address of the Minister and his brother. They live so close to each other; Graham Robinson walked between them but neither of them saw him. He had only $40,000 in his pocket-that is all he probably had-but he showed them how, if they got alongside him, they could make all this profit. They made hundreds of thousands and so did Robinson. They were in it together and they discussed the details word by word. They discussed how they would defeat the Commissioner of Taxation. The problem was that they could not get enough out of it by sucking it out of the public. When they looked at the matter the only way that they could maximise their greedy return was to take it out on the Commissioner of Taxation-in other words, the people of Australia. Is it not amazing that when the good Dr Dawkins put all this together with, of course, the total co-operation of the Minister for Finance, he even included the family home and mother's 600 shares? He did not leave anything out that the probate commissioner could get his hands on. I say and the Opposition says that it is totally illegal to capitalise interest consciously in the fashion done by the Finance Minister. The Treasurer has a responsibility to have that matter re- opened and see whether the tax is still due. In relation to the other matters, we know that the Dawkins family just practised the tried and common old schemes. However, is it not amazing that the Minister went through all that for such a long time. The Minister says that he retired from the company in 1968. He wants to blame the liquidator for all the dirty work. Directors of companies in liquidation cannot retire; they are there until the final work is cleaned up. The Minister is still a director; he just does not appear in the company returns any more because a liquidator is doing the work. He is still in the company; he is responsible and he did these things. The point about the matter is that this man has misled the House in the statements I have just read to honourable members. He has probably misled the House in his remarks about the return on certain shares because the company made profits on its shares. The charges are that the Minister for Finance knowingly, consciously and actively entered into a scheme to defraud the income tax revenue by capitalising interest in a land transaction with a Graham Robinson who was acting for a company-Frenesi Pty Ltd. The Prime Minister, and now the Treasurer, by supporting the Minister and refusing a proper and independent inquiry by the Taxation Commissioner, stand accused of supporting such action. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(4.19) —Today the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) proposed this mealy-mouthed proposition as part of an attempt, as the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) said, to distinguish himself in this debate. In fact, over the last few months he has been singularly undistinguished in terms of his capacity to lead the Opposition, let alone mount any parliamentary attack. But the weakness of this proposition-it cannot be defended and will be absolutely rejected by the Government-is his suggestion that the Minister for Finance was involved in bottom of the harbour practices. That is the charge he makes. In fact at no stage was the Minister for Finance involved or known to be involved in tax avoidance, in bottom of the harbour practices or in any procedure associated with tax avoidance. He had no knowledge of any tax avoidance procedure being undertaken by Metro Industries Ltd. This is the essential point and one which, of course, the Leader of the Opposition, in his attempt to make as much political capital out of it as possible, overlooks. The Leader of the Opposition is prepared to attack the reputation and integrity of the Minister for Finance on the basis that in some way he was involved in tax avoidance procedures. Mr Peacock —They certainly set him as a liar. Mr KEATING —The Leader of the Opposition says the Minister for Finance is a liar on the basis of the question asked by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) about whether the Minister was involved in tax avoidance bottom of the harbour transactions. The Minister replied in the appropriate terms. For that, of course, he now has to suffer the indignity of the charges which the Leader of the Opposition has levelled against him. In fact the truth is that the Minister sold his shares and appears unlikely to have benefited in any way from doing so. It is possible that when the Commissioner of Taxation comes to assess the company with which the Minister was involved-if he comes to assess it indeed- there is every likelihood that he will receive no benefit from that transaction. Under the discretion which the Commissioner is able to exercise no tax will actually be levied upon the Minister under the law. Yet, in fact that has all been overlooked by the Leader of the Opposition in his frenzy to try to attack and besmirch the record of the Minister for Finance in respect of tax avoidance. Let us be clear about it. The Minister has an unblemished record in the Parliament in his condemnation of tax avoidance- Mr Howard —Ha! Mr KEATING —That is much more than can be said for the honourable member for Bennelong. When the Minister for Finance had responsibility for tax he introduced legislation into this House which is now being held up in the Senate by members of the Opposition, who are now painting themselves as some sort of paragons of virtue on tax avoidance, when in fact they are now holding up legislation which the Minister for Finance in this Government was the first to introduce. In a couple of weeks of his becoming Minister for Finance, he was clear and concise and moved expeditiously to close up these two vital matters of tax avoidance-bottom of the harbour schemes and trust stripping. Honourable members should contrast that with the record of the former Treasurer in respect of tax avoidance. The other point which I think has to be made is that there was no attempt by the Minister for Finance to evade any obligation which was imposed on him by the Taxation Commissioner. So indeed if no benefit is received and if, indeed, under the discretion which the Commissioner can exercise no assessment is raised against the Minister, of course all of these hollow charges which are being made will fall to the ground. If indeed there was an assessment the Minister has made it clear that he will honour that obligation. That is more than can be said about the people associated with members of the Opposition. The most galling thing about this is the double standards applied by the Opposition. The Opposition parties have decided not to disclose their pecuniary interests. There is no way they will be examined. There is no way their personal affairs will be looked at. They have been smothering for years. There is no way they will come clean- Mr Peacock —Where is the Prime Minister? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! I ask the Treasurer to resume his seat. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to co-operate with the Chair and to set an example to his colleagues. There are far too many interjections. The Treasurer is entitled to be heard in silence. Mr KEATING —In regard to double standards, one had to have a laugh when the honourable member for Bennelong, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, talked about misleading anybody, about misleading the Parliament. He misled the nation in the critical week of the 1983 election campaign. When he was told that we would have a Budget deficit of $9.6 billion he ratted on the public interest by shutting up about it, lest he thought his own miserable party would take an even bigger trouncing than it in fact took at the election. Members of the Opposition should not talk to us about the double standards, with some sort of sanitised lily white complexion, and about how in fact they are the paragons of virtue when it comes to standards. In fact, in terms of double standards, there is no person in the Parliament who could less likely point a finger at anybody than the Deputy Leader of the Opposition when in fact he was caught out not by the Parliament but by the nation at large. Of course, the reason why his star is now hiding under a bushel is simply the fact which will hang over his head for time immemorial-the fact that he misled the nation, not any parliament-about the question of tax avoidance. It is nonsense to suggest that the characters on the other side of the Parliament could point the bone about anything concerning tax avoidance. In fact, when we look at the former Treasurer's record on tax avoidance-- Mr Peacock —When are you going to defend the Minister? Mr KEATING —I do not have to defend the Minister's record on tax avoidance. It is beyond defence. He introduced legislation you are now opposing. How dare you people oppose it! You are opposing his legislation and at the same time you are trying to mount an attack on him saying that in some way he is soft on tax avoidance. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I remind the Treasurer that his obligation is to address the Chair. If he speaks directly to honourable members opposite he will be inciting interjection. Mr KEATING —I understand. Members of the Opposition, particulary the honourable member for Bennelong, are in no position to talk about anybody's record on tax avoidance when the honourable member for Bennelong sat on his hands for two and a half years and let the biggest tax scandal in the history of our federation blossom. When we saw the first McCabe-Lafranchi report start to reveal the morass of tax avoidance what did the Deputy Leader of the Opposition say when he was Treasurer? He said that it was a political stunt by the Victorian Premier, Mr Cain. He said: The Victorian Premier, Mr Cain, is merely seeking to use the tax avoidance issue for political profit. When the report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union finally was published, after his Party , of course, commissioned Mr Costigan to try to trip up the Australian Labor Party with the criminal activities of the Painters and Dockers Union, he found, in fact, that all of the establishment figures who sit on the councils of his party were caught up with in it. What did he do then? He retired behind what are called the secrecy provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act to excuse the fact that he was being written to by the Commissioner of Taxation for two and a half years complaining about the fact that the Government was immobile in dealing with bottom of the harbour practices. Finally he was exposed by Commissioner O'Reilly who published what is now the famous telephone book of letters-- Mr Peacock —He won't address the lie. Mr Howard —He won't address the subject. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Honourable members on my left will cease interjecting. Mr Peacock —What has this to do with the Minister? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. The honourable member for Bennelong has been asked to comply with the ruling of the Chair on a number of occasions this morning. I ask him to cease interjecting. Mr KEATING —The honourable member for Bennelong made it quite clear that he did not want to become the Peter Rae of the 1980s. There was no way that he was going to attack the rotten borough practices of the coalition parties. There was no way he was going to become the Peter Rae of the 1980s. Peter Rae was ostracised and denied ministerial rank because of his involvement in the inquiry into stock exchange practices. The honourable member for Bennelong, who was speaking here today as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, was pointing the bone at a Minister on this side of the Parliament about double standards when he in fact allowed the tax avoidance industry in this country to flourish because he decided to protect his own reputation, that of his party and his career prospects by not attacking it. Two and a half years later, after O'Reilly was tired of having the charge levelled against him that this was his responsibility, the letters exposing the duplicity of the honourable member for Bennelong and the former right honourable member for Wannon were finally published. Honourable members who sat in the Cabinet are as guilty as anybody else. All Opposition members who sat in that Cabinet for years-I can point them out to the House now-watched tax avoidance practices go on. They should not get up here lecturing us when we have a Bill in the Senate that the Opposition can vote on today. The Opposition should vote today on that legislation in the Senate and show us how strong it is on tax avoidance. Will they vote for recoupment legislation? No, they will not. They will not because they are basically a bunch of tax cheats who supported tax cheating for years. Now they see a crack of light leading to a position from which they can try to attack and besmirch the reputation of an innocent man whose record on tax avoidance is beyond reproach. We will have nothing of the double standards of the members of the Opposition who will not reveal their own pecuniary interests. They have, over the years, proven themselves soft on tax avoidance. In fact, to this day they are not prepared to repent of their sins of omission and commission with respect to tax avoidance. Indeed, when one combs through their shabby record in the growth of the tax avoidance industry, it is just a joke that this motion should be proposed by the Leader of the Opposition today. Let me go back to the substantial issues at large. The Minister for Finance has not been involved in bottom of the harbour practices. He knew nothing of the procedures by Metro Industries Ltd in bottom of the harbour practices. There is doubt that any benefit at all has accrued to him. If no benefit has accrued to him under the discretion which operates in respect of the Tax Commissioner under the Act, the likelihood will then be that no assessment will be found against him. He made it quite clear that, if indeed one had been found against him, he would meet that obligation. He has, in every respect, been in a position where he has not been involved in any tax avoidance practices. We find it a joke for the Leader of the Opposition to get up here and imply today in this mealy- mouthed fashion that in some way the Minister has failed to respond to Parliament adequately when honourable members opposite filibustered and lied for years about tax avoidance. We will treat the Opposition's motion with the contempt which it deserves by voting against it. On that note, I move: That the question be now put. Question resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Peacock's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 63 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Adermann, A. E. Lloyd, B.Aldred, K. J. McGauran, P. J.Anthony, J. D. MacKellar, M. J. R.Braithwaite, R. A. McVeigh, D. T.Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M.Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ian (Teller) Newman, K. E.Carlton, J. J. O'Keefe, F. L.Connolly, D. M. Peacock, A. S.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDrummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Street, A. A.Hodgman, W. M. Tuckey, C. W.Howard, J. W. White, P. N. D.Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C.Katter, R. C. Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Keating, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Brown, John Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J.Campbell, G. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Mayer, H.Chynoweth, R. L. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Everingham, D. N. Reeves, J. E.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Fry, K. L. Scott, J. L.Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Steedman, A. P.Hawke, R. J. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. (Teller) Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J.Johnson, Les In division- Mr Campbell-Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I draw to your attention the fact that I have been physically threatened by a member of the Opposition. I would like to get the protection of the Chair on this matter. Mr SPEAKER-Order! If there is such a threat, I invite the honourable member to discuss the matter with me afterwards. Such a matter is very serious. Question resolved in the negative. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —Pursuant to section 44 of the Australian Institute of Marine Science Act 1972, I present the annual report of the Council of the Australian Institute of Marine Science for 1982-83. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HOWARD —During the events that led up to the expulsion from the House of the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) I made some remark to the effect that I believed a cover-up was involved. Mr Speaker, I would like to make it clear that that was not a reflection on your integrity. I have a very high regard for your integrity although on occasions I may dissent from your judgment. My remark was directed towards the willingness of the Government without let or hindrance to proceed with the motion. Ministerial Statement Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Defence) —by leave-In conjunction with my colleague the Minister for Defence Support (Mr Howe) I wish to inform the House of recent government decisions concerning the construction of new destroyers in Australia. Honourable members may recall that late last year Williamstown Naval Dockyard in Victoria was invited to submit a proposal for the construction of two FFG-7 class guided missile frigates. The Government has decided, in principle, to proceed with the construction of two FFGs at Williamstown-now to be appropriately renamed the Australian frigate project-although proceeding to construction is subject to a number of conditions. Honourable members will recall that, in recent years, there have been some very serious problems in the local construction of vessels for the Royal Australian Navy, particularly in the case of one-off builds such as the inappropriately named HMAS Success. Recent changes in management and work practices at Williamstown have, however, led to a marked improvement in that dockyard's performance on naval repair and refit work. The Government's decision to build the two FFGs at Williamstown will be a chance for the dockyard to prove that it can now maintain price and production schedules. Success in achieving these schedules can be enhanced by the co-operation of all parties-management, unions, workforce and the Government. Before construction is authorised, various arrangements will need to be agreed, documented and put in place. These include: The joint management arrangements between my Department, as the customer, and the Department of Defence Support, as the supplier; the shipbuilding agreement, the document describing the construction task; and a formal signed agreement by each of the Unions at Williamstown, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and management, covering a range of industrial relations and work practice issues. Decisions by the Government to allocate any further work to the dockyard will be contingent upon compliance with this formal agreement. My colleagues the Minister for Defence Support and the Minister for employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and I must be satisfied that the prerequisite conditions for construction have been met before an order is placed. The total project cost for the construction of the two FFGs at Williamstown is estimated to be $830m at December 1982 prices, including an allowance for the variation in the rates of currency exchange following the devaluation of the Australian dollar in March 1983. The total project cost includes about $96m previously approved, principally for long lead items ordered in 1981 for the first ship. The ships are expected to be delivered in the early 1990s. The local construction program will mean the continued employment of a work force of more than 2,000 at Williamstown for the next 10 years. It will also give the dockyard valuable experience in a sustained production program and the Government time to plan the replacement of those naval vessels which will reach the end of their useful lives in the 1990s. There will also be advantages to Australian industry generally, through the procurement of equipment, materials and services, consequent upon the Government 's decision. About half of the total project cost will be spent in Australia as opposed to a much lower figure if the ships were to be ordered from the United States. When added to other major local construction programs including the basic trainer aircraft for the Royal Australian Air Force and the Fremantle class patrol boats for the RAN. This brings the total estimated value of local involvement in defence projects to more than $1.5 billion. This project will provide an opportunity for the expected efficiency and competitiveness at Williamstown Naval Dockyard to be fulfilled in practice. The future of naval warship construction in Australia will depend on Williamstown Naval Dockyard's effectiveness. I intend to inform honourable members more of the arrangements being made for this project in a statement I plan to make to the House on defence in the near future. I present the following paper: Construction of two FFG-7 Frigates at Williamstown Naval Dockyard-Ministerial Statement, 12 October 1983. I move: That the House take note of the paper. Mr SINCLAIR(New England)(4.49) —The Opposition supports the letting of this contract to the Williamstown Naval Dockyard. I am afraid that the statement that the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) has just made to this House leaves more unsaid than said. It includes a number of passing references to past difficulties in ship construction in Australia. It refers briefly to recent changes in management and work practice at Williamstown and talks with hope about future co-operation between management, unions, the work force and the Government. There is little doubt that the report produced by Mr Ross Hawke of Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd on the management and operation of Williamstown Naval Dockyard did set about a very considerable reassessment of the processes of operation of that dockyard. During the coalition Government days a great deal was done to revamp the Williamstown Dockyard in accordance with those recommendations. However, I am afraid that in this statement to the House very little has been said except that a hope has been expressed that all these things will work out. I understand the Minister's predicament and I trust that the confidence he is demonstrating in placing this order with Williamstown is fulfilled. Certainly it had been our hope that we would be able to reach this step. However, I think a number of aspects need to be examined in relation to the upgrading of Williamstown, the undertaking of the construction and the actual constructional work. Firstly, I think it is of concern that, while $2m has been earmarked for management reform in this year's Budget, the Budget Papers identify only about $650,000 of this expenditure. Without going into the matter and taking the time of the House unduly, I refer the Minister to page 42 of the explanatory notes for the Department of Defence Support entitled 'Estimates of Expenditure and Receipts 1983-84'. Only $413,000 is identified under the heading 'Functional Dissection' as having been allocated for the dockyard this year. There is absolutely no basis by which the dockyard has any chance of succeeding in management terms unless the necessary funds are, in fact, spent. There are still very considerable problems in the work flow and it is essential that those works be undertaken. The second matter that concerns me in relation to this project is the nature of the contract. In the instance referred to by the Minister of the construction of HMAS Success certainly there is the problem of the one-off building. One would be foolish to see a two-off building of ships which will not be completed until the 1990s as in some way immediately curing all the problems of ship construction because it will not do so. I think we should remember that with respect to HMAS Success one of the principal difficulties was the inability of the Royal Australian Navy to come to grips with what sort of ship design it wanted. The interminable amendments to the contract made it extraordinarily difficult for, in that instance, Vickers Cockatoo Dockyard Pty Ltd to know just what sort of ship it was building. It took protracted negotiations finally to settle on a determined contract figure. With respect to these two FFGs, however, we should at least be told- unfortunately the Minister has not done so in this statement-whether the design will have the amendments to the near landing platform for helicopters that are part of 004, the last of the ship buildings in Darwin. Are the stabilisers to be fitted to this ship at the time of construction? Are the other modifications to the last 004 FFG design, including some of the fire fighting equipment and other facilities within the ship, to be in the contract at the time it is let? One would sincerely hope so. Certainly, it is true that the Navy must get its design finally settled before any contract is executed. The second part of the matter, however, lies in the management and work practices within the yard. We are all only too well aware that in the report of the Auditor-General of September 1983 there was a series of comments all relating to the extent to which modifications need to be made to try to ensure that Australian design and building for the Department of Defence were conducted in a proper fashion. If we turn to page 25 of that report, which refers to the cost escalation factors that were identified with HMAS Supply, we see that there is criticism of the Department of Defence. The report states: . . . the Department did not allocate sufficient or appropriately skilled resources to a major project that it knew would be complex and where the risks were clearly recognised in respect of such fundamental issues as design, production control and quality assurance. Without wishing to reflect unduly on the construction of that vessel and some of the problems that I know were experienced, I believe that in building these ships we certainly need to take note of that admonition of the Auditor-General and ensure that sufficient skill is available. If the Department of Defence does not have it, at the time of letting of the contract it ought to employ consultants with those skills and ensure that in consultation with those outside consultants there is absolutely no risk of the cost escalation that occurred in the construction of HMAS Supply and with the vessel Success to which the Minister's statement referred. Again in the Auditor-General's report we read on page 34 of suggestions regarding administrative arrangements. There is no doubt that effective project management and effective delegation of responsibility within the Department of Defence need to be improved on very significantly. The Auditor-General has suggested that a project director should be appointed for a project such as this and that he should, as the report states: . . . have responsibility for the planning, execution and review as well as the success of a project in terms of its time, cost, and technical performance objectives have status equal to or greater than line managers to enable effective allocation of departmental resources act as the central authority for all technical and administrative decisions and for reporting to top management, and have sufficient staff resources to achieve the project's objectives. It will not be sufficient for the Minister to come into this House in six months time or 12 months time and tell us that the project is, unfortunately, looking as though it will already get into difficulties because there is not that sort of on the job supervision. Certainly, that has been part of the concept of the revamp of Williamstown Dockyard but it is not sufficient that the dockyard have responsibility or that the Department of Defence Support have responsibility. There is an absolute necessity for delegated authority and for somebody within the Department of Defence to undertake those tasks which the Auditor-General recommends in that section of his report. Finally, I think it is also necessary in that general field to take notice of the other criticism of the Auditor- General: . . . the Department's project management practices for major projects covered by that review-- The one that was tabled in this House- were unsatisfactory, contributing to: significant additional costs . . . the need for scarce resources to be engaged in rectifying project problems, and dimunition of the Defence capability . . . I urge the Minister and his Department to take very careful note of those recommendations and to ensure that the delegation to a project manager is implemented as that report suggests. Unless that is undertaken I am most apprehensive as to whether this project will succeed, whatever the quality of the work undertaken at Williamstown. Let me say that there is little doubt that the work done there and at other Australian shipyards over the years has been of a high order. That is not the problem. The problem at Williamstown has been a combination of management, of industrial relations and the facilities generally in the work flow. I had hoped that those problems might well have been rectified as a result of the Hawke recommendations and the work that has been undertaken in recent years. I look forward to the Minister advising this House at a later stage when the formal agreement is signed so that we know to what degree the recommendations of the Auditor-General have been picked up. One other aspect of this construction concerns me and that is the relations between the Department of Defence and the Department of Defence Support. In this matter I think it is absolutely imperative that the two departments find a way to overcome what too often tend to be magnified differences between them. At times one wonders whether they even think that they are working for the same government and have the same responsibility. It is not desirable that there be these divisions. The two departments must get their act together. I believe it is incumbent on each of them to ensure that a major project such as this does not founder because of a little inter-departmental squabbling. I am concerned too at some indication that in other areas the Department of Defence Support is moving in an independent way. If it moves away from control and supervision by the Department of Defence, again this project may not yield the local work or the opportunities the Minister's statement suggests. For that reason I was most concerned to note this morning the announcement of a unilateral decision by the Minister for Defence Support (Mr Howe) with respect to the Philippines. That project would have enabled an exchange of technology. It was a project on which I certainly had discussions when I visited the Philippines not so very long ago. The whole emphasis of our defence aid is not towards the control of insurgencies within the Philippines but to give the Philippines some capability to work within our region to try to ensure that there is an oppportunity of repelling external aggression if it should occur. The opportunity, for example, to develop domestically some of the Bofors gun mountings being repaired within Australia seemed to me to be ideal to expand the work throughput which is so necessary if our domestic defence industry is to succeed. It is also worth noting that the Philippines acquired some 12 Australian-made Nomad aircraft. It is essential that we find a place to which these aircraft can be sold. I think that the actions of the Minister for Defence Support (Mr Howe) threaten not only our general relations with the Republic of the Philippines but also our prospects of any future sales in that direction. As far as the statement is concerned it seems to me that the letting of the tender to the Williamstown Naval Dockyard is to be commended. However, so many matters are unanswered in the execution of this contract. The degree to which the Williamstown Dockyard will be able to meet the task is a prime matter of concern for the Parliament, but it is also necessary that those who are involved in the supervision and the letting of the contract ensure in the course of construction that it is through no action or inaction on their part that the project should fail. It is a project which offers considerable opportunity for Australian domestic industry. One wishes it well and hopes that two very worthwhile ships will be constructed to add to the Royal Australian Naval fleet as a result of this decision by the Government. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(5.02) —I wish to make a few brief comments on the statement which has been made by the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes). I do not propose to cover the same ground that the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) has covered except insofar as is absolutely necessary. To start with, the Opposition certainly welcomes this decision because it is essential for this country to have a major warship building capacity. Unfortunately, the Minister's statement tells us almost nothing of what is proposed. We are told that a decision has been made, yet one sees that in fact it is not a decision-it is described as a decision in principle; perhaps more accurately it could be described as a decision to make a decision. We learn that before construction is authorised various arrangements which the Minister referred to in very general terms, will need to be put in place. When one sees the kind of arrangements that he was talking about it is immediately apparent that this House has not been told a great deal in this very short statement. The Minister says that he will, at a later stage, inform us more of the arrangements being made for this project. The obvious question is: Why must that be done at a later stage? Why can it not be done now when this so-called decision in principle is being made? The Minister said in his statement that the arrangements which have to be entered into include joint management arrangements between the Department of Defence as the customer and the Department of Defence Support as the supplier. We need to know what these management arrangements are. One wonders why it is not possible at this stage to inform the House of these management arrangements. Surely they are known to the Minister. One would think that the Government could not have committed itself to a decision in principle without knowing what arrangements were to be entered into to give effect to that decision in principle. The fact that joint management arrangements have to be entered into by the Department of Defence Support and the Department of Defence illustrates the point which was touched on by the right honourable member for New England; that is, the prospects of the ships being completed in accordance with what is proposed. We are not dealing with a case involving a private builder to whom a government contract has been let; effectively we are dealing with positions as between Government departments. What will happen, for example, if the quality of the work is not adequate? We all know of the problems that have been experienced recently in that area. What will happen if delay occurs due to industrial unrest? What will happen to the costs in those circumstances? What will be the consequences for the projects that may be given to the shipyard in the future? The Minister said: Decisions by government to allocate any further work to the dockyard will be contingent upon compliance with this formal agreement. But that does not really tell us very much because we do not know what the formal agreement is and apparently we are not to be told for some time. We know that the total project cost is estimated to be $830m in December 1982 prices. We do not know whether that estimate includes any allowance for delays. We do not know what provisions will be made for delays and how the cost is to be borne, although it would appear that ultimately the cost of any delays will have to be borne by the Australian taxpayer. Nor do we know when the ships are to be delivered. If the Minister does not mind my saying so, it is rather extraordinary that he has informed this House about a very important capital commitment in respect of which this Government has made a decision in principle but he cannot tell up when the ships are to be delivered. We are told that they will be delivered in the early 1990s. Does that mean 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 or 1994, or are we to wait until 1995? If there is no clear estimate of when the delivery will take place it is very hard to see how there could ever be an accurate assessment of the costs. The Minister needs to tell us-I will be glad if he tells us today-when delivery of the ships is expected. Having entered in principle into an arrangement of the kind that he has outlined, he must have had the full material before him, including details of that very important matter; that is, when we can expect to see these ships coming off the shipyard. Presumably, they are to be delivered at staggered intervals and he will no doubt be able to tell us that one will come off in March 1991 perhaps, and the next in March 1992. If the Minister cannot tell us when the ships are to be delivered, he should not have informed the Parliament that the ships will be coming off the production line in the early 1990s. That is no basis on which to make any kind of a major capital defence commitment. While the Minister is here, he might also say something about the opportunity to which he referred for the fulfilment of the expected efficiency and competitiveness at Williamstown. I would be very glad to know precisely what he expects and the reasons why he believes, as he obviously does, that there will be an opportunity for this efficiency and competitiveness at Williamstown to be fulfilled in practice. The Minister referred to the extent of the local involvement in defence projects presently being estimated at more than $2.5 billion. The right honourable member for New England has touched upon some problems which have been experienced within the Government. These are problems of a most serious kind. It appears that the Minister for Defence Support (Mr Howe) has unilaterally put into the deep freeze two arrangements with the Philippines. On the basis of what one knows about those proposed arrangements, one would assume that there is no way that they are arrangements of a kind that should be put into a deep freeze. Apparently the Minister for Defence Support has acted without consulting the Minister for Defence or the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). The Minister for Defence may be able to tell us something about that. Indeed, it is not only in relation to the Philippines but also from what I have read recently, in relation to Indonesia, that the Minister for Defence Support has advanced some unilateral views on what should or should not be done. The Minister for Defence might tell us precisely what arrangements this government has in mind for the future and the extent to which the Minister for Defence Support has exceeded any powers that he may have. He might also tell us what the guidelines for the Government are to be in relation to the placing of future defence contracts overseas or the entering into of arrangements to do work for countries in our region or, indeed, countries outside our region. If the Minister could tell us something of these matters I am sure this side of the House would be very glad to hear from him. However, to sum up, we are glad that the Williamstown dockyard is to get the conract subject to all the qualifications that appear in the Minister's statement. We hope that the contract can be completed on time-if the Minister can tell us what that time will be-and that the ships are delivered in accordance with the contract and with the minimum of management inefficiency or industrial unrest. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Defence)(5.12) —in reply-If the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) had completed reading my statement he would have seen that I intend to inform honourable members more of the arrangements for this project at the time of my defence budget statement. I would hope to be further advanced with the negotiations when that statement is made. It is necessary to make decisions based on the principle that we are to go ahead with the vessels before we can start negotiating industrial relations and work practice agreements. The Department of Defence, with the Department of Defence Support, has put in a considerable amount of time in ensuring that the procedures and the practices which will enable the construction of these vessels are satisfactory. Technical details of the vessels and the contracts will be spelt out as soon as the agreements between the parties are concluded. The last time a Minister announced a timetable for the construction of a vessel it was in connection with the HMAS Success, which was to be delivered and in service this year. It is now to be delivered in three years time. I think it is now more important to ensure that the arrangements for the construction of the vessel are concluded than to make predictions about delivery dates. I make this statement today because I believe the House has a right to be informed of the Government's intentions at the earliest possible time. I will make a more detailed statement on the matter when the Government is in a position to sign the necessary contracts for the construction. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Anthony) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's shameful attitude to the Australian sugar industry. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr ANTHONY(Richmond-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(5.14) —Mr Deputy Speaker- Motion (by Mr West) put: That the business of the day be called on. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Hon. Les Johnson) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 40 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Baldwin, P. J. Keating, P. J.Beazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Campbell, G. Maher, M. J.Charles, D. E. Mayer, H.Charlesworth, R. I. Mildren, J. B.Chynoweth, R. L. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dawkins, J. S. Punch, G. F.Duffy, M. J. Reeves, J. E.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.Everingham, D. N. Scholes, G. G. D.Fatin, W. F. Scott, J. L.Free, R. V. Simmons, D. W.Fry, K. L. Snow, J. H.Gayler, J. Staples, P. R.Gear, G. Steedman, A. P.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J.Jones, Barry Adermann, A. E. Katter, R. C.Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B.Anthony, J. D. McGauran, P. J.Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Burr, M. A. McVeigh, D. T.Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ian (Teller) Moore, J. C.Carlton, J. J. Newman, K. E.Connolly, D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDrummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Street, A. A.Hodgman, W. M. Tuckey, C. W.Howard, J. W. White, P. N. D.Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C. Blewett, N. Coleman, W. P.Bowen, Lionel Fife, W. C.Morrison, W. L. Goodluck, B. J.Child, J. Groom, R. J.Jacobi, R. Hicks, N. J.Morris, Peter Rocher, A. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Report of Public Works Committee Mr COWAN(Lyne) —I present the fourth report of 1983 of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, relating to works in connection with the Stratplan Computer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, together with minutes of evidence. Ordered that the report be printed. Consideration resumed from 5 October, on motion by Mr Holding: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr West) read a third time. Debate resumed from 21 September, on motion by Mr John Brown: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction) —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill, the Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Amendment Bill 1983, the Bounty (Tractor Cabs) Bill 1983 and the Bounty (Injection-moulding Equipment) Amendment Bill 1983, as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the four measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(5.28) —The four Bills before the House, as the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) indicated, are related items. The first Bill deals with an amendment to the Industries Assistance Commission Act and bravely brings into force a decision made by the previous Government in relation to the period in which temporary assistance can be given, particularly in these economic times. For that reason, the Opposition will not be opposing the Bill. The other three Bills before the House relate to Temporary Assistance Authority decisions asked for by various sectors of industry. The most notable aspect of these Bills is that in no case are the recommendations of the Temporary Assistance Authority being followed. In the first case, in relation to agricultural tractors, the Authority recommended that a loan be made available to Chamberlain John Deere Pty Ltd at concessional rates. The difficulties in which the company found itself revolved around the difficult economic times, the record drought and, on top of that, intensified import competition. While the Government accepted that some assistance should be given, it decided that this should be in the form of a doubled bounty payable to Chamberlain, the manufacturer of tractors in Australia. At the same time it placed an order for $ 2m with the Massey-Ferguson company in relation to overseas aid for Bangladesh. It seems to me that to give assistance by way of bounty payments to Chamberlain and then to give an order for 140 tractors to a company which does not produce them in Australia is, to say the least, an inconsistent approach by the Government. For that reason, I would like the Minister when he responds to rationalise that decision to give to one company assistance which could total $3 .4m and at the same time to give an order for $2m to a totally different company . The second Bill in the package deals with bounty paid on tractor cabs. In this regard the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker), who is sitting behind me, has a particular interest because the one producer in this field is situated at Ararat which is in this electorate. I know he will wish to raise that matter in some detail. Again, the recommendation of the TAA was not followed and, as a consequence, the Government made a more beneficial grant to that company than was previously recommended. I will leave that matter for the honourable member for Wannon to follow up. The third Bill is the Bounty (Injection-moulding Equipment) Amendment Bill. Once again, this does not follow the recommendation of the TAA but proposes a rather ingenious way to subsidise employment. In this case, when TAA assistance was sought, there were two producers in Australia. Since that time one has gone into receivership, leaving the one producer, Battenfeld (Australia) Pty Ltd, which operates in the Albury-Wodonga Area. The Government has decided to grant an additional bounty of 20 per cent to the company, providing it maintains the same level of employment for the next 12 months. I note in the papers provided that the cost of this is put at an extra $100,000. If the bounty goes up by 20 per cent-it was previously 15 per cent-and the cost last year was $686,583, how then will the extra 20 per cent cost only $100,000? Unless there is a dramatic fall-off in production-which I presume is the answer-there may well be some under-allowance in that area. Overall, it is an approach to bounty payment which is unrelated in the true sense of industry support but is wholly related to employment subsidisation. It is regrettable that industry assistance should be measured in that way, because it does nothing to ensure efficiency within the industry. I hope that when the IAC report in relation to this product comes out, it will point to the efficiencies in the industry and the terms of manufacture, rather than to a new form of employment subsidisation, which I do not believe is in the best interests of industry. With those few comments, I indicate that the Opposition will not oppose the Bills. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(5.33) —The question of assistance to manufacturers of agricultural tractors goes back many years. In fact, a bounty in some form or another has been payable since 1922. I understand that, all in all, some 15 Tarriff Board or Industries Assistance Commission inquiries have been held since that year. The Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Act 1966 provided for the payment of a bounty to the manufacturers of tractors. This Act was last amended in 1976, and the amendment was operative from 1 January 1977. The amount of the bounty varies with the power of the tractor, and the period during which the tractor was manufactured and is adjusted from time to time in a manner reflecting the prices of imported tractors. The Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Amendment Bill proposes a doubling of the existing bounty assistance as a short term measure for a period of 12 months. The Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr John Brown), in his second reading speech to the House on 5 October 1983, commented: The Government considers that the bounty as proposed by this Bill will no only assist the industry to sell its output but will restore effective assistance to the industry to about the level intended by the Industries Assistance Commission when the present bounty was introduced. Assistance to tractor manufacturers under present legislation will terminate on 31 December 1984. It is important therefore that the question of approriate forms of long term assistance to tractor manufacturers be addressed as expeditiously as possible. Pending a full report by the IAC, the Australian tractor manufacturing industry should be supported by the Government. Tractor manufacturers hopefully will not have to wait too long for such a report. The reference to the IAC was sent on 16 June this year for report to the Minister by 15 June 1984. The IAC has also been asked to inquire as to the desirable levels of assistance after 1 January 1985, that is, when the 1976 amendment Act is due to terminate. The interim report is due by 15 February 1984, with the final report to be handed down on or before 15 June next year. I understand that the IAC will also consider the question as to whether temporary assistance associated with this amendment Bill should be extended until the end of next year. This will be prior to the commencement of any new arrangements that may flow from a consideration by the Government of the full IAC report. The cost of providing temporary assistance is certainly modest. The Minister, in his second reading speech, noted: When the Government's decision was taken, it was estimated . . . that the additional bounty assistance could cost up to $3.4m in a full year, depending on . . . sales. However, the actual cost is now likely to be significantly less in view of the current depressed market conditions. Indeed, the Minister made an apt comment. Coupled with the twin evils of economic recession which the Government is actively trying to remedy and the disastrous effect on farm incomes of about five years of drought, this could certainly be the case. However, given the realistic expectations particularly in the wool-wheat zones of Australia of a wheat harvest approaching 19 million tonnes this season, perhaps there could be no better time for taking action to encourage Australian manufacturers of tractors. The contribution made by the primary producers of Australia to our national wealth, particularly in the export arena, cannot be overestimated. I believe and , understandably, so does the Government, that we should assist and promote our primary industries. However, farmers and farmer organisations, most notably those in our very efficient grain areas, constantly draw attention to the fact that bounties are preferable to tariff protection. Therefore, to blend the desirable objectives of promoting Australian manufacturers of agricultural implements with the desire of the farming community to move away from tariff based assistance, in this instance is a successful formula. To me, it is common sense that a country that has 47 per cent of its export income generated from primary production should seek to establish complementary secondary industries. Further, the industry's preference for the application of bounties rather than straight tariff assistance was clearly echoed by both the National Farmers Federation and the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation in their submissions to the Temporary Assistance Authority earlier this year. I turn briefly to the Bounty (Tractor Cabs) Bill which was also introduced into the House on 5 October. It should be pointed out that tractor cabs imported into Australia attract a duty of 20 per cent. However, if they form part of an agricultural tractor, they are imported duty free. Naturally, under such rules there are very few imported tractor cabs. The reality is that they are part of built-up tractors. It therefore follows that local tractor manufacturers are not protected by the 20 per cent duty, which was clearly the intention of the original legislation. The Temporary Assistance Authority recognised this in its report on agricultural wheeled tractors, presented to the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) on 31 March this year. On page 10 the Authority notes: The trend in recent years has been towards imports of tractors with cabins. In the six months to the end of December 1982, 98 per cent of tractors over 90 kilowatts were imported complete with cabins. Page 20 of the report notes: The evidence indicated that the problems of local component producers were related to imports of complete tractors rather than imports of separate components. This trend towards the importation of fully imported tractor cabs has become pronounced in the last two to three years. It is certainly not limited to Australia. Indeed, there is a world-wide trend to supply completed vehicles. No doubt both the Temporary Assistance Authority and the Government are unsure whether this is a short term or an enduring trend. In bringing forward this legislation the Government said that something should be done to protect local tractor cabin manufacturers. In short, the tractor bountry on agricultural cabs is linked to the same IAC inquiry into the long term future of agricultural tractor manufacturing in Australia. The proposed level of the bounty of 15 per cent of factory cost approximates the proposed double bounty payable to local tractor manufacturers who produce cabs for their own tractors. Again the cost of this is minimal. It is $750,000 in a full year, depending on the level of sales. Australian content in the cabs must be at least 85 per cent and the bounty will apply to those cabs produced, but not sold for fitting to the imported tractors, prior to 10 June this year. The Bills are deserving of the support of all honourable members. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(5.41) —I also wish to speak briefly on the Bounty (Tractor Cabs) Bill. As my colleague the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) has stated , the only company in Australia which is presently manufacturing tractor cabs for other tractor manufacturers is A. F. Gason Pty Ltd located at Ararat in Victoria, which happens to be in the electorate of Wannon. Consequently, I draw to the attention of the House some facts about the present problem facing this industry. Firstly, I point out that this company was started by the father of the present General Manager and has built an enviable reputation as a manufacturer of quality tractor cabs backed up by excellent after sales service. Indeed, it is an example of a decentralised industry that we can be proud of. In more recent years the firm has expanded into the manufacture and assembly of agricultural tillage equipment. However, until last year the manufacturing of tractor cabs was the main part of the business employing two-thirds of the work force. In July 1982 the company employed 240 people. Unfortunately, the drought took its toll, but that is only part of the story. The problem has now been compounded, as I will explain. To put the size of the decline in the market for tractor cabs into perspective, I will give an example. If we look at tractors in the 65-70 kilowatt range, in 1981 the market took 2,500 cabs. Of these, 650 were imported. In 1984 the company estimated that its demand for cabs for tractors in this range will have dropped to only 100. The only manufacturer of tractors in Australia, as has been mentioned, is Chamberlain John Deere Pty Ltd, which uses at the most 400 of its own cabs on its Chamberlain tractors. John Deere tractors use imported cabs from Germany. In other words the market for Australian made cabs will be down to one-quarter of what it was two years ago. Let me turn to the real problem. This involves those tractor importers who used to fit a Gason cab to their imported tractors but who have now decided to fit cabs made overseas. The reason given for this decision to import is not-I repeat not-dissatisfaction with the Australian made product. In fact, Gason's have not even been given a chance to quote for these overseas manufacturers. In each case a decision has been made overseas to use overseas cabs which, in many cases, the manufacturer admits are inferior in quality to the Australian made cabs. No one can accuse Gason's of not trying. In the past year the company has contacted the five companies to which it was supplying cabs. All five companies-namely, Ford Motor Co. of Australia Ltd, J. I. Case (Aust.) Pty Ltd, International Harvester Australia Ltd, Deutz Australia Pty Ltd and Massey-Ferguson (Aust.) Ltd-have decided to stop using Australian cabs on their tractors. As I have said, there is no question about the quality of the Gason cab; nor is the price given as a reason to stop using Australian cabs. The decision was made overseas to prop up overseas factories. The combined total of cabs that these five companies would need for their tractors amounts to over 1,600 per year. This represents a loss in turnover of over $5m-$5m to the Australian industry. While I welcome the Government's initiative to bring in the 15 per cent bounty to assist this industry, I have to express grave reservations about how effective this assistance will be. I somehow suspect that only very little of the $750,000 put aside will be used. In other words, despite this assistance, the manufacturer has assured me that he will have the unpleasant prospect of having to lay off probably another 70 of his staff. This would mean that the number of people employed at Gason's in making cabs will shrink from 240 in July 1982 to just 25 by 1984. However, this loss of over 200 jobs is only part of the story. It is estimated that a further 800 jobs will be lost throughout Australia . While it is true that an Industries Assistance Commission inquiry is commencing in November to look at this problem, by the time the results are known it will probably be too late to save this industry-a truly Australian industry, a decentralised industry, an industry developed by the enterprise by Australians for the benefit of Australians and an industry supporting Australia' s greatest industry, agriculture. Mr McVeigh —It builds good cabs, too. Mr HAWKER —My word, it certainly does. Accordingly, I urge the Government to look again at this problem if it is serious about trying to save this industry. Furthermore, I urge the Government to look at the problem quickly if it is to save several hundred jobs. Mr GEAR(Tangney)(5.46) —In supporting the Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Amendment Bill, I point out, as has been pointed out before, that the benefits will mainly go to Chamberlain John Deere Pty Ltd in Western Australia, the only major manufacturer of tractors. The need for assistance can be attributed to a downturn in the domestic market and, in particular, a sharp contraction for the first six months of 1982-83 financial year. Some of the factors that are involved are the drought in Australia-which, thankfully, now looks to be over- high domestic interest rates, the stagnant world demand, coupled with the global excess of production capacity. The present oversupply of tractors is reflected in figures that show in 1980-81 total tractor sales in Australia numbered 7,566. The surplus that year was 792. In 1981-82 total tractor sales had dropped to 5, 955 and the surplus had grown rather dramatically to 3,909. For the first six months of the financial year 1982-83, that is until December 1982, total sales had plummeted to 1,797 and the surplus remained at 3,812. In 1980-81 Chamberlain tractors-that is, the locally produced tractors-enjoyed 20.9 per cent of the market, selling 1,579 units. In 1981-82 that figure had shrunk to 18.2 per cent, reflecting 1,082 units sold. In the six months to December 1982 the figure had halved from that of the previous year. Its total share of the market was then only 9.6 per cent and in those six months it sold only 173 units. Honourable members can see from those figures that the downturn was rather dramatic. Coupled with the large excess of tractors on hand-that is, close to 4,000 tractors-I believe that the stage was set for a dumping exercise. I call it a de facto dumping exercise. Dumping harms the local industry. Some of it is international dumping. The results are the same. The local manufacturer has been severely disadvantaged, not because manufacturers overseas have dumped their products but because importers have allowed a large surplus of tractors to be held in Australia. As proof of that I refer to a few advertisements which appeared in journals throughout Australia. The first one shows the normal price for a particular International tractor as $29,985, but offers a special discount close to $8,000. Another tractor, the normal price of which is $36,556, attracts a special discount of $10,000. Yet another International tractor, with a normal price of $41,544, attracts a special discount of $9,500. An advertisement for the tractors of Massey-Ferguson (Australia) Ltd, Renault (Australia) Pty Ltd, Iseki, Deutz Australia Pty Ltd and Fiat of Australia Pty Ltd offered discounts of up to $5,000. The advertisement states: With the support of our manufacturers. An advertisement for Belarus tractors states: Before you turn the page, study this and save up to $30,000. An advertisement for Fiat tractors offers an allowance of $3,500. An advertisement for Ford tractors states that for a Ford TW30 one can get $16,000 cash back; for a Ford TW20, $11,800; for a Ford TW10, $10,200; and for the Ford 8401, $3,900. All of these advertisements indicate that there is severe price cutting with the support of the manufacturers to get some of these surplus tractors into the market. No doubt in the short term this has benefited the people who bought them, but the effects on the rest of the industry are quite profound. The intention of this Bill, of course, is to rectify some of the damage caused by advertisements such as those. Indeed, the car parks and all the stores of Chamberlain John Deere in Western Australia are full. It has about 800 tractors. It is overflowing with them. In fact, it has nowhere to put them. The effect of this is a substantial loss of employment. In Western Australia about 1,200 people used to work at Chamberlain John Deere. That figure has fallen to 800. This has also had a severe impact on apprentice training. Not enough apprentices are being trained in Australia now. To see our manufacturing capacity decrease in such a dramatic way also lessens our chance for training those people we will need when the recovery gets under way. In fact, it not only affects them; it also affects the local suppliers and contractors. I received a phone call this morning from Mr Kevin Durney, the Manager of Aircraft Industrial Marine Services , which operates in my electorate. He wanted to express his concern about the Australian Development Assistance Bureau tender, in which Massey-Ferguson was successful over Chamberlain John Deere, about which I will say a little more later. That firm has a contract with Chamberlain John Deere to the tune of $20, 000 a year for instrumentation. That is only one firm. Many firms in Western Australia rely on work from Chamberlain John Deere. They have been adversely affected by the downturn in Chamberlain John Deere's activity. In regard to the question of foreign aid, I must say that I agree with the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) when he talks about the ADAB tender going to Massey-Ferguson which will import tractors and send them overseas to Bangladesh. It is a great concern to me and also to those people in Western Australia-especially the 60 people who look like losing their jobs-if Chamberlain John Deere is not successful. I was so concerned I went to see the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to express that concern. He agreed with me that some points needed looking at. To his credit, he has asked for more information so that we can-more rationally, I hope-have another look at that tender. I would say that the only inhibition is that the guidelines under which the tenders were let were established under the previous Government. I do not know whether there is any way we can get out of those or whether we can bring some rationality into the matter. I certainly hope so. By sending our Australian tractors overseas as foreign aid and by competing, as did Chamberlain John Deere for a contract in Libya where it sold tractors, a vote of confidence is given to the Australian product. I agree with the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) on the matter of tractor cabs. I am sure that the local product is as good as anything we will import. That goes for Chamberlain tractors also. They are happy with them in Libya. I am sure that they will be happy with them in Bangladesh. The 'Buy Australian' campaign will be getting under way fairly shortly. I cannot think of a better way for a government to express its support for 'Buy Australian' than to buy these tractors and send them to Bangladesh. The cost, of course, of not doing it would be borne by the community. One could not imagine the Japanese giving foreign aid and sending Chamberlain tractors. I am sure they would send Japanese tractors. I think I have covered the ADAB tender fairly well. I do not intend to go into it any further except to reiterate that I think that wherever foreign aid is involved we should send the local product. We should send Australian tractors, thus helping to keep Australian companies in business, Australian workers at work and not importing tractors to send overseas. I believe that there is a substantial case for Chamberlain John Deere receiving this assistance. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(5.55) —As the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) has stated, the Opposition does not oppose these Bills. However, a number of points need to be made. There is a question of double standards involved here on the part of the Government that needs to be highlighted. I will go into that in a moment. The whole question of tariffs and bounties brings us back to the fundamental question of costs. Australia, by world standards, is an economic and cost-efficient agricultural producer. We are a world leader. But costs are pricing us out of world markets. The appreciation of the Australian dollar has its greatest impact on our exporters and, in this case, our primary producers. The effect of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission's decision to grant wage rises to the Australian work force will mean increased costs across the board. It is reliably estimated that this will increase the cost to the Australian farming community by $20m a year. It will have its greatest impact on the ability of the nation's farmers to produce and market products competitively on world markets. The strain in terms of international competition is ever present, and it is growing. Wage rises do not help. Neither do industrial disputations or irrational decisions of governments. In the case of these Bills, the Government is proposing to spread the cost of protection for the Australian tractor industry over the entire community. The Australian taxpayer will share the burden of this protection. In my view, that is proper and correct. Why then did the Government choose to opt for a continuation of the 15 per cent tariff on imported grain harvesters, rather than provide protection by way of a bounty, in its recent decision? Protection by tariff imposes the full cost on the industry concerned, the Australian grains industry, whereas protection for local manufacturers by way of a bounty would be shared by the community as a whole. If a government decides that protection for an industry is necessary, surely, it is fair and equitable that all Australians, and not just one section of the community should pay for such protection. The grain harvesters decision was an absolute disaster. The Australian Wheatgrowers Federation has estimated that the tariff will cost the grains industry $14m a year. By contrast, protection for local manufacturers by way of a bounty would cost only $2m. There have been signs that the Government has recognised the stupidity of its decision in this area. I understand that the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) had some discussions on this issue on Monday. Further, the National Farmers Federation, I understand, also raised the issue with the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) yesterday. The point is, however, that the Government decision was announced over two months ago, on 5 August. Since then, there has been uproar within the grains industry. The Government promised a review of the decision and has said nothing more. In the meantime, the grains industry has told the Government in no uncertain terms that it will not have a bar of the 15 per cent tariff policy. It is becoming increasingly frustrated that the Government continues to promise a review but does nothing more. How long does it take this Government to review stupid decisions? Why has there been no further statement from the Government? Why is the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford), who is in the chamber, silent? Why does the Government make decisions without consulting the relevant industries-especially given its so-called election commitment to conciliation and consensus? The Australian Wheatgrowers Federation, in a statement on 8 August, highlighted the stupidity of the Government's tariff decision on grain harvesters. The statement hit the nail on the head when it stated: This decision casts serious doubts on the Government's commitment to the rural sector . . . Because of the Government's concentration on short-term expediency it is not coming to grips with the basic issues affecting agriculture, especially the effects of the tariff on low cost, efficient industries. The Government's statements about understanding the need for the grains industry to be competitive and have low costs are now shown to be empty rhetoric. How absolutely and completely true. The simple and very sad fact is that this Government might say it understands the needs of our agricultural industries, but in reality it just does not have a clue. The Minister for Primary Industry might have some little idea of what it is all about, but his knowledge is virtually worthless because he is not in the Cabinet. His stock phrase is: 'I have lost that one'. He is the only Minister for Primary Industry not to be in the Cabinet since the inner and outer ministry practice was first introduced by the late Sir Robert Menzies on 11 January 1956. The question is: Why did the Government accept the IAC recommendation on the grain harvesters without any consulations with anyone? On August 8 the great Australian Wheatgrowers Federation stated: Grain growers are particularly annoyed at the lack of opportunity to comment on the IAC's report to Government prior to the decision. This is in direct contrast with the draft report hearings for assistance to the wheat and steel industries. Growers are also angered at the lack of consulation between the Government and the grains industry prior to the Government's announcement and the refusal of the Government to respond to a call for such consultations from the industry in a telex dated June 9, 1983. The other question relevant to this argument is just how much input into this decision did the Minister for Primary Industry actually have. The Government decision was announced not by the Minister for Primary Industry, the bloke who is supposed to look after rural Australia, but by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. He did not even take the opportunity of consulting with the Minister for Primary Industry. This raises the question: Was the Minister for Primary Industry involved at all? If so, did he honestly go along with the views of his colleagues? It is unbelievable to me that he should have done so. Surely he knows a little bit more about agriculture. He must have realised the stupidity of the decision. He must have realised the uproar that it would create. No one in his right mind would wish that on himself. The grain harvesters decision is totally inconsistent with all available advice. The Balderstone Committee report on agriculture recommends that if and where protection is warranted it should be by way of bounty and not by tariff. That has been the consistent view of the National Farmers Federation and the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation. Even the Government accepted the bounty philosophy when it made its decisions on protection for the steel industry. Why then has it not followed this course with regard to grain harvesters? It has not only stupidity, but also inconsistency. It has a double standard. It is a double standard that savagely affects the Australian grains industry. It proves the Government has no understanding of the importance of the cost of the tariff to farmers. Worse still, the IAC report on grain harvesters was published on 18 May this year. In other words, the Government took three months to come up with a totally ridiculous decision. Its review of that decision has been proceeding for more than two months. This whole sorry saga is turning out to be a bigger production that Gone with the Wind. I hope that the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, or maybe even the Minister for Primary Industry, can give the House today, and also the industry, some indication as to exactly where the Government now stands on this issue. It has gone on for far too long. The Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Amendment Bill proposes an additional bouty as short term assistance for a period of 12 months. As I have said, and as the honourable member for Ryan has said, the Opposition does not object to this at all. My concern, however, is that the Government does not repeat the stupidity of its decision with regard to grain harvesters in the long term. The Temporary Assistance Authority has concluded that there is a case for temporary assistance for tractors, pending the outcome of an immediate review by the IAC. The Minister told us in his second reading speech that this review is now in progress and that the Government will decide its long term policy for the tractor industry when the IAC report is received. It would be nice, although probably too much to ask for, if the Minister would give the House an assurance that before the Government makes a final decision it will consult with the industry, with the farmers, with the rural people. If it was to do this, it may save itself the embarrassment that it has faced for the past two months over the grain harvester decision. The Government should forget about talking to trade unions and talk to the farmers who are the real backbone and life-blood of this great nation of ours. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(6.05) —I rise to speak in a relevant way to the Bill which, honourable members will be surprised to know, is the Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill. I believe it will be welcomed by all industry groups. Australian industries have faced a very difficult business climate for a number of years. I believe that is being alleviated now that we have a Labor Government . I congratulate the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), in his capacity as Minister assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce, for introducing the measures before us today. They, along with all the other administrative actions taken by the Government, will be of great assistance to industry and will be well received throughout the country. The Bill provides for the extension of temporary assistance for a total of three years without need for a report from the Industries Assistance Commission. However, a report from the Temporary Assistance Authority is still required annually and other administrative amendments are there to ensure accountability. It is essential that these initiatives be seen in perspective. These measures do not represent an increase in protection; they are a response to short term economic needs and have been necessitated by the general downturn in industry and the economy in recent years under the previous administration. In this context, an easing of the arrangements for granting temporary assistance is a responsible move which will be of great benefit to many industries. In recent years, the sharp increase in dumping in Australian markets has also caused great problems. The provisions of this Bill will be of some assistance in this respect . The Industry and Commerce annual report of 1981-82 indicates that the number of dumping complaints has increased substantially. It outlines increasing work loads and streamlining procedures which are necessary to deal with this matter. The legislation before us is really seen to be complementary with the administrative arrangements that are being taken to overcome the dumping problem . The Government is very concerned about the extent of dumping. The provisions of this Bill will be definitely complementary to the measures being undertaken. As we all know, IAC references have provided a large number of very valuable reports on a wide range of industries. There is no intention in this Bill to reduce the Commission's work in this area. Rather, the measures being taken today represent a temporary departure only from established practices and have been made necessary by the downturn in the general economic situation. It is clear that increased protection is not the answer to economic problems facing Australian industries. Rather, general restructuring will be required in many areas if we are to meet the challenge of the 1980s and beyond. In Australia protection is afforded to industry by very visible methods. I believe bounties are much more preferable to tariffs. It should be commended that we do have these visible measures so that the taxpayers and industries generally are aware of the consequences and the costs of protection. In France, for example, video units have no duty or quota. The one point of entry has only two officers working on it. This system, though it does not have visible methods of protection, works much more to the detriment of industry. People are not being informed of the cost of protection. Understandably in times of economic downturn there is a tendency to return to greater protective measures. This increases as there is a greater pressure for more jobs. Most frequently the protectionist trend occurs in almost invisible, surreptitious ways. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has reported on the steady creep of small protectionist measures and the proliferation of administrative and legal obstacle to trade. This occurs in not only domestic markets but also international trade. The measures before us today must be seen as temporary ones and must be seen in the Government's overall commitment to developing Australian industry in the interests of Australia as a whole at the same time as protecting jobs. The arguments in favour of reduced trade barriers have been thoroughly canvassed in this place and others. I am sure that most people are aware of them. There are plenty of historical examples both within Australia and overseas to illustrate the economic problems and stagnation that results from continual government subsidies and assistance to industry. This Government is promoting soundly based industry and business policies which will stimulate balanced growth and enlarge employment opportunities. This will ensure a firm foundation for prosperous economic growth in the years ahead. The taxpayers' dollar will be spent more wisely on assistance to industry. We welcome these measures and hope that industry in the years to come will be in a situation where it will not need this sort of assistance. I believe the Government is beginning to start a very constructive role in ensuring that we have a balanced private sector in this country. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(6.10) —The Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill (No. 2) and cognate Bills deal with increases to bounties on tractors in particular and the bounties on tractor cabs. These are matters that interest me particularly. In addressing myself to the question of the tariff and revenue, I think it is worth noting in this place that an inspection of the Budget Papers shows that the revenue that the Commonwealth Government will receive from customs duty-that is, the tariff-this year will be $2,182m. In fact, the Government will expend $329,160,000 on bounties. That is a differential of $1, 852,840,000 in favour of the revenue. I am not for a moment suggesting that the practices of this Government are in any way dissimilar from the practices of the previous Government. It is a fact that, for a long time, governments have earned substantial revenue from the tariff. In my view every effort should be made to see that that practice ceases. I cannot see how any Minister for Industry and Commerce-or whatever designation anybody controlling customs and excise might happen to be given-who was sufficiently enlightened to want to reduce the tariff in the interest of Australia, would be able to go before Cabinet and say: 'Here it is. I have worked out how I can reduce tariff'. I can just hear the Treasurer (Mr Keating) saying: 'Yes, and where will it get the $2 billion that will be lost'. It is a pity that we have a hidden revenue. It is a pity also that at one stage a previous government took the decision to have a revenue component within these tariffs. In this respect I refer to the 2 per cent tariff that is charged on all imported items other than those specifically excluded under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Since my entry into this Parliament, I have been drawing to the attention of the government of the day, to date without success, that this tariff applies to a local tractor manufacturer within my electorate, the Phillips Acremaster organisation, which, over the years, has manufactured highly expensive, very large tractors in small volume quite successfully. But the facts are that this company which recently got into financial difficulty, partly as a result of this tariff, operates in its field of endeavour within Australia in a negative fashion. It is obliged to import the components of engines, transmissions and other items, purely because it certainly could not manufacture them and they are not made in Australia generally. The company has found that it is not taxed to any great degree but it is suffering as a result of the 2 per cent revenue duty. Further, under GATT, similar types of imported tractors with which this company competes-these are the very large four-wheel drive tractors-are admitted duty free. So, compared with the cost of an imported tractor, the Australian manufacturer of large four-wheel drive tractors as a result of the 2 per cent duty finds that it starts off at probably 2 per cent of 60 per cent of the value of the tractor behind the company selling the fully imported tractors. The manufacturer is of the opinion that with the world recession some of the imported tractors in recent times have been dumped in Australia. Further, when Western Australia received rain last year and the east coast did not, tractors were certainly dumped interstate. The price of those tractors was probably discounted but the dumping procedure had the same effect on that manufacturer. The cost of these tractors varies from $70,000 to $250,000 and the 2 per cent tariff can add as much as $1,000 to the cost of such a tractor. This is a substantial disincentive to a small operative. We should be supporting this industry. Unlike the mass produced small tractor market we find that these people-even the big manufacturers throughout the world of this type of equipment, the specialist manufacturers-often only make 1,000 of these tractors a year. So it is quite all right for a business in Australia to make, say 100 of these tractors a year. This particular industry which is decentralised 200 miles from Perth has proved to be very effective. I hope that the Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr John Brown) will look back through the files to see whether he can at least arrive at some means by which that manufacturer or any similar manufacturer is not called upon to make a duty payment that his overseas competitors are not. As far as I am concerned, it is the height of the ridiculous. Again the previous Government was unable to resolve this question for me. I think this matter is worth noting in the terms in which I raised it in a notice of motion this morning. The value of the Australian dollar is strongly a matter of protection or the lack of it. The Government is presently allowing the value of the dollar to drift up again by artificial adjustments. Every time the dollar goes up, it reduces the protection to local manufacturers of any product, including tractors. If the Government is hell bent on that arrangement, I think it will find that we will have fewer local tractor manufacturers and fewer farmers wanting to buy tractors because the financial return to them in Australian dollars will not be great. I congratulate the Government for supporting Chamberlain John Deere Pty Ltd in Western Australia by the provision of this additional bounty. I am a supporter of bounties as compared with the tariff although, as I have said, I would like to see them balance. I must express my disappointment at the fact that the Government has yet to resolve the situation of placing an overseas order for tractors with a company that is not really classified as an Australian manufacturer of tractors. I think that is a great pity. I think the Chamberlain company, which has a wonderful history, should be supported. Mr KENT(Hotham)(6.15) —We are debating the Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill (No. 2) and three cognate Bills. I want to deal in particular with the Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill. As the Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr John Brown) stated in the second reading speech, the main purpose of the Bill before the House is to amend the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973, in order to suspend the requirement in certain circumstances for a report by the Industries Assistance Commission before temporary assistance to an industry may be extended. The Bill will have the effect that temporary assistance granted to an industry will be able to be extended for an additional year, beyond the two-year period as at present, without the need for a report from the Industries Assistance Commission . The Industries Assistance Commission was established under the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973 to replace the old Tariff Board which had operated from 1921 to 1973. The Industries Assistance Commission Act also provides for a temporary assistance authority separate from the Commission. Like the task of the old Tariff Board, the task of the IAC that succeeded it is to assist our industries. However, the Industry Assistance Commission turned out to be the biggest misnomer if there ever was one. Since its inception in 1973, foreign imports of manufactured products increased year by year, until today, 10 years later we have to look and search if we want to buy Australian products in many manufacturing lines. Today, the Australian market is flooded with foreign goods. Yet the IAC is still advocating free trade and reduction of tariffs. One wonders whether the commissioners and their staff are appointed by the Australian Government, to serve the interest of the Australian people, or whether they set up in New York and Tokyo to serve the interest of transnational companies. It is interesting to note that people who serve on the Commission and others, who are advocating free trade today, were not always of the same opinion. They change their minds according to the interest of big capital. Only a few decades ago when the foreign capital flooded this country to take over our developing industry, the interest of the big capital investors required protection, and protection they got. However, as capital concentrated in fewer and fewer hands it became powerful enough to transcend national boundaries. While Australia was still industrialising in the period after the war, elsewhere in the world, especially in the United States of America, capital became transnational. As capital was concentrated in a few hands, it became highly mobile. Investment was shifted from the Western world into cheap labour countries to produce goods cheaply and then those goods were shipped into the Western countries to compete with domestic products. This led, of course, to a maximisation of the profits of transnational companies but, at the same time, it also led to the de-industrialisation of the developed countries. De- industrialisation, in turn, led to permanent structural unemployment that now plagues countries such as ours; countries that enjoyed full employment for nearly three decades after the war. The plan of transnationals is understandable if one takes into account that they have only one interest and one desire-to maximise their profits. National interest protected by national boundaries is being disregarded. Hence the Liberal and National parties, which always serve the interests of big capital, advocate free trade so that transnational companies can freely shift their goods from cheap production areas to markets in other countries and so maximise their profits. By advocating free trade honourable members opposite became Australia's compradors-agents of foreign interests. To serve the interest of foreign capital honourable members opposite are betraying hundreds of thousands of Australians and their families whose livelihood depends on our manufacturing industry. They are betraying our industrial work force. The world capitalist system is in crisis and the transnationals are pressing for further integration of the world economy. They want us to expand supply of minerals and fuel and to increase the imports of manufactured goods, thus turning Australia into a service economy with in-built permanent high unemployment. The first to suffer are the less educated, the unskilled, the Aborigines, the migrants, women and youth. Of course it will not stop there. Already skilled tradesmen and many others who have never been a day without work in their lives are joining the dole queues. The de-industrialisation of Australia has already begun and is proceeding according to the wishes of transnationals. Yet conservative members opposite still talk about leaving everything to market forces. In today's economy free market forces work only for the rich and powerful. We have seen that free market forces assist those with high concentration of capital and centralise economic power in fewer and fewer hands, contrary to public interest. The alternative to free market forces is a more independent Australian economic policy with more reliance on our own resources, the most important of which is our own people and their inventiveness. We inhabit a continent rich in resources, yet we have nearly a million unemployed and over two million living below the poverty line. We should be the masters of our own destiny and not let ourselves be dictated to by transnationals, whether from New York or Tokyo. We already control the import of people into Australia. We should also control the import of capital and goods. The logic of transnationals is simple. They strive to eliminate skilled and semi-skilled jobs by mechanisation, computerisation and robotisation and when they cannot do that they move production into low wage countries. In either case jobs disappear. The logic of capitalism and those who serve it has no regard for its social consequences. The Industries Assistance Commision, in the 10 years of its existence, failed to protect our industries and failed to protect Australia from the flood of overseas imports. The Commission degenerated into a tool of foreign transnationals and joined the conspiracy to bring about the dismantling of our manufacturing industry. Thus it caused untold misery to thousands of unemployed workers who have nothing else in this world but their labour to sell. The IAC failed to protect the jobs of the Australian work force. The former conservative Government also failed to do so. I urge the Hawke Labor Government to take the necessary steps to save our manufacturing industry. I hope that the review of the IAC will result in changes to make the Commission a more responsible body which will not only toy with little economic models, of which economists are so fond, but also pay due regard to people, and consider the human costs of its advice. I hope that our Labor Government will use every opportunity and every avenue to save the jobs of Australians. Doing that through the IAC has failed. However, other avenues are available. We can reduce the flood of imports by non-tariff barriers. Such non-tariff barriers consist of government purchasing policy and granting of contracts including semi-government entities, quotas, discriminatory charges on imports, fiscal incentives to industry and especially to small business, assistance to small and medium size enterprises-for instance, by way of low interest loans-rigid application of safety and quality standards, labeling regulations and administrative hindrance of import licensing. All or some of these methods are used by European countries, especially France, and by Asian countries, especially Japan, to protect their domestic industries. The Japanese exporters are laughing all the way to the bank because we make it so easy for them to flood our markets. The smile would soon be wiped off their faces if they had to fill in their application forms for import licences in the Gurungi language and if we required them to be lodged at Tallarook. The Hawke Labor Government has shown a genuine concern for our unemployed. Job creation is high on the Government's list, but it will be futile to spend millions of dollars creating temporary employment if this Government neglects to protect our manufacturing industry from foreign imports and causes losses of real and permanent jobs. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(6.26) —in reply-In winding up this debate on the Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill (No. 2), the Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Amendment Bill, the Bounty (Tractor Cabs) Bill and the Bounty (Injection-moulding Equipment) Amendment Bill I would like to pay tribute to all those who contributed to the debate in their own way. I will perhaps make a few comments or answer a few of the questions that have been posed to the Government in the course of this debate. The first speaker leading for the Opposition was, of course, the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore). I must pay some tribute to the honourable member for his responsible attitude to this legislation. He was a Minister in the former Government which in fact put up an Industries Assistance Commission amendment Bill similar to the one which we are debating. So I suppose he would have been in a fairly awkward position in denying the efficacy of the efforts of the Government to introduce the Bill. Nevertheless, he asked a couple of questions I would like to answer. He questioned the bounty that is to be applied by the provisions of the Bounty ( Injection-moulding Equipment) Amendment Bill. In fact, the company in question is Batterfeld (Australia) Pty Ltd. He questioned how, if in 1982-83 the 15 per cent bounty that applied cost $686,583 and in 1983-84 we are increasing the bounty from 5 per cent to 25 per cent-in other words, an increase of 20 per cent -this amount can be estimated at $100,000. It needs to be understood that this additional 20 per cent in this year in fact will not amount to what 20 per cent might have been in the last year because of the anticipated reduced production in this year of temporary assistance. This also combines with the fact that there is really only one manufacturer left. I can assure the honourable member for Ryan, although he is not present at the moment, that our estimations are likely to be quite correct and that, in fact, that 20 per cent this year will cost only about $100,000. I think he can rest assured that our figures are accurate. The honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) produced a very responsible contribution to the debate. It is well known that the honourable member has an abiding interest in the constituents he represents who are largely grain growers . I was pleased to hear him make some interesting comments on the fact that a successful primary industry in Australia-which is, of course, what we all want- in fact will provide access for a successful secondary manufacturing industry which provides, particularly, machinery for agricultural pursuits. In fact, two of these Bills respond to that request. I thank the honourable member for Calare for his contribution. The honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) spoke in kind terms about A. F. Gason Pty Ltd. I do not think anybody in the Department of Industry and Commerce or the Government would disagree with his view on Gason. It has been a good company, traditionally. It produces quality cabs and the price is right. It is also true to say that in the early days of Gason's problem that company in fact requested quotas on cab imports at a Temporary Assistance Authority inquiry. The TAA considered that the trend to completely built-up tractors was a permanent one and, in fact, recommended that no temporary assistance be given at all. But the Government decided that the question of whether the trend was a long term one should be investigated by the Industries Assistance Commission. The bounty that is now being introduced was merely to assist Gason to continue its operation until the IAC inquiry is completed and also to compensate for the fact that the 20 per cent duty on separate cab imports is, in effect, of no assistance to Gason. I suggest to the honourable member that he go back to Gason and tell it that if it considers the bounty to be inadequate-I assume that it does-it should raise the matter at the IAC inquiry, which is scheduled for 17 November in Canberra with a view to varying the level of temporary assistance to apply after 10 June 1984. But should Gason not be able to wait until that time for some extra assistance to keep it afloat I suggest that it should contact the Department with a view to establishing a case for an earlier interim report from the IAC varying the amount of assistance that could be provided to the company. The Government is quite sincere in its attempt to keep Gason afloat. We are aware of the difficulties and we are aware of its long record of good service to the agricultural industry. Again, I suggest to the honourable member that he take the matter back to Gason if it is so worried about it. The Department may also be able to do something about getting an interim report a little earlier. The honourable member for Tangney (Mr Gear) brought up the vexed subject of Chamberlain John Deere Pty Ltd. The Temporary Assistance Authority in the first place suggested a loan of $6m over five years at a concessional rate of interest . But a loan would, of course, have to be paid back and the Government considered that the better way to assist Chamberlain John Deere was to double the bounty that already existed. The honourable member then brought up the question, as did the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), of the difficulty with the Australian Development Assistance Bureau contract which has recently been awarded to Massey-Ferguson (Aust.) Ltd, over the demands of Chamberlain John Deere that it should be awarded to it, for overseas aid in the form of 140 tractors to Bangladesh. This opens a whole new area of questions. I guess one should really question whether overseas aid should be looked at in terms of pure overseas aid or whether tractors bought to be given to Bangladesh should be looked at in terms of protection for Australian industry. The simple facts are that, given the guidelines which cover the control of these contracts and the control of government purchasing, the quote of Chamberlain John Deere for these tractors was considerably above the quote provided by Massey-Ferguson. I am talking of many hundreds of thousands of dollars. Of course, the bounty does not apply to the manufacture of tractors for export, but even if a national bounty had applied to Chamberlain John Deere's bid it would still have been a long way from the figure that was put forward by Massey-Ferguson. I do not intend to dismiss the case that was made out by the honourable member for Tangney as to how Australian content is resolved. I can assure the honourable member that this question is now being looked at in depth. I know that he has spoken to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) about it and, as the Minister for Administrative Services, I am concerned with government purchasing and have made several submissions to the Government, which are presently being looked at, as to how we arrive at what is known as Australian content. I think there are questions to be asked in that area. I think Chamberlain John Deere in some of its comments to the Government about the awarding of this contract touched upon the delicate situation of how Australian content is derived. I am questioning it, and I can assure the honourable member for Tangney that even if he has no luck in this case there is a review of the whole method of Australian Government purchasing being undertaken at the moment by a number of departments. One of the most important questions to be resolved is that of the determination of Australian content. However, I think it is also pertinent to say that it is difficult to equate aid for Bangladesh or any other developing country with the general principle of protection for Australian industry, because the important part of the whole exercise is to provide assistance for a weakened agricultural industry in a country such as Bangladesh which is having great difficulty in feeding its teeming millions of citizens. If ADAB were forced to accept the higher priced bid from Chamberlain John Deere in terms of Australian content, it would have less money available in the long term to provide additional aid overseas. It is a pity that this matter of Australian content came up in an overseas aid project . I am not dismissing the proposition put forward by the honourable member for Tangney. He believes that all overseas aid from Australia should be in the form of Australian manufactured goods. This has a good emotive ring and I think should be considered also. However, the whole process is presently being looked at. I do not want to say too much about the contribution of the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh). It was the typical National Party line. He made the typical screams about tariffs on manufacturing industry and there not being enough for farmers. Most of his comments were totally irrelevant because they were not concerned with a Bill that is before the House but rather related to the provision of assistance for grain harvesters, so I will dismiss his comments . The honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) made her normal sensible contribution on the whole of tariffs and protection of Australian industry. She made some rather critical comments about dumping which I think were quite relevant. A submission from the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) has already gone to Cabinet in regard to a review of the whole of the dumping procedures that affect Australian industry, so that matter will soon be tidied up. The only other contribution was that from the honourable member for O'Connor. I must say that it was one of his better speeches in this House. He did not assassinate the character of anybody, so I suppose to that extent it was better than most of his contributions. The honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) spoke in the typical compassionate way that we have become used to from him. His great concern for Australian workers and their loss of jobs is something that we share . All in all, I think the Opposition agreed with the Government that the protection that is provided to tractors and tractor cabs and injection moulding machinery under these three bounty Bills will be welcomed by industry generally. I am pleased that the Opposition accords with us. Of course, there was no opposition from it to the amendment to the Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill (No. 2). Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr John Brown) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 5 October, on motion by Mr John Brown: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr John Brown) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 5 October, on motion by Mr John Brown: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr John Brown) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 5 October, on motion by Mr John Brown: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr John Brown) read a third time. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Debate resumed from 21 September, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction) —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill and the Northern Territory Grant (Special Assistance) Bill 1983 as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering both measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(6.44) —I support the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill and the Northern Territory Grant (Special Assistance) Bill but I shall relate my first comments to the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill . This Bill has two main purposes. The first purpose is to authorise interest free capital grants amounting to $489,667 to the States as part of the 1983-84 Loan Council programs agreed at this year's Loan Council meeting. The second purpose is to provide for payment to the States and Territories from Loan Council programs additional amounts for public housing as nominated by the States under concessional loan terms. Interest free capital grants are provided in accordance with arrangements agreed at the June 1970 Premiers Conference. The grants are made in lieu of loan raisings, thereby relieving the States of interest charges. These grants represent one-third of the total Loan Council programs for 1983-84. The concessional loans provided for public housing nominated by the States as part of their approved borrowing programs provide an incentive for increased spending on public housing. I believe this has our concurrence. I note that this provision in the Bill will authorise funds in addition to those already provided under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement for public housing. Direct funding has already increased by 50 per cent to $500m. The Opposition questions the need for the increase. It could be claimed that the increase is overgenerous and that a combination of the concessional housing loans and the payments under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement represent a substantial transfer of resources form the private sector to the public sector . This transfer occurs against the background of a removal of the tax rebates provided for home buyers by the Fraser Government. I am led to understand that it was promised by the Government when in Opposition that nothing would be done to those rebates, but that amounts to another broken promise. The general attack on the Loan Council and the Premiers Conference for being overgenerous to the States is another one of the matters we question. Whilst there has been an overgenerous application to the Sates-I understand that increase overall was about 11.8 per cent, well in excess of the consumer price index figure of 11.2 per cent-the same generosity has not been extended to local government. In fact, in comparison we might say that local government has received very shabby treatment in that its increase, compared with 11.8 per cent , was 8.2 per cent, 3 per cent below real values. I know that local government feels this loss of general grants quite drastically even though the Minister states that there have been specific grants . The onus is on local government to bear up to 30 per cent-sometimes more, sometimes less-of the cost of some of those projects. Certainly that is the case with the community employment program and the roads program. I question the generosity to the States when local government general purpose grants have been decreased and local government authorities are being called upon to raise additional funds by way of rates or by some other method to fund the 30 per cent of programs initiated by the Commonwealth. In that regard local governments also question the additional oversight placed on them by a centralist government. I believe that the Government is more centralist and that more power is given to Canberra because of the specific nature of some of these grants. I also question what will happen to local government in future years. Perhaps next year this Government will be as generous to local government as it was in the Loan Council . Local governments fear that that decrease in real terms might be continued next year. This is in spite of an undertaking by the Labor Government that the real value of that general purpose grant would be maintained. There is a concern in local government that this undertaking is not being met. Apart from the 30 per cent I mentioned before, local government is also faced with an increase of about 10 per cent in the CPI. Mr Reeves —It is 7.5 per cent. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I am glad the honourable member interjected. The figure is 7.5 per cent. It has been artificially reduced by the influence of the Medibank levy . It is 1.5 per cent this year and it will be 1.5 per cent next year; so we will get 10 per cent. It was a helpful interjection because the honourable member, as a member of the Australian Labor Party, might realise that by applying only a 7. 5 per cent increase next year the Government will pay less than the actual real increase in costs that local government will have to bear. I repeat: The real cost of maintaining local government expenditure next year will be closer to 10 per cent than the 7.5 per cent which the honourable member mentioned. Perhaps it could be said that the Government could have been a lot tougher in its approach. It is a matter of restrained rhetoric not matching the outcome. It has been said -this is a fact with which I can agree to a certain extent-that the generosity to the States was caused by the imminence of the Queensland election and the favourable result that might be achieved by appearing to be generous. However, the Government certainly was not generous to local government. Total non-capital payments to the States will increase by 16.1 per cent in 1983 -84 and there will be a 15.4 per cent increase in the larger, semi-government, non-electricity borrowing program. I repeat the warnings about interest rate pressures arising from the increase in these payments and borrowings. I believe that this is a very slender thread upon which to place the Budget and that, because of these increase in payments and borrowings, containing interest rates to an appropriate level will be very difficult indeed. Of course, if they are not contained, the people who will pay will once again be those who are borrowing in the market place. Local government and the States will be paying interest rates higher than necessarily would have been the case. While not opposing this Bill, the Opposition questions the priority given to public housing and the extent of the increase in State funds authorised by the States ( Works and Housing) Assistance Bill. I turn to the second area of concern; that is, the Northern Territory Grant ( Special Assistance) Bill 1983. This special grant of $16.9 billion is the result of an arrangement between the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth based on the memorandum of understanding agreed between the two governments in 1978, just one year after self-government in the Territory, and of the Commonwealth Grants Commission's 1983 report on special assistance to the Northern Territory. I refer to Budget Paper No. 7, particularly pages 76 and 77, which sets out the general and specific purpose grants for recurrent and capital purposes made to the Northen Territory. Total payments for the four years up to 1982-83, with the estimate for 1983-84, indicate an increase in Commonwealth grants to the Northern Territory from $439m to $842m, or approximately 92 per cent. For 1983- 84 general purpose capital funds comprise just over 71 per cent of the total payments. I point out that this is actually a decline of approximately 5 per cent on the payment for 1982-83. I believe this is ample evidence that the Labor Party, true to its centralist principles and philosophy, is actually placing greater conditions and restrictions on payments to the Northern Territory. This contrasts with the attitude of the previous Government, the Fraser Government, which was to give more freedom and latitude to the Northern Territory Government to have those funds as general purpose grants and not to have them specifically applied. I believe the Northern Territory responded to that trust and confidence that we gave it when we were in government and has set its mark very soundly in its pioneering, self-government role. I pay tribute to the members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly for the role they have played in bringing the Territory through this self-government phase in 1977 to where it is now. By necessity, the Commonwealth is obliged to give assistance to the Northern Territory until such time as the natural resources of the Territory are brought on line. Of course, one must talk of the Territory not only in terms of its natural resources including its great deposits of high grade uranium and other minerals but also in terms of its opportunities for tourism and travel and its primary and secondary industries. These can be developed only by sympathetic assistance and with an appreciation by other citizens of Australia of the Northern Territory's requirements. I have noted, therefore, with interest the remarks by the Labor Government that the Northern Territory is being funded very generously. In that regard I think we need only refer to the mini-Budget. On the night that was brought down the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said: Commonwealth assistance to the Northern Territory is very generous. In 1982-83, total per capita payments to the Northern Territory will be about $5,600-about five times the average level of per capita payments to the six States. I find it rather interesting that the attitude that the Treasurer and the Labor Party obviously take is to claim that the Northern Territory is being funded generously by the Commonwealth. Of course, the inference is that the Northern Territory and its people are getting too much, particularly in comparison with the rest of the States. This inference, of course, is taken further. I refer to table 50 on page 78 of Budget Paper No. 7 which shows a comparison of general and specific grants made to the Territory per head of population. I understand that Federal Labor Ministers and members point to this statistic with some horror in that the grants are greater than those made to Tasmania. Furthermore, having glanced through Budget Paper No. 7, I have not actually seen where grants to the six States have been singled out in such a fashion for special mention on a per capita basis. It looks as though it has been done deliberately in respect of the Northern Territory in an attempt to highlight the Commonwealth's generosity to the Northern Territory in previous years. I believe the real lesson has not sunk into members of the Labor Party: The Northern Territory is the developing region of Australia, having been denied that development for decades under direct administration by the Commonwealth in Canberra. Even the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves) fails to appreciate the growth and development potential of his own electorate. In a speech to the House last week on 6 October he said, among quite a few things, that the waste problem in connection with uranium and other such matters had not been properly addressed. I go further to say that the Labor Government has not really given a lead to the Territory in any sense as far as uranium is concerned because it does not appear to have a uranium policy. Mr Reeves —That is more than you have. Mr BRAITHWAITE —We have a very definite policy on uranium; there is no doubt about that at all. Yesterday honourable members opposite addressed the uranium rally outside Parliament House in terms quite contrary to the theme being put across the table. The absence of a policy from the Labor Party means that the potential for uranium mining in the Northern Territory is being torpedoed. I think that could be said with certainty. There appears little doubt that potential major export earners for Australia-Koongarra, Honeymoon, Beverley and other deposits-are at great risk and cannot proceed while impediments are placed in their way by this Government. This is just another way in which the Government makes it seem as though the Northern Territory has been generously treated by the Commonwealth while it will not allow exploitation of resources in the Territory. While the Government bumbles along without a uranium policy the Territory's own member is critical of the attitude of the Northern Territory, calling it selfish and self-indulgent. I think it is the absolute in hypocrisy for the honourable member who professes to represent the Territory to make that type of criticism. In his speech last week he mentioned the generosity of his Government while he criticised the Northern Territory Government for the really splendid Budget brought down by Minister Perron. This was confirmed in the 1983- 84 Budget. We hear carping criticism of the Northern Territory Government from the honourable member who is supposed to repesent the Territory. One might say that he has become an apologist for his Canberra masters in the Territory that he is supposed to represent. Mr Hunt —Does he want the Darwin-Alice Springs railway? Mr BRAITHWAITE —I think that is a very important matter. Where has he shown his real concern about the Alice Springs-Darwin railway? He said not a great deal about that, and he must really know what the situation is there. Mr Reeves —You have never visited the Territory in all the years you have been here. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I have so. I have been to places in the Territory where the honourable member has not been. He is again an apologist in the chamber for a project that was torpedoed by the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) who gave an assurance after the election that nothing in that respect would be done by the Labor Government. Mr Reeves —Your spokesman on transport was in here last week saying we should not spend $5m on it. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I notice that the honourable member is getting very twitchy about this. It is on record that he is an apologist in his own electorate for the Labor Party. What short- sighted thinking this is. The railway has just been completed from Port Augusta to Alice Springs. The natural consequence and the value of that railway would flow through the full length of the Territory. The fact that the Government has clamped down on this capital expenditure or public works program is short sighted in regard to the opportunities not only for the immediate employment of labour, but also for the labour that could be employed in the declining steel industry throughout Australia. Of course, one must ascertain the long term employment effects that flow from projects such as this. As I say, the Northern Teritorians would be asking questions in connection with this decision. Again, in spite of election promises and commitments made as late as April, the rail link has been torpedoed. In reply to my submission on the review of the railway decision, the Minister said that it was a matter of priorities and sacrifice. Until the Labor Party gets its priorities right and spends in advance of expectations of revenue from natural resources, the Northern Territory will wither. It will be small consolation that the present member for the Northern Territory, who interjects so frequently, as a 'oncer' will lose his seat in the next election, or that the Northern Territory Country Liberal Party Government will be returned, if the proper development of the Northern Territory is frustrated and delayed by this Labor Government in Canberra. Let us look at the extra costs contained in the mini-Budget with regard to the Territory, particularly in aviation charges, charter aircraft, the extra price for fuel-again, after the promise that it would not be increased in the August Budget-and the lessening relief for high fuel and freight charges in the Northern Territory. All of these are broken promises for which this Labor Government will be called to answer in the next election, particularly in the Territory. Thank goodness the Territory still has the services of Senator Kilgariff, who has fought in and out of government for the Territory's rights for many years. People of the Northern Territory must often look across the border, see the programs and development going on in Queensland and realise that , given the opportunities and incentive, they could do the same; yet they are being frustrated. Commonwealth assistance offered to the Northern Territory is not news. For instance, the Commonwealth has this year and for many years assisted Papua New Guinea towards achieving full independence. This year it is underwriting by way of the Budget a figure of $303m for 1983-84. Expenditure by the Commonwealth for this assistance this year, which I mentioned earlier, is in the vicinity of $ 700m or $800m. So perhaps the treatment that we extend to Papua New Guinea- bearing in mind that I agree with the principle of helping it achieve full independence-should also be extended to the Northern Territory. The Commonwealth must realise that financial assistance given by way of this Bill, through open grants, for underwriting power, or for capital constructions of rail, road or powerhouses and airports, means that in time the Teritory will reduce its dependency on the 85 per cent of funds that it receives from the Commonwealth at the moment. Not only should the Commonwealth be maintaining its funding; it should be making clear and definite policies on uranium mining, land rights, development and assistance to get more tourists and commercial flights through the Australian front door of Darwin. It is absolutely essential that the Commonwealth should assist in this way. I assure the Government that Territorians are not, as one honourable member described the members of the Legislative Assembly, whingers, selfish and self- indulgent. I assure this House that those people have a vision to become independent so that they can provide Australia with the development of its many resources. They have a vision in which Territorians granted statehood will stand in their own right on their own two feet. As I say, the Opposition will not oppose the Northern Territory Grant (Special Assistance) Bill because it is part of the memorandum of agreement which was entered into by the Fraser Government in 1978. We support both of the Bills. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory)(7.05) —I will refer in a moment to some of the matters raised by the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite). This legislation appropriates $16.9m as a special assistance grant to the Northern Territory and is based on the Fourth Report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission on Special Assistance for the Northern Territory. It is based on the provision of the memorandum of understanding which provides for the Northern Territory to apply for special assistance grants until the end of the 1984-85 financial year. The Northern Territory Country Liberal Party Government should pay heed to that fact, because after the end of the 1984-85 financial year it will quickly realise that the party is over. This report, however, makes it clear that the Territory population has special needs. The report puts to rest the nonsense that the Northern Territory is over- funded or is generously funded. I am happy to agree with the honourable member for Dawson on the question of statements about the Territory being generously funded; it is not. This report points to a number of areas in which the Territory sufers from particular disabilities. In particular, it refers to the differences of area, climate, topography, natural resources, size and distribution of population, productive capacity and levels of income and expenditure. The report also refers to the high cost of providing services for Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. The large population of Aborigines in the Northern Territory, combined with the location of many of them in remote communities, clearly gives rise to a major disability in the Territory. There are special needs in the Northern Territory and that is why the memorandum of understanding provided that special assistance could be granted to the Northern Territory during the early years of self-government. The criticism of the Northern Territory, based on the generous or over-funding line that some people raise, is justified when we consider the conduct of the Northern Territory Country Liberal Party Government. I suggest that, instead of talking about the people of the Northern Territory receiving too much, we should be looking at the conduct of the Country Liberal Party politicians in the Northern Territory. I suggest there is ample ground for criticism. The Northern Territory Government's Budget indicates that for the last five to six financial years the level of revenue raised from Territory sources has been about 16 per cent. It has fluctuated from 16.94 per cent in 1979-80 to an estimated 13.9 per cent in the 1983-84 financial year. The rest of the Northern Territory Government's revenue comes from the Commonwealth Government, that is, about six- sevenths of the total Territory Budget is provided by the Commonwealth Government. Grants from the Federal Government over the last five years add up to about $3 billion. Yet we hear statements from Country Liberal Party politicians in the Northern Territory that indicate that they have no appreciation of the level of funding or their responsibility for the funding that is received from the Federal Government. On 24 May 1983 the Canberra Times reported: Mr Everingham accused the Commonwealth of callous neglect of the Northern Territory since 1910. I suggest that $3 billion over the last five years is hardly 'callous neglect'. On 7 April this year he stated, as reported in the Northern Territory News: We are forced to rely on the generosity of those who have confiscated a major portion of its (the NT) pay packet. He was referring to uranium royalties. Of course he gets them back by way of a special grant through the grants from the Commonwealth Government. He is yet again indicating that he does not appreciate that he has certain responsibilities for the money that comes from the Federal Government. One of those responsibilities is to spend the money wisely and not to waste it. I suggest that if we look at this year's Budget for the Northern Territory, the appropriation for the Department of the Chief Minister shows a total allocation of about $12.8m. Two of the largest allocations in that Budget are for ministerial travel and ceremonial and hospitality-in other words, travel and entertainment. Those two allocations total something like $2 1/2m. This financial year the six Ministers in the Northern Territory Government have budgeted to spend on travel for themselves $1.02m. The honourable member for Dawson said that the Northern Territory Government is a very responsible government. This year the six Ministers will spend $1.02m on travel. That works out at $1,000 a day. They would have to travel to and from Sydney every day to soak up that amount. That is what has been allocated for travel. Nearly $1.5m has been allocated for ceremonial and hospitality. The Northern Territory Government has allocated $350,000 for advisory fees. That includes the very expensive lobbyist whom it employes in Canberra at a cost of about $150,000 on various estimates-none other than David Combe. Another $200,000 has been allocated for other advisory fees. The whole of the Northern Territory Budget is riddled with waste. I suggest that if the Northern Territory Government wants to be recognised as a credible and responsible government it must stop this sort of waste. Let us look at one of its recent initiatives. It has introduced six new seats into the Northern Territory Assembly. That takes the size of the Northern Territory Assembly from 19 to 25. Those electorates, some find it very hard to believe, comprise 2,200 electors each, Northern Territory members have electorates the size of most Federal members backyards. If they do not know every man, woman, child and their dog in the electorate, they are not doing their job. If honourable members look at the Commonwealth Grants Commission report they will see that the Northern Territory spends on its legislature $52. 29 per capita, in comparison with Victoria which spends $6.09 per capita and New South Wales which spends $5 per capita. One can see from looking at these expenditure figures in the Grants Commission report where the money is being wasted by the Northern Territory Government. It is not the people of the Northern Territory who should be criticised; it is the Northern Territory Country Liberal Party Government which is not doing its job responsibly in spending the money that is granted to it by the Federal Government. We heard from the honourable member for Dawson a lot of talk about railways, uranium and the recent Budget. He also mentioned the need to develop Darwin as the front door to Australia. In 1980, 1981 and 1982 the former Liberal Government had plenty of opportunities to do something about commencing construction of the Darwin International Airport. Did it? Of course not. It announced its intention to do so in 1980; it announced its intention to do so in 1981; it announced its intention to do so in 1982; and prior to the election in 1983 it was still saying that it would build the Darwin Airport. However it had no money. The Government announced all sorts of things, but it did not allocate any money for them. In seven months in office the Labor Government has allocated the money to build the $96m Darwin International Airport. The other day we had the spectacle of the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher ), the shadow Minister for Transport, saying that the $5m that has been allocated for the route identification study on the Alice Springs to Darwin railway should not have been allocated. He said that we should not spend it. Yet the Liberal and National parties are saying that we should construct the railway line. Surely it should get through the thick skulls of Opposition members that before one builds a railway line one must do a route identification study, survey the line and do all the basic design work for it, but the honourable member for Hume suggested that we should not spend that $5m. The honourable member for Dawson talked about uranium mining. I am well aware of the state of the uranium industry in the Northern Territory. There are two existing mines. The third mine mentioned by the honourable member, the Honeymoon mine, is not in the Northern Territory; it is in another State. That indicates his knowledge of the Northern Territory. The two existing mines continue to produce at a rate which meets current demand. It is well known that the world demand for uranium collapsed in the last two to three years and, on current expectations, there will not be a balanced situation until the mid 1990s. There is no potential for massive development surrounding the uranium industry in the Northern Territory because there is no demand for uranium on the world market at present, and there is unlikely to be any demand for at least 10 to 15 years. The Grants Commission, in its report, made a number of guarded comments which reflect very strongly on the competence of the Country Liberal Party Northern Territory Government. The Grants Commission was trying to work out what level of special assistance it should give the Northern Territory. These are the sorts of comments that it made. Referring to the Northern Territory's accounting system it said: This relates to the structure of the Territory accounts, which make no accounting distinction between transactions by source of funds. There is therefore no distinction between recurrent revenue sources and loan funds or other sources earmarked for capital purposes. The consequential difficulty of identifying recurrent revenues and expenditure in the Territory complicates the tasks of comparison between the Territory and standard States. It is basic accountancy that one splits off one's revenue sources in recurrent and capital accounts, but it seems that the Territory Government has not done so . I suggest that that reflects very poorly on its competency as a manager of the funds given to it on behalf of the people of Australia, including those in the Northern Territory. The Commission further said: . . . The Commission experienced difficulties in understanding some of the data provided by Departments for 1981-82 . . . I pause there to say that they are Northern Territory departments- and in reconciling these data with published figures and with information provided in respect of previous years. Some dissections were not provided and in other cases data were received too late. The Commission considers that some more satisfactory arrangements should be possible by which the requisite data can be presented in a more understandable format without involving Northern Territory departments in additional work. That is not the worst of it by a long way. The Commission finally had this to say: The Commission's program was seriously hampered by ther late receipt of essential data from the Northern Territory. Even when this information was received, it was found that there were serious deficiencies in the data supplied by several departments; these deficiencies were of such nature and magnitude as to prevent the satisfactory functional allocation of revenues and expenditures according to the Commission's needs classifications without reference back to the Territory. The Northern Territory Government, which has spent so much time criticising the Federal Labor Government for incompetence and not looking after the Northern Territory, is being criticised very soundly for its incompetence in basic areas of government. I think the message is on the wall for the CLP Government in the Northern Territory. If it wants to be treated as a responsible manager of the public purse it cannot go on wasting money like it does at present; it cannot display the sort of incompetence it has displayed in trying to make some sort of submission to the Grants Commission and it cannot go on with the rhetoric and political grandstanding that it has in the last few months because the writing is on the wall for it. An election is due in the Northern Territory in six months, and after that there will be, as there is in almost every State in Australia, a Labor government. The people of the Northern Territory, and Australia for that matter, will not accept such waste and incompetence by any government. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(7.19) —This evening I wish to address my remarks to that part of the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill which is directed to the provision of public housing. Of course the Government's objective is not only to increase in absolute terms the amount provided by the Commonwealth for public housing but also to provide an incentive to the States to increase the amounts they would normally have allocated to public housing programs. The Commonwealth, of course, increased direct funding under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement to $500m in 1983-84. This represented a 50 per cent increase on that provided by the Fraser Government in 1982-83. Recent events in Melbourne, where a large number of homeless young were gaoled for squatting in a government-owned property, merely highlighted the tip of an iceberg in terms of the disgraceful housing situation inherited by this Government. Let me give some examples of what this Government inherited from the present Opposition. Estimates show that, on seasonally adjusted figures, approximately 24,800 dwellings were commenced in March this year. That figure represented the lowest commencement for dwellings since 1963, that is, the lowest commencement for 20 years. This indicates clearly the Liberal Party's contribution to housing in this country. The existing national housing stock is some 80,000 below requirements, thus contributing significantly to the current pressure on the private rental market, and hence contributing significantly to the sort of situation where homeless people are forced to squat merely to survive. In the last year of the Fraser Government the States received only one- seventh or 15 per cent of what they received during the last year of the Whitlam Government. More than 100,000 Australian families are currently on the waiting lists of State housing authorities. The Housing Industry Association estimates that 300, 000 persons in the private rental market are urgently in need of housing assistance, the vast majority of whom are in fact eligible under existing guidelines for public housing. No wonder. During 1981-82 public sector housing commencements throughout Australia numbered 9,326, or less than half the number for 1975-76. Perhaps members of the Opposition are the guilty people more appropriately subject to legal proceedings resulting from the homelessness experienced by the Bona Vista squatters. When one reflects for a moment on the dimensions of the crisis confronting our homeless it seems that the negligence of the Liberal Government in this area was almost criminal. Interest rates went out of control. The trend to larger individual loans began to restrict the large number of moderate loan seekers. These and the other statitistics I have quoted give only a general impression of how the previous Government failed those Australians in need of secure, adequate housing. In my own western region of Melbourne last year there were more than 6,000 requests for emergency accommodation. One thousand five hundred and fifty persons resided permanently in caravan parks, paying often as much as $85 per week for usually sub-standard accommodation. On the local Housing Commission waiting lists were some 1,204 applicants, whilst there existed a total stock of public housing units of only 3,474 in the region. The waiting periods for this accommodation are 18 months for two-bedroom units, extending to two to three years and increasing for those people who, because of the size of their families , need three-bedroom units. The Western Region Standing Committee on Housing has indicated that there are some 7,020 persons facing homelessness in my region alone. Some 9,790, nearly 10,000, pensioners rent in the private market-surely a recipe for poverty, having regard to the relatively high rents and the commensurate low levels of pensions. Whilst the crisis confronting our homeless is, of course, the most serious aspect of the housing crisis, another important matter addressed by our policies is the crisis of unemployment. During 1981-82 some 25,000 jobs were lost in the building industry with thousands more in 1982-83. The multiplier effect meant that this figure represented only a part of the unemployment caused by the collapse of the housing industry. Our housing program is designed to recoup these many thousands of jobs and to return the labour intensive home building industry to its proper place in a healthy economy. This Government inherited an economic shambles from the present Opposition. Any government that increases funds made available to housing at a time of such economic stringency clearly sees that area as a priority. This is not to say that these measures of themselves will be sufficient. They are very much the beginning of a long term housing program. However, this first stage of our public housing program represents a much needed change in direction, a change that at least provides some hope for the great many Australians now without adequate shelter. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(7.24) —in reply-I thank the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves) and the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths) for their contributions. I know that the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards), the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) and others wanted to take part in this debate but owing to time being taken on other matters earlier in the day the program did not allow them to do so. I think it is fair to say that the contribution of the honourable member for Dawson was mainly political rhetoric. There was not really much of substance to which I can reply. One of his points related to the allocations to local government. I have to point out that the local government appropriation is increasing by 8.2 per cent in the current year, as against the 7.5 per cent expected rate of inflation. So there is an increase in real terms. In recent years there has been a very large increase in the appropriation by the Parliament for local government. We are hopeful that indeed the standards that local government can give the people will be able to be not only maintained but also improved. The honourable member for the Northern Territory is to be congratulated on his speech to the Parliament. The way he pointed out the sort of extravagance that is going on in the Northern Territory on the part of the local Country Liberal Party Government has to be heard to be believed. I also would like to say more about the contribution of the honourable member for Maribyrnong because he quite rightly focused on the great need for housing, on how indeed this Hawke Labor Government is improving the allocations for public housing. The States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill 1983 makes concessional money available to the States for public housing. We hope that that money will be used much more markedly by the various State governments than has happened in the past. We expect the amount to be spent on public housing to lift to about $1.2 billion this year. So far, people have only focused on the magnificent lift from the miserable $333m of the Fraser Government in the last financial year to the $500m provided this year. To that figure we have to add wages pause money. We have to add nominated funds from the loan program at the concessional interest rate of 4 .5 per cent. I commend both these Bills to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Hurford) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 5 October, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Hurford) read a third time. Queensland Election-Fleet Air Arm-Bush Nursing Hospitals-Housing-Honourable Member for La Trobe: Minutes of Meeting-Bona Vista: Squatters Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! It being 7.30 p.m. I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(7.30) —The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has been tramping the boards of Queensland almost constantly in the last couple of weeks in a desperate attempt to win a few extra votes for the Australian Labor Party in the coming State election. That is fine. Let him go for his life, because on 22 October he will discover just how futile his efforts have been. His so-called credibility will suffer a massive blow. The Prime Minister's credibility is already totally destroyed because of the way he has conned his way around Queensland. Yesterday's Australian reports him as claiming that the Queensland Government had not accepted any Commonwealth money under the $300m job creation program. The truth is that the Queensland Government cannot accept any money because of Commonwealth red tape. Under the program, the Commonwealth has to approve job creation programs. The Commonwealth has stipulated that the consultative committees set up in each State to assess prospective programs must be made up in a particular way. The committee in Queensland has to be made up of representatives of the State, Commonwealth and local governments, women's groups, Aboriginal organisations, youth and welfare representatives and delegates from the Trades and Labour Council. Honourable members will notice that there is no mention of rural organisations or farmers. I repeat that it is the Commonwealth Government that has stipulated the make up of the consultative committee. The Queensland Government has gone along with that. Its committee is established. It met last Friday and it will meet again on 17 October. It is up and running. The problem, however, is that the Commonwealth Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis)-the man responsible for administering this job creation scheme-has not yet approved the committee. Until he does so, no further progress can be made. If the Prime Minister were fair dinkum, he would be firing shots at his own Minister, like he should be firing them at the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) , the tax dodger, demanding to know why he has been stalling on approving the committee and thereby delaying the provision of nearly $42m to Queensland for job creation programs. But this Prime Minister is not fair dinkum. He bends the truth in ways that make a contortionist look as straight as a bean pole. He has tried to accuse the Queensland Government of giving the task of supervising the job creation scheme to the casino control division of the State Treasury. That again is absolute rubbish. The Queensland Government is setting up a special community employment program secretariat. It is employing staff especially for the secretariat and is providing it with its own office accommodation. The secretariat is to be headed by the third most senior officer in the Queensland Treasury, Mr Kev Leyshon. Mr Leyshon was seconded from his position as chairman of the State Treasury casino control division to head up the secretariat. It is only because of that that this Prime Minister is trying to distort the truth about the community employment program secretariat. The Prime Minister is trying to question the integrity of a very senior and highly respected Queensland official. Again, what utter rubbish this is. One of the most interesting aspects about all this is that it is well known that Commonwealth Department of Finance officials are extremely concerned about the future of this $300m job creation program. Finance officers are worried that the full $300m may not be able to be allocated and spent during the current financial year. The program may even have to be cut back. If that does turn out to be the case, it will be completely and totally the fault of the bungling administration of the Hawke Labor Government. The whole situation is an unmitigated mess and it is the fault of no one but this Prime Minister and his Ministers. They stand condemned. On 22 October the Queensland voters will literally rip them to pieces. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur)(7.35) —During the past few weeks I believe all honourable members have been supplied with a document entitled 'The Case for the Retention of the Fixed Wing Component of the Naval Fleet Air Arm'. As the Fleet Air Arm has been based at HMAS Albatross in my electorate, it is perhaps appropriate that I make a few comments on this matter. The argument in the Shoalhaven area is an economic argument. The people circulating this document are not defence experts. The decision to change the role of the Fleet Air Arm cannot be separated from the decision not to acquire an aircraft carrier. Also, the decision to pay off HMAS Melbourne because she had reached the end of her useful life was taken by the previous Government. The previous Government had no intention of acquiring an aircraft carrier. If it had, it would have been announced before the last election when both the former Prime Minister and the former Minister for Defence visited the Nowra area. Realistically, if the Melbourne was to be replaced, that decision should have been made six years ago. The decision not to press for the sale of HMS Invincible to Australia was also a decision of the previous Government. Even if the present Government had opted to accept the British Government offer of an Invincible class ship later in the decade, there would have been no effective military role for the Trackers and Skyhawks of the Fleet Air Arm. The decision to alter the basic role of the Fleet Air Arm was based on the realistic assessment that there is no sense in tying up resources maintaining historic monuments when they can be better spent acquiring new and more strategically relevant capabilities. Honourable members are aware that the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes), who is at the table, has asked a senior defence committee to consider maritime force requirements. This is looking to the future rather than to the past. Current plans for Australia's maritime defences include proposals to equip the P3Cs, F111s and FA18s with Harpoon missiles, proposals to extend the operational capabilities of fighter aircraft by the introduction of aerial refuelling-the present Government has already purchased the necessary aircraft-and proposals to fit submarines with Harpoon missiles. The defence program, particularly as it relates to the purchase of major equipment items, is not something that can be changed overnight. The shape of the Defence Force in years to come is a product of the planning which is going on at the moment. The decision to convert the Fleet Air Arm to helicopter operations is a reflection of the sorts of capabilities which the best efforts of the country's defence planners feel will be most appropriate in years to come. The people of Nowra have been reassured of the Government's concern for their welfare. This is why the Minister for Defence has told municipal and chamber of commerce officials in the area that the level of defence activity in the Nowra district will remain the same as when the decision to alter the structure of the Fleet Air Arm was announced. I know, because I attended that meeting. The Minister for Defence has made a recent announcement about the parachute school being transferred to Albatross. This will give a tremendous economic boost to the area . As a local member, I can understand the concern of the people of Nowra, especially the business people, but one must question the motives of the people circulating this document. Their attempts to talk down property values are to be deplored. If they were really concerned about the future of Nowra, they would have taken up my offer to arrange a meeting with various Ministers to discuss the whole economic future of Nowra. I suggest the circulated document was not unrelated to a recent local government election and a State election some time next year. I repeat the absolute assurances repeatedly given by the Minister for Defence. The economic input to the Shoalhaven area from the defence forces at Albatross will not decline. Albatross will remain a naval base under naval command. Some of the uniforms at the base may be different, but the money will be the same. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(7.39) —I wish to draw the Parliament's attention again to the plight of Victorian bush nursing hospitals under Medicare. I have three bush nursing hospitals in my electorate. They are the Toora bush nursing hospital with manager Mr G. Harrison, the Mirboo North bush nursing hospital with manager Miss Cashin, and the Heyfield bush nursing hospital with manager Mr Scriven. I have visited those bush nursing hospitals since the Medicare debate of 14 September, inspected their facilities and found them to be a credit not only to the managers and to the staff but also to the local communities. The value of these bush nursing hospitals to the local communities is of the utmost importance. Under Medicare, a person who wishes to attend a bush nursing hospital and who also wants to avoid high hospital costs will have to take out private health insurance. For each day that person spends in a category C bush nursing hospital the hospital will receive a $20 bed subsidy from the Government and an $80 benefit from the health insurance fund. Therefore, the bush nursing hospital will receive total benefits of $100 for each insured patient each day. Country people living in areas serviced by bush nursing hospitals will have several decisions to make. They will have to decide whether to seek treatment at the nearest public hospital and whether to take out private health insurance with a private health fund to cover their time in a bush nursing hospital. If they do not take out private health insurance they must realise that they will be forced to meet the costs of a stay in a bush nursing hospital out of their own pockets. Mr Cunningham —That has always been the case. Mr McGAURAN —Let Hansard record the interjection of the honourable member for McMillan so that the Victorian Bush Nursing Association can view his speech of 14 September wherein he told this House that that Association and managers of bush nursing hospitals throughout Gippsland were 'rapt in Medicare'. Regrettably , that is not the advice that I received and I suspect that that is not the advice that the honourable member received. Mr Brumby —Rubbish! Mr McGAURAN —Under the new system of Medicare-this is for the information of the honourable member for Bendigo who is also interjecting-rural community people will have to pay the one per cent levy and if they wish to attend a bush nursing hospital they will have to take out extra health insurance. The simple fact is that it is unlikely that many people will pay the one per cent levy and, in addition, take out health insurance to enable them to attend local community bush nursing hospitals. So the problem is that the very survival of rural community hospitals is at stake. Those who choose to obtain hospital treatment from the nearest public hospital will avoid having to take out private health insurance. But they may have to travel some distances to avail themselves of those publicly provided services. One can easily imagine the problems which might arise when people are hospitalised in a town some distance from their families. This is simply a callous disregard of rural communities in that they are some distance from public hospitals. They have no choice in some instances but to attend the local bush nursing hospitals. This Government is requiring them not only to pay the compulsory one per cent but in addition to take out expensive private health insurance. The honourable member for McMillan should answer that with good conscience to this House and to the bush nursing hospitals throughout Gippsland. I do not feel that he has done that to date. I have in front of me submissions from the Toora, Mirboo North and Heyfield bush nursing hospitals as well as a submission from a Dr R. Anderson, a well known and respected medical practitioner in the Mirboo North area, which have been forwarded to the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) so that he may further consider the effects of Medicare on bush nursing hospitals. The reasons that the Minister ought to reconsider the effects of Medicare on bush nursing hospitals are very obvious to anybody but the Australian Labor Party members judging from the interjections that they have made this evening. Bush nursing hospitals provide employment. They keep local general practitioners in rural communities and, in addition, long term patients can remain near their homes. The other thing that must be taken into account-again I feel I must spell this out for honourable members opposite-is that there is no public transport of any real kind in the three areas that I have mentioned-Toora, Mirboo North and Heyfield. Therefore, if families are to visit long term patients, in particular, who, because of the Medicare arrangements, must go to the nearest public hospitals, it will create financial and social inconvenience. I simply urge the Minister to reconsider the effects of Medicare on bush nursing hospitals and to consider very carefully these excellent submissions by the three bush nursing hospitals I have mentioned. I would be very surprised and very disappointed if country members of the Government did not support the submissions that have been vigorously made on behalf of bush nursing hospitals. Mr STEEDMAN(Casey)(7.44) —In our society, we consider it only just and natural that a person or a family has the right to a roof over their heads. The issues of housing and home ownership have always been of prime importance to the people of Australia. In fact owning your own home has at times been seen as a sort of religion by the people of this country. But, unfortunately, over the last few years this dream has become more of a nightmare for many people. Rising prices, interest rates and unemployment have combined to rob many of our citizens of what is seen as the right of all Australians-their own home. There is a desperate need for cheaper housing and an even more desperate need for public housing and low rental accommodation. This Government has made many millions of dollars available in the recent Budget to assist first home buyers, low income groups and disadvantaged citizens . In Victoria the Labor Government in that State already has a massive housing program under way. Combined with the funds and policies of the Federal Government we should see major improvements in that State in the very near future. Housing, of course, means construction, raw materials and, most importantly, jobs. But while all this long overdue activity is admirable, we cannot overcome in a short period the years of neglect by our predecessors. It will be many years before we can hope to make any real impact on the housing problems and the neglect that we have inherited. This brings me to the point of my speech. I wish to bring to the attention of this House some of the housing problems affecting people in the electorate of Casey, and the outer eastern areas of Melbourne in general. Shelter is a basic necessity and the lack of adequate housing for people of all ages has become a national problem. Housing is related to other facets of community life, such as the development of stable families, employment, unemployment, infrastructures of industry and commerce, essential and supporting services and so on. At present, as I said earlier, we see a decline in the number of people able to own their own homes. As well, there is a decline in the number of houses and flats available for rental as more attractive investments are readily available which do not have the level of risk and uncertainty associated with leasing private dwellings. The housing council in the outer east has conducted studies which highlight a number of dilemmas. The first study conducted in 1977 found that there were great difficulties for low income families in obtaining permanent rental houses at prices they could afford. At that time there were no Housing Commission homes available in the outer east. Six years later the difficulties are much greater with fewer houses and flats for rental on estate agents' books. Those that are available are beyond the capacity of low and lower to middle income earners to pay. People who have money often cannot find homes to buy at present. Estate agents surveyed in October 1981 suggested the following factors contributing to the current housing shortage: Insufficient return for houses held by landlords for investment; high interest repayments for small investors; legislation perceived as favouring the tenant; increased demand through the formation of new households by marriage; breakdown of existing marriages; immigration and young people leaving home; and the decline in home ownership. The study suggested that the construction of varied dwelling types was needed, in particular single bedroom flats. Independent units for elderly people should be provided in each local government area. Board and rooming house accommodation should be increased in regions to cater for the needs of many residents in this area especially homeless young people. Dual occupancy was also proposed so that an older house or new houses could be utilised by two families. The study concluded by saying that there was insufficient housing stock to meet the basic needs of a diverse and expanding population. In the two years since that study was undertaken there has been a significant increase in the disparity between available accommodation and prospective tenants. Apart from the obvious need for accommodation, we, as a Labor Government, must also examine the social effect of the housing shortages. These include marital breakdown and distress. As households separate, housing requirements increase with each spouse requiring rental or low to medium ownership with a relatively small deposit. Financial difficulties are increasing due to spiralling costs and unemployment. The maintenance of house repayments-rental payments-are a first priority but take most of the income of low income residents or social service beneficiaries. These payments mean that families go without other necessities of life including food. Finally, the problem of homeless young people is reaching horrendous proportions around our cities. Again statistics taken in the outer eastern area of Melbourne show that 70 per cent of young people seeking accommodation were unable to be accommodated and the average age of all people requesting accommodation was 17. On a national scale the waiting list for public housing is now over 100,000. Nearly all single income households are excluded from home ownership; vacancy rates are down to 1.2 per cent and the housing industry is running at four-fifths of its capacity. We obviously have an urgent need for public housing. I can only congratulate the Government on the start it has made. I also urge it to speed up the processes and make sure that more alternatives, such as rental co-operatives and communal programs, are fully examined. We have these problems because of the last seven years of gross neglect by the former Liberal-National Party Coalition Government, the parasites who now sit on the opposite side of the House and who so desperately destroyed the aims and ambitions of those people in our society who need houses and who are young and unemployed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ALDRED(Bruce)(7.49) —I am in some difficulty in this debate. In fact, before I start I must issue the disclaimer that, although I agree with much of what the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) has said, I do not and never will subscribe to the principles of the socialist Left of the Australian Labor Party. However, I agree with the honourable member for La Trobe that the issues of uranium, East Timor, Vietnam, Sinai, and the Hope Royal Commission into Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies are an embarrassment to this Government. Mr Deputy Speaker, you may wonder how I know the thoughts of the honourable member for La Trobe. I know them because I have before me the minutes of the Camberwell branch meeting of the Australian Labor Party held on Tuesday, 2 August. Mr Deputy Speaker, let me read you a few lines from these minutes so that you may see why I so strongly support the honourable member who was the guest speaker at this meeting. What a speaker he was! His opening line was: I have not come along to support the Government. Mr Cunningham —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. It is obvious that the honourable member is referring to the honourable member for Casey (Mr Steedman) and he is quoting the honourable member for La Trobe. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr Steedman —Are you referring to me? Mr ALDRED —I am referring to the honourable member for La Trobe. I do not blame him for his opening line. I do not support this Government either. Mr Deputy Speaker, wait for some more shocks in relation to the way in which the honourable member for La Trobe described the mini-Budget. He said: The first shock was declaring the mini budget without consultation with Caucus members. The second was the selling of fifty per cent of OSTAT shares. . . The Labor Party talks about 'OSTAT'. I think it means Aussat Pty Ltd but Labor is more 'Oz' orientated. Let me continue. He said: The second was the selling of fifty percent of OSTAT shares to private enterprise which was the first break of party policy. According to these minutes the honourable member for La Trobe told his gathering of avid listeners that he could not understand why the terms of reference for the Hope Royal Commission were not extended by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) with a view to getting rid of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation completely, as that was ALP policy. The honourable gentleman is a most versatile man because the next area he commented on was East Timor. He said: It appeared that Hawke was applauding the military dictatorship and his reasons were that the situation in East Timor had changed in the last twelve months. The honourable member then added that he did not agree that the circumstances had changed. In fact, the Prime Minister is wrong. On the uranium issue, Prime Minister Hawke is wrong again. Let me read from the minutes. They state that the honourable member: felt that the policy was ambiguous and contradictory but one of the clear things is there should be no new contracts. As any good speaker knows, the high point of one's speech should be kept for the conclusion. That is exactly what the honourable member for La Trobe did. And what a conclusion it was! He said: We as members of the ALP who are disillusioned with the Hawke Government must stay there and fight. He told people at the meeting that they should stay and fight the Prime Minister because the members in Caucus who were against the Prime Minister needed the support of the rank and file. For what purpose should they stay and fight? Presumably it is the replacement of the Prime Minister by another person who is acceptable to the socialist Left such as the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden). This Government has been in office for just over seven months and already there is talk of a palace revolt, disillusionment in rank and file membership and discontent among voters in general. For the sake of accuracy, I seek leave to table the minutes of the Camberwell branch of the ALP. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is leave granted? Mr Scholes —No, leave is not granted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Leave is not granted. Mr KENT(Hotham)(7.54) —Only a few months ago I drew the attention of the House to the plight of unemployed and homeless youth. On 25 May, speaking in the debate on the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Amendment Bill, I said: . . . there is something fundamentally wrong with our nation which allows rich individuals and companies to evade their taxes to the tune of $7,000m a year while teenage kids are forced to sleep in parks and eat dog food. Unfortunately, my words fell on deaf ears and this was proven by the fact that eight young people were arrested and taken to Pentridge Prison last Friday night after about 60 police evicted squatters from Bona Vista, a South Yarra mansion. Bona Vista is owned by the Department of Administrative Services and leased by Telecom Australia. It has been vacant for seven years. It stands on a large block of land. A group of young unemployed squatters moved in several weeks ago. Since then they have cleaned the house to make it habitable and cut the grass. These young people were homeless. Telecom took heavy handed action against the young squatters and asked the Supreme Court to evict the young people. Needless to say, the learned judges took the side of power and wealth and ordered the youths out. When the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), for whom I have a great respect, was approached he stated that Telecom is a statutory body and that he cannot intervene in day to day matters. When I heard of the impending action by Telecom in the Supreme Court, I sent the following telegram to the Minister for Communications: Request your intervention to stop Telecom's Supreme Court action against Bona Vista squatters. I consider this action is too heavy handed and costly and not in keeping with the conciliatory attitude of the Hawke Labor Government. I propose instead that a meeting be arranged with Ian Cathie, Minister of Housing, Victoria, Administrative Services and Telecom with a view to the Ministry of Housing buying the property. Unfortunately, my telegram was too late to influence the Minister. Telecom did go ahead with its vindictive action against the young squatters who not only found a place which was unused and deteriorating, made it habitable, shifted in and put it to its intended use to house people, but also, by their action, drew public attention to the need of many thousands of young people for decent housing. Of course, the bureaucratic managers of Telecom would rather level Bona Vista with a bulldozer than allow young homeless youths to make it their temporary home. Also the well paid judges of the Supreme Court would not allow young homeless people to have shelter. Their idea of shelter is to send them to Pentridge. It is fortunate that under public pressure the High Court of Australia reversed the heartless decision of the Supreme Court. Recent publication of the register of the pecuniary interests of the Ministry disclosed that most Ministers have two, if not three, houses. I am sure that when members of this House disclose their wealth the register will show that most of us own at least one house besides our family home. How can we tolerate that Ministers and judges on more than $80,000 a year send to gaol homeless unemployed people living on $40 a week whose only crime is to occupy temporarily an unused and vacant mansion and make it habitable? I hope that the Minister will change his mind and will intervene in the day to day running of Telecom to make those faceless bureaucrats who brought the action against homeless youth reconsider their heartless act and let the squatters put to its intended use a building which has been vacant for seven years. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 7.58 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 12 October 1983: Companies Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, Nos. 214, 215 First Home Owners Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 208 Honey Levy Act (No. 1)-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 209 Honey Levy Act (No. 2)-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 210 Income Tax Assessment Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 213 Lands Acquisition Act-Statements (2) of lands acquired under sub-section 7 (1) Lighthouses Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 212 Maternity Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 216 Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Determinations, dated 30 September 1983, listing fees for the purposes of- Adoption of Children Ordinance Architects Ordinance Building and Services Ordinance Flammable Liquids Ordinance Lakes Ordinance Lotteries Ordinance Machinery Ordinance Nature Conservation Ordinance Pounds Ordinance Racecourses Ordinance Real Property Ordinance Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages Ordinance Registration of Deeds Ordinance Sale of Motor Vehicles Ordinance Scaffolding and Lifts Ordinance Water Rates Ordinance Exemption, dated 30 September 1983, from payment of fee for the purpose of- Lotteries Ordinance Ordinances-1983- No. 28-Chiropractors Registration No. 29-Machinery (Amendment) No. 31-Lakes (Amendment) No. 32-Building and Services (Amendment) No. 33-Architects (Amendments) No. 34-Scaffolding and Lifts (Amendment) No. 35-Pounds (Amendment) No. 36-Water Rates (Amendment) No. 37-Racecourses (Amendment) No. 38-Sale of Motor Vehicles (Amendment) (No. 2) No. 40-Registration of Deeds (Amendment) No. 42-Adoption of Children (Amendment) No. 43-Nature Conservation (Amendment) No. 44-Lotteries (Amendment) No. 46-WIlls (Amendment) Regulations-1983- No. 10-(Public Health Ordinance) No. 11-(Machinery Ordinance) Nos. 12 and 13-(Flammable Liquids Ordinance) No. 14-(Lakes Ordinance) Nos. 15 and 16-(Building and Services Ordinance) No. 17-(Pounds Ordinance) No. 18-(Sale of Motor Vehicles Ordinance) No. 19-(Adoption of Children Ordinance) No. 20-(Nature Conservation Ordinance) Shipping Registration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983-No. 211 The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 359 Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister for Science and Technology, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: Will he provide an analysis of radiation related hazards and accidents, at his Department's installations and laboratories during (a) 1981 and (b) 1982. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) There were no radiation related hazards or incidents in my Department's laboratories or installations in this period. (b) During 1981 and 1982 the following five ionising radiation related incidents were reported within CSIRO laboratories: (i) in 1981 following a high reading being recorded on a radiation monitoring badge, an experimental officer at the CSIRO Division of Animal Health Laboratories, Sydney, was found to have a concentration of radioactive iodine in the thyroid marginally below the maximum permissible for radiation workers. The cause of the exposure could not be established but it was concluded there had been a spillage and appropriate action was taken to prevent a reoccurrence. (ii) in 1981 at the CSIRO Division of Soils, Adelaide, the displacement of lead shielding on an X-ray diffractometer, and failure of warning lights, allowed undetected X-ray leakage into a room. A relatively low level of radiation was involved and any immediate effects could not be medically detected. Appropriate remedial action was taken. (iii) In 1982 at the CSIRO Division of Soils, Adelaide, radioactive phosphorus solution was spilt on to, and soaked into, a wooden bench top. The bench top was taken out of service until the radioactivity had decayed to a safe level. The bench top was subsequently replaced with a stainless steel top to avoid a repetition of the incident. (iv) In 1982 at the CSIRO Molecular and Cellular Biology Unit, North Ryde, a quantity of radioactive uranyl acetate, which is commonly used as an analytical reagent and bacterial oxidant, was found stored on a laboratory shelf with other chemicals. The material is now held in a shielded storage area. Laboratory staff would not have been over-exposed to harmful radiation. (v) In 1982 at the CSIRO Division of Building Research, Highett, several unshielded containers of radioactive thorium nitrate were located in a general chemical store. The material had been in store for several years, was surplus to requirements and was subsequently donated to another research laboratory. Although staff had intermittently worked in the area, it was calculated that exposure to harmful radiation would have been below the accepted maximum safe level. There were no radiation related incidents reported in other statutory authorities within my portfolio for the period in question. Question No. 423 Mr Wells asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, 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. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Commonwealth funds for the following purposes have been received, returned or refused by the Queensland Government from December 1972 to August 1983: Childrens Services Program Since 1972, and up to and including the 1982-83 financial year, a total of $66. 425m has been forwarded to the Queensland Government in the form of grants to the community organisations under the children's services program to be paid via -the-State. Of this amount $0.666m of the total funds provided were on the basis of a dollar for dollar matching contribution by the Queensland Government. These funds were provided under the program's youth services scheme. Funds provided direct to State Governments under the program are advanced quarterly based on returns of expenditure provided by the respective State. In the calculation of each advance, account is taken of all funds previously advanced and not expended. The advance is reduced by the level of unexpended funds held by the State Government and this effectively removes the necessity for any State Government to physically return unexpended funds. Youth Services Scheme As I have explained, funds under the youth services scheme, are provided on the proviso that they are matched on a dollar for dollar basis. During the three year pilot phase of the scheme, Queensland was offered a total of $0.461m of this amount $0.305m was accepted on a matched basis. The balance of $0.156m was therefore not advanced to the Queensland Government. The scheme has been extended into 1982-83 and 1983-84 and all funds offered under the extended scheme have been matched by the Queensland Government. Welfare Services for the Aged-Grants Under the States Grants (Home Care) Act Grants under the States Grants (Home Care) Act received by the Queensland Government in the years specified are set out below: STATES GRANTS (HOME CARE) ACT 1969 Senior Citizens Welfare Home Care Centres Officers Services (capital) (recurrent) (recurrent) Total $ $ $ $ 1972-73 183,714 3,293 247,895 434,902 1973-74 54,867 17,613 312,284 384,764 1974-75 153,347 11,371 1,244,406 1,409,124 1975-76 391,218 32,507 1, 672,838 2,096,563 1976-77 916,316 37,487 1,990,047 2,943,850 1977-78 439,103 44 ,820 2,744,155 3,228,078 1978-79 553,199 41,804 1,797,372 2,392,375 1979-80 330,904 44,519 1,792,945 2,168,368 1980-81 489,953 57,722 1,873,168 2,420,843 1981-82 763,106 68,975 1,498,106 2,330,187 1982-83 933,515 90,633 2,962,004 3, 986,152 5,209,242 450,744 18,135,220 23,795,206 1983-84-1,001,000; 98,000; 2,845,000; 3,944,000 (Estimates from 1983-84 Budget Paper No. 7-payments to or for the States, the Northern Territory and local government authorities). Question No. 453 Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 6 September 1983: Is the Minister able to provide an analysis of claims for compensation resulting from repetitive strain injury in the Minister's Department for each of the years 1978 to 1983. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: My Department and statutory authorities within my portfolio have received 38 claims for compensation for repetitive strain injuries in the years 1978 to 1983 . The following table shows an analysis of the total claims received for repetitive strain injury to date: Sex of Claimant Claims Year Received Settled Outstanding Male Female 1978 2 2 nil 1 1 1979 2 2 nil 1 1 1980 2 2 nil 2 1981 3 3 nil 1 2 1982 16 14 2 5 11 1983 13 4 9 3 10 38 27 11 11 27 Nature of Work Performed The nature of the work performed by individual claimants is summarised as follows: Keyboard Duties, 21 claims (21 Females) Clerical Duties, 10 claims (5 Males, 5 Females) Stores Related Duties, 3 claims (2 Males, 1 Female) Tradesmen Duties, 3 claims (3 Males) Driving Duties, 1 claim (1 Male) Question No. 457 Mr Sinclair asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 6 September 1983: (1) How many recruits in the (a) Navy, (b) Army and (c) Air Force identified separately by sex and whether reserves or regular permanent servicemen or servicewomen were serving on 1 July 1983. (2) How many new recruits were listed in each of the services in each of the last 5 years and in what category. (3) Of those recruited in the last 12 months how many enlisted for (a) 3 years, (b) 6 years and (c) another term of engagement. (4) What were the numbers of personnel recruited in each year during the existence of the 2 year service scheme. (5) How many of those referred to in part (4) were (a) conscripts and (b) volunteers. (6) How many servicemen in each of the 3 services served in Vietnam each year from 1964 to 1972. (7) How many of those referred to in part (6) were national servicemen and how many of them were volunteers. (8) How many in each category referred to in part (7) were (a) wounded and (b) killed. (9) What are the terms of service of women in the Women's Royal Australian Army Corps including (a) length of recruitment and (b) entitlement of maternity leave . (10) What obligatory retirement ages apply to men and women in the 3 services at each rank. (11) What minimal service is necessary for qualification for Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits-DFRDB-for both sexes in each of the 3 services. (12) Are there any restrictions on persons seeking lump sum payment of DFRDB entitlements. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1)- Reserve force (with Permanent training force obligations) (a) Navy- Male officers 2,121 398 Male other ranks 12,848 802 Female officers 110 4 Female other ranks 937 Nil (b) Army*- Male officers 4,215 3,386 Male other ranks 25,822 24,366 Female officers 320 327 Female other ranks 1,547 5,046 (c) Air Force*- Male officers 3,396 273 Male other ranks 16,633 905 Female officers 191 N/ A Female other ranks 1,285 N/A * Army Reserve Forces figures include 1,511 non-effectives. * Separate figures by sex for Air Force Reserve Force are not available. Female numbers are included in the male figures. (2)- Air Navy Army Force 1982-83 Males- Male General Enlistments 491 2,775 717 Officers-Direct Entry 23 52 29 Officers-Undergraduate Entry 5 2 5 Officer Cadets- College/Academy 104 137 59 Other Officer Trainees - 81 152 Apprentices 132 298 278 Navy Junior Recruits 321 - - Reserves on Full-time Duty- Officers 16 11 1 Other Ranks 2 88 6 Total Males 1,094 3,364 1,247 Females- Officers-Direct Entry 7 22 42 Other Ranks 84,253 102 Cadets 10 25 12 Reserves on Full-time Duty- Officers - 2 1 Other Ranks 1 12 5 Total females 102 314 162 Total Enlistments 1,196 3,678 1,409 1981-82 Males- Male General Enlistments 1,1432 3,059 1,304 Officers-Direct Entry 28 39 78 Officers-Undergraduate Entry 1 6 24 Officer Cadets- College/Academy 90 140 46 Other Officer Trainees 11 80 153 Apprentices 175 305 276 Navy Junior Recruits 340 - - Reserves on Full-time Duty- Officers 19 8 6 Other Ranks 5 12 4 Total Males 1,812 3,649 1,891 Females- Officers-Direct Entry 11 19 27 Other Ranks 249 338 400 Cadets 21 14 11 Reserves on Full-time Duty Officers 5 2 13 Other Ranks 11 13 9 Total Females 297 386 460 Total Enlistments 2,109 4,035 2,351 1980-81 Males- Male General Enlistments 1,234 3,602 1,428 Officers-Direct Entry 24 39 80 Officers-Undergraduate Entry 5 8 19 Officer Cadets College/Academy 80 140 41 Other Officer Trainees 41 87 137 Apprentices 218 268 234 Navy Junior Recruits 240 - - Reserves on Full-time Duty Officers 6 7 11 Other Ranks 1 11 1 Total Males 1,849 4,162 1,951 Females- Officers-Direct Entry 18 29 46 Other Ranks 202 385 200 Cadets 19 21 11 Reserves on Full-time Duty Officers 1 - 4 Other Ranks 5 2 1 Total Females 245 437 262 Total Enlistments 2,094 4,599 2,213 1979-80 Males- Male General Enlistments 1,082 3,312 1,359 Officers-Direct Entry 38 62 74 Officers-Undergraduate Entry 2 - 10 Officer Cadets College/Academy 96 138 31 Other Officer Trainees 62 94 114 Apprentices 211 273 221 Navy Junior Recruits 240 - - Reserves on Full-time Duty Officers 12 6 3 Other Ranks 1 - 1 Total Males 1,744 3,885 1,813 Females- Officers-Direct Entry 9 21 36 Other Ranks 202 372 418 Cadets - - - Reserves on Full-time Duty Officers 2 1 13 Other Ranks 7 - 27 Total Females 220 394 494 Total Enlistments 1,964 4,279 2,307 1978-79 Males- Male General Enlistments 956 2,998 1,311 Officers-Direct Entry 24 36 50 Officers-Undergraduate Entry 5 - 9 Officer Cadets College/Academy 107 135 36 Other Officer Trainees 50 84 113 Apprentices 212 254 216 Navy Junior Recruits 390 - - Reserves on Full-time Duty Officers 9 2 2 Other Ranks 1 - - Total Males 1,754 3,509 1,737 Females- Officers-Direct Entry 10 18 37 Other Ranks 268 277 367 Cadets - - - Reserves on Full-time Duty Officers - 5 8 Other Ranks - - - Total Females 278 300 412 Total Enlistments 2,032 3,809 2,149 (3) Of those recruited between 1 July 1982 and 30 June 1983 engagement periods were: Air Navy Army Force (a) 3 year engagement 5 1,971 Nil (b) 6 year engagement 493 1,172 819 (c) Other terms 698 535 590 (4)- Recruitment National Service two year All other scheme recruitment 1965-66- Navy Nil 2,548 Army 8,736 3,092 Air Force Nil 2,026 1966-67- Navy Nil 2,757 Army 8,622 3,352 Air Force Nil 2,148 1967-68- Navy Nil 2,431 Army 8,533 4,523 Air Force Nil 1,789 1968-69- Navy Nil 2,503 Army 8,628 4,293 Air Force Nil 2,313 1969-70- Navy Nil 2,618 Army 8,575 3,819 Air Force Nil 2,037 1970-71- Navy Nil 2,711 Army 8,240 3,780 Air Force Nil 1,330 1971-72- Navy Nil 2,620 Army 8,278 4,469 Air Force Nil 1,751 1972-73- Navy Nil 2,647 Army 4,151 5,005 Air Force Nil 1,630 (5) Of the 63,763 personnel recruited for the National Service 2 year Scheme between 1965 and 1973, information is unavailable on how many were volunteers or how many were conscripted. All personnel recruited by the Australian Defence Force through other than the National Service Scheme between 1965 and 1973 were classified as volunteers. (6)- Air Navy Army Force 1964 0 n.a. 44 1965 0 n.a. 155 1966 0 n.a. 252 1967 754 n.a. 703 1968 1,175 n.a. 748 1969 1,140 n.a. 723 1970 1,135 n.a. 649 1971 724 n.a. 388 1972 1 n. a. 1 Total 4,929 41,144 3,663 Individual year figures for Army are not readily available. Figures are approximate and include members of the Defence Force on tour duty, on attachment and visiting Vietnam. (7)- Air Navy Army Force National Servicemen Nil 15,381 Nil Other Service Personnel 4,929 25,763 3,663 Personnel did not normally volunteer for duty in Vietnam. Personnel were posted in in the normal course of military duty to units which were then scheduled for a term of duty in Vietnam. (8)- Air Navy Army Force National Servicemen- Wounded . . 1,030 . . Killed . . 187 . . Navy and Air Force did not have any National servicemen. Other Permanent Service Personnel- Wounded 48 1,596 49 Killed 8 277 13 The above figures are total casualties (battle and non-battle) incurred in Vietnam. (9) (a) Conditions of entlistment for females in the Army are the same as for males. They may be enlisted for a period of 3 or 6 years providing that they meet the age, medical, psychological and educational requirements. In accordance with Government policy females may serve on active service but they may not be employed in combat or combat related units. (b) To qualify for the full 12 weeks grant of maternity leave, a member must have served continuously for at least 12 months by the day on which the leave commences. Previous service, either in another service or Government authority, will count towards the eligibility period. (10) There is no distinction between males and females regarding obligatory retiring ages. Obligatory retiring ages for personnel by rank and category for each of the three Services are as follows: Navy Sailors-55 years WRANS-55 years Naval Police-55 years Officers- Rank CMORE List VADM RADM CAPT CMDR LCDR LEUT SBLT General 60 57 55 50 45 45 45 Medical/Dental . . 60 57 55 48 45 45 Ordnance Inspection . . . . 57 55 52 52 . . Supplementary . . . . 55 50 45 45 45 Special Duties . . . . . . 55 55 55 55 Army Other Ranks: All 55 years Officers Lieutenant-47 years Captain-47 years Major-47 years Lieutenant Colonel-55 years Colonel-55 years Brigadier-55 years Major General-57 years Lieutenant General-60 years General-63 years Air Force Other Ranks-All 55 years Officers Rank AIR CDR Branch ACM AM AVM GPCPT WGCDR SQLdr FLTLT FLGOF General duties 63 60 57 55 50 47 45 45 All others . . . . 57 55 55 55 55 55 (11) A member is covered for death and invalidity benefits from the date of enlistment in the Defence Force. Where retirement occurs at the member's prescribed retiring age for rank, a minimum period of 15 years contributory service is required to qualify for benefits. In all other cases a minimum of 20 years service is required to qualify for retirement age. Male and female members of each of the three services are treated equally under the provisions of the DFRDB scheme. (12) Yes. An invalidity retiree cannot commute unless initial invalidity classification is less than 30 per cent-Class C-and he has 20 or more years contributory service. A member who qualifies for retirement pay cannot commute more than four times his initial annual pension entitlement. An election to commute must be received within twelve months of retirement. Question No. 461 Mr Blanchard asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 7 September 1983: (1) What is the delay in each State for invalid pension applicants awaiting medical examination. (2) What is the delay in each State for invalid pension appellants awaiting (a) a hearing before the Social Security Appeals Tribunal and (b) determination of the case. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The average number of days from lodgement of an invalid pension claim to examination by a Commonwealth medical officer is 22 days. (2) It is not possible to provide separate processing times for (a) and (b) because the available statistics relate to the following 3 periods- from registration of the appeal with the Tribunal to the date of transmission of the file to the Tribunal; from the date of transmission to the date of the Tribunal recommendation; and from the date of recommendation to finalisation (the date when advice of the delegate's determination is sent to the appellant). Moreover, processing time statistics for medical appeals aggregate invalid pension, sickness benefit and handicapped child's allowance appeals (although invalid pension appeals comprised an estimated 95 per cent of medical appeals finalised in the June 1983 quarter). In respect of medical appeals finalised in the June quarter, the most recent quarter for which statistics are available, the mean and median processing times for cases considered by the Tribunal are as set out in the following table- Registration to Transmission to Tribunal Transmission to Tribunal to Recommendation Tribunal Recommendation to Finalisation (weeks) (weeks) (weeks) Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median New South Wales 20.6 20.0 20.9 17.9 3.4 0.7 Victoria 21.5 19.5 10.9 6.8 0.9 0. 5 Queensland 29.7 27.4 12.2 7.3 1.4 0.9 South Australia 11.8 10.3 10.3 7.8 6.1 2.5 Western Australia 9.5 8.7 3.9 2.2 1.5 1.2 Tasmania 11.0 10.2 23.7 24.0 1.9 1.6 Northern Territory 8.3 7.0 7.0 7.0 2.7 1.8 Australia 21.3 19.2 15.8 10.5 2 .6 0.8 Processing times are not estimated for appeals which are conceded by the Department without necessity for consideration by the Tribunal. No estimates for the Australian Capital Territory are shown in the above table because all medical appeals finalised in the June quarter had been conceded. Question No. 484 Mr Wells asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 8 September 1983: (1) Is he able to say whether employers wishing to avail themselves of the subsidised services of employees under the special youth program have in many cases sacked current employees merely in order to employ another person at the subsidised rates. (2) Is it a fact that Commonwealth literature on this program does not prescribe that this should not be done by prospective employers. (3) Will he take action to prevent any recurrence of such action. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Allegations of abuse of the special youth employment training program ( SYETP) are referred to the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) from time to time, but CES experience is that such abuse of the scheme is not common. Each allegation is fully investigated by CES officers, who discuss the matter with the employer in question. If the allegation is found to be correct and no young person has yet been placed in the vacancy, then the CES does not proceed with the filling of the SYETP vacancy and the employer is informed of the reasons. If a young job-seeker has already been placed the employer is debarred from receiving subsidies in respect of further young job-seekers until such time as the CES is satisfied that such abuse will not be repeated. (2) The leaflet describing the scheme does not cover such abuses. However, the reported incidence of such abuse in the past has not been such as to merit drawing attention to possible malpractice which would clearly be against the spirit of the scheme and the interest of individual workers. (3) The Government is concerned to minimise any abuse of this kind. I have been advised that the CES takes all practicable steps to ensure that SYETP subsidies are not paid to employers who abuse the provisions of the scheme.