Tuesday, 3 April 1984 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Medical Services (Fees) Ordinance 1984 (No. 7 of 1984), made under the Seat of Government Administration Act 1910, be disallowed. Mr SIMMONS(Calare) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) welcomes the recent policy announcement by the Government with respect to the future pricing arrangements of liquefied petroleum gas, and (2) notes the general acceptance by the community in general, and by the traditional users in New South Wales, the local government gas industry, in particular, of a policy designed to promote greater stability and predictability of gas prices in the future. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that- (a) the Government's new air fares for inbound travellers from Japan have had the effect of increasing the price of most package deal holidays to Australia from Japan; (b) a number of Japanese tour wholesalers have complained to the Australian Government about the increases; and (c) other destinations, such as New Zealand, will gain Japanese travellers and tourist trade at Australia's expense; and (2) calls on the Government to rectify the position immediately by providing a cheap, effective and competitive inbound tourist fare to encourage Japanese tourists to visit Australia. Mr STAPLES(Diamond Valley) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with pleasure the report of the proposed agreement for a joint Korean sporting team to take part in the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics, the 1986 Asian Games and the 1988 Olympic Games in Seoul; (2) congratulates the sporting bodies and the Governments of the Republic of Korea and the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea for their attempt in this way to ease the tension between themselves; and (3) recognises the importance of this initiative in restoring to the Olympic Games some of the ideals of sport and diplomacy that were so abused and denigrated by the boycott on the Moscow Olympics. Mr NEWMAN(Bass) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that, despite a public commitment to maintain a strong Army Reserve, Government policy implemented over the 12 month period to April 1984 will lead to a run-down, second-rate Reserve Force; (2) notes that the detrimental Government policies include- (a) wholesale reductions in training time; (b) attacks on conditions of service; (c) prohibitions on voluntary, unpaid parades; (d) reductions in allocations of petrol, rations and ammunition which are essential for efficient training, and (e) incapacity to define what the Government wants the Reserve to do, and (3) urges the Government to reverse its destructive policies and put in place a program to encourage and support a strong and vigorous Army Reserve. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that more than 8 months have elapsed since the Queensland and Northern Territory Governments announced that they would conduct a joint study into a Mount Isa-Darwin railway link; and (2) calls on the Northern Territory and Queensland Governments to release the report without further delay. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) requests the Minister for Defence to- (a) clarify the Government's unintelligible policy on foreign war ships visiting Australian ports; (b) apologise to Australia's allies for creating uncertainty and waning confidence in Australia's capacity as a nation, and (c) refer all future decisions of this type to the Chief of Defence Force Staff before making incoherent pronouncements, and (2) demands that the policy give priority to principles which relate to Australia's allies rather than to the phobia of the Left Wing of the Australian Labor Party. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) congratulates the Australian surf life-saving movement on its successful carnival conducted at Kurrawa Beach on the Gold Coast on 31 March-1 April 1984; (2) notes that the federal Government in the 1983 Budget effectively doubled funding for surf life-saving; (3) regrets that the ABC did not provide a more comprehensive coverage of the titles as has been the practice in the past; and (4) congratulates- (a) the Trigg Island Club for its success in the 'A' crew surf-boat titles, and (b) Mr Ken Vidler of the Scarborough Club for his success in the open ski race. The motion will be seconded by the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Gear). Mr NEWMAN(Bass) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that- (a) the Government in the 1982-83 Defence Report indicated that the new medium 155 millimetre artillery gun would be introduced during 1983-84; (b) this gun is supposed to provide close and essential support to the fighting units of the Army; and (c) the Government has allowed the units destined to receive this gun to become so under strength that they are now incapable of being equipped with this new and important weapon, as planned; and (2) condemns the Government for disarmament by stealth. Mr TICKNER(Hughes) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move , and the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Hollis) will second: That this House- (1) draws the Government's attention to evidence that various forms of torture are practised in the 1980s in at least 98 countries; (2) calls on the Government to support the aims of Amnesty International in its campaign against torture; (3) urges the Government to assert influence to dissuade governments from continuing to use, or to connive in the practice of, torture within their national boundaries; (4) calls on the Government to support the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture; and (5) requests the Government to seek the expeditious completion of the proposed international covenant against torture. Mr Peacock-Should the Leader of the House wish it, we would be prepared to facilitate debate on that notice of motion now. Mr Young-Mr Speaker, the Government is giving consideration to bringing these matters on in the fifth week of the Parliament. Notice of Motion Mr WELLS(Petrie) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that- (a) the rate of bulk billing in Queensland has now risen to 49 per cent, close to the highest level in Australia; and (b) the medical profession in Queensland has not engaged in any of the irresponsible industrial action which has blighted certain other States; and (2) congratulates the rank and file of the medical profession in that State on its responsible approach to the introduction of Medicare, its concern for patients, and its commitment to the spirit of the Hippocratic Oath. Mr MacKELLAR —I refer the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a newspaper report last week concerning a letter said to have been sent by a 'Leading Victorian Left-winger, Mr Gerry Hand' to all his Caucus colleagues. I quote from the newspaper report of that letter which states: 'The US . . . is practising its normal policy of isolating and undermining a country whose policies and attitudes it finds unacceptable. The ASEAN nations are supporting their own reactionary positions which keep workers in oppression, poverty and fear.' Will the Foreign Minister now publicly dissociate himself and his Government from those sentiments? Mr HAYDEN —My administration does not include the administration of the affairs or behaviour of the honourable member for Gerry Hand, for want of a better description. I might say I am somewhat grateful about that. Nor do the responsibilities of the honourable member for Warringah, as Opposition spokesman for foreign affairs, include responsibility for the behaviour of the honourable member for Denison. The honourable member for Warringah is even more pleased about that. The great attributes that the honourable member for Denison brings to bear in this House are a mouth in perpetual motion and a mind with a permanent vacancy sign outside. I suggest to the honourable member for Warringah that if he wants further details on the intent, purpose or inclinations of my good friend and colleague-what is his seat? Mr Hawke —Melbourne. Mr HAYDEN —Really, I am preoccupied in running the affairs of the world and I cannot keep up with these mundane matters. I suggest the honourable member for Warringah discuss it with the honourable member for Melbourne. Mr HOLLIS —Is the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of reports that violence has once more erupted in Sri Lanka and that in the last week of March a number of people were killed outside Jaffna? What is the Government's attitude towards the continuing violence in Sri Lanka and towards the overall human rights situation in that country? Mr HAYDEN —The Government is concerned about reports of continuing inter-communal violence in Sri Lanka. On 20 March two air force personnel were killed by terrorists. On 25 March three unarmed policemen were shot dead by terrorists. On 27 March another policeman was killed by terrorists. On 28 March, in Jaffna, at least seven people-terrorists and bystanders-were killed when a gunfight occurred between air force personnel and terrorists. The Australian Government and, I believe, the Australian Parliament condemn the use of violence to further the political aims of any group in Sri Lanka or elsewhere. At least some of the recent terrorist activities seem designed to provoke reprisals and a new round of anti-Tamil violence. I accordingly call on all groups in Sri Lanka to eschew violence and to work together through the All Party Conference which is discussing communal problems in a search for a lasting solution to Sri Lanka's communal differences. The Government's concern about these matters has been conveyed to the Government of Sri Lanka on a number of occasions. Last year when the Sri Lankan Deputy Foreign Minister visited here I conveyed to him personally that deep feeling of concern. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. In view of his return to Cabinet can the Minister say whether he fully supports the Government decision to allow mining at the Roxby Downs uranium project in South Australia? Is it the Minister's intention to participate fully in all Cabinet discussions concerning the uranium industry? Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the Leader of the Opposition that questions to a Minister must deal with those matters that are within his administrative responsibility. Mr PEACOCK —As the Minister has returned to the Cabinet will he, in the execution of his duties as Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in sitting in the Cabinet, fully endorse all decisions of that Cabinet? Mr WEST —The answer, of course, to the honourable member's question is yes. In answering his question I take the opportunity to place on the record my appreciation of the actions of my Caucus colleagues, the Cabinet and the leadership. I think that the very nature of the honourable member's question implies that it is important that the portfolio of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs be represented within the Cabinet. I also add that I consider that it is important that the representation of our Party within the Cabinet be as wide as possible. Mr BLANCHARD —My question is addressed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. In view of the recent comments made by the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs concerning the appointment of Mr Charles Perkins as the departmental head of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, can the Minister inform the House of the response to that appointment by Aboriginal community leaders? Mr HOLDING —Aboriginal organisations-I include the Federation of Land Councils and the National Aboriginal Conference-gave very strong support to this appointment. It has also been a matter of favourable editorial comment in journals such as the Courier-Mail in Queensland and the Northern Territory Times , which is good. I would also like to place on record my thanks to Senator Peter Baume, the previous Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Senator Peter Rae, Senator Macklin, Senator Kilgariff and Senator Chaney, also a former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, who, I think, spoke in the Senate with both genuineness and generosity in respect of this appointment and who, I think, showed a generosity of spirit appropriate to the occasion. My only regret is that the same generosity of spirit did not prevail in this House. Mr PEACOCK —Can the Minister for Territories and Local Government explain why, at this time of alleged government financial stringency, up to 48 officials are now on their way to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands for the Islands' act of self- determination under United Nations supervision? That is, as I understand it, approximately one official for every six of the Islands' inhabitants. Mr UREN —I cannot verify the number but a Boeing 707 aircraft is going there. It will have on board a United Nations mission and a United Nations secretariat as well as members of the Australian bureaucracy and nine Press people. The Cocos ( Keeling) Islands decision is an important historical decision, not only for the indigenous people of Cocos but also for the Australian people. It is strange that it took so long for a government to get the agreement of the Cocos Malay people to give effect to that decision of self-determination. The record of the former Government, for instance, in allowing Clunies-Ross to dominate the economy and the people of the Cocos Islands for so long is an utter disgrace. It was only in later years that the former Minister for Home Affairs bit the bullet-I give him credit for that-and was prepared to recommend to the Government that the Clunies-Ross land be purchased. But the Minister could not get the support of the Cabinet of the day. It was only when our Government took over the administration that we got the agreement of the Cocos Malay people to make a decision on self-determination. It was only then that we were able to get this decision from the Cocos people. I think that all my colleagues believe that this is an historic decision. There is always a tendency for bureaucracies to take over. Mr Ruddock —Yes, Minister. Mr UREN —I know there are some jackals. The shadow Minister for Territories and Local Government said: 'Yes, Minister'. The facts are that I have been a Minister on two occasions and I have been able at least to control my administration. Opposition members-Ha, ha! Mr UREN —Honourable members opposite can laugh their heads off if they like. I know that some people consider this a joke, but the secretariat and the delegation of the United Nations Visiting Mission had to go to the Cocos ( Keeling) Islands and any aircraft other than a Boeing 707 would be inadequate because on the return trip several members of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Council will return with the United Nations Mission. I would agree that where there are vacant seats it is logical that some bureaucrats go in those places. I support the decision that was made. That the Press was under-represented was a fair criticism on the part of the Press and therefore the Press delegation was lifted from six to nine. I fully support that decision. But I am saying quite clearly that a 707 aircraft was necessary, that other aircraft were not adequate and that members of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Council will return on that plane with the United Nations Mission. I believe this is an important decision. Mr CUNNINGHAM —Can the Minister for Communications provide the House with details of the review of the localism policy in Australian broadcasting? Mr DUFFY —I thank the honourable member for his question. The policy of localism was designed to encourage development of local programming, local ownership or control of local stations, and local advertising. But the concept of localism has not been formally reviewed at any stage of its development. Having regard to the decisions which have been taken on broadcasting, particularly decisions related to Aussat Pty Ltd and the satellite, it was decided that there should be a review of the concept of localism. On 23 December last year I announced that the Department would conduct a review of the policy of localism in Australian radio and television. The review is examining the extent to which localism should be maintained, and in what form, in the continuing development of the Australian broadcasting system. While localism is of most significance to commercial stations, the review is also examining its relevance in respect of other broadcasters such as public radio stations. The review has been undertaken by Mr James Oswin, who is a senior officer in the Department of Communications, and is expected to be completed by the middle of this year. Mr HUNT —Will the Prime Minister make a detailed statement to the Parliament this week on any achievements he believes he may have made during his Asian trip ? In such a statement will he advise Parliament what action, if any, has been taken to implement the sound principles of his Osaka statement on industry restructuring? Will the Prime Minister explain why Mr Nakasone appears to have broken undertakings given to him that the Australian beef industry would not be disadvantaged by the United States-Japan trade negotiations? Will he outline what progress has been made to implement his integrated steel deal with China and provide the details of the Australia-China steel plan? Mr HAWKE —I cannot make a promise about making a statement to the Parliament later this week, although I will give consideration to it. The achievements of the visit, as has been universally acknowledged in the Press, were considerable. I will certainly give consideration to discussing with the Leader of the House whether, in our very busy schedule, there is time to include such an important statement. In the meantime, I can give some brief references to some of the particular matters raised in the question asked by the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia. In respect of industry restructuring, I can inform the Deputy Leader of the National Party that at my suggestion the Cabinet has established a Cabinet sub- committee under the chairmanship of Senator Button, the Minister for Industry and Commerce. That sub-committee will consist of the Ministers having responsibility for the portfolios of Trade, Education and Youth Affairs, Employment and Industrial Relations, and Defence Support, to consider together-- Mr Barry Jones —Science and Technology. Mr HAWKE —I knew that I had overlooked one, but that it would come to me. If I were to overlook one, there is no doubt who would remind me of it, and that is the Minister for Science and Technology. I assure the Minister that no slight was intended. Mr Hodgman —This is a hatchet gang. Mr HAWKE —No, not a hatchet gang. This is a collection of Ministers who have relevant portfolio responsibility, to address themselves to that wide range of interrelated considerations necessary for this country to bring about the restructuring of industry, which will lead to significant economic growth and the type of economy which will give the greatest opportunity for employment in the years to come. That has been done, and this approach of the Government in regard to industry restructuring has received the unanimous support of the Economic Planning Advisory Council and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The Deputy Leader of the National Party asked also about what progress had been made in regard to the integrated steel developments in China and Australia. Very considerable advances have been made in that regard. An Australian working party will go to China in the near future. The Minister for Metallurgical Industry in China, Mr Li, will visit Australia in May. Mr Newman —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. The Prime Minister has been going for five minutes. Would you ask him to say something? Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr HAWKE —It is scintillating, is it not? It is devastating. The other particular matter addressed by the Deputy Leader of the National Party was the question of exports of beef to Japan. I am surprised at this coming from that source. I do not think that the question of relations between Australia and Japan in general and of our trading relationship in particular is assisted by a responsible member of this Parliament making accusations against the Prime Minister of Japan. It may be that those on that side of the House believe that negotiations between our two countries on an important issue like this are assisted by accusations of that kind being made in this place. If that is the sort of approach that the Opposition wishes to follow and it receives the endorsement of the Leader of the Opposition, so be it. It will not be the approach of this Government. What we are constructively doing is holding discussions at the level of the Ambassador of Japan in this country and at the official level and all those discussions are directed to trying to ensure that the beef producers of this country get the best possible deal that can be achieved. That will not be helped by accusations made in this Parliament against the Prime Minister of Japan. Mr FRY —Is the Minister for Territories and Local Government aware that the Opposition spokesperson on the Australian Capital Territory has stated that the Minister is responsible for creating the severe housing crisis in Canberra? Mr UREN —I heard the honourable member on an Australian Broadcasting Corporation program this morning, and I might say that his distorted views of the housing situation in Canberra are very sad. First of all, we inherited a very serious social problem here in Canberra. The previous Government, between 1976 and the time when we took over the administration, failed to develop any serviced land, failed to develop any public housing and failed to construct any office accommodation. When the Labor Government was struck down in 1975 those opposite inherited 7,500 serviced blocks of land as a land bank in Canberra. Because Labor in the preceding three years had developed over 3,000 public dwellings, 18 per cent of all housing in Canberra at that time was public housing. The figure now is only 13 per cent. We inherited only a few hundred serviced blocks of land in Canberra. What we have had to do is stimulate the supply of serviced housing land by 3,000 blocks-500 blocks in the first year-and to develop the construction industry to get the building of office accommodation under way, because all those things are interrelated. We are aware in respect of office accommodation, particularly in the case of Havelock House, that departments are taking over areas in which low cost housing is normally involved. This is the serious social problem we inherited but we have set down priorities for land servicing, for public housing and for office accommodation to help to rebuild not only the Australian economy but also and particularly the Canberra economy. Because of the policies that this Government has carried out the Canberra economy is coming out of the economic decline faster than any other region in Australia. Mr TUCKEY —I refer the Prime Minister to the Cabinet meeting his Government held in Perth on 27 September at which decisions were made on the now leaked defence document and which also coincided with the victory of Australia II in the America's Cup. I also remind the Prime Minister of his leaving his hotel room in the early hours of that morning to join the televised champagne celebrations at the Royal Perth Yacht Club. In the interests of national security, I ask: Was the Prime Minister as careless on that occasion with the sensitive documents in his care as he was on a previous occasion at the Boulevard Hotel in Sydney when he reportedly had stolen from his room a sum of $4,000 in mixed Australian and international currencies? Mr SPEAKER —Order! I think that question is scarcely within the Prime Minister's administration. Does the Prime Minister wish to respond? Mr HAWKE —I assume that that question has the endorsement of the Leader of the Opposition and of the Opposition. The country will, therefore, make its judgment , not merely about the honourable member for O'Connor but about the whole of the Opposition unless he is disowned. Mr Tuckey —Tell us the answer. Mr HAWKE —The answer is that I was careless on neither occasion. Mr MILTON —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs aware of the report in yesterday's Melbourne Age that Melbourne University may ask the Australian Council for Educational Research to prepare entrance examinations that could be used in the selection of prospective students? Is the Minister also aware that the discussion in Melbourne University on new selection procedures is causing widespread concern amongst both academics and the public? Will the Minister explain how the introduction of new university entrance examinations might affect the Government's policy of encouraging more young Australians to gain tertiary education qualifications? Mr DAWKINS —I thank the honourable member for his question. I note that before his election to this House he was involved in the administration of the University of Melbourne, including the administration of enrolment policies. There has been some discussion at the university concerning entrance tests. I think that it is rather too early to draw any conclusions about the sorts of decisions that the University of Melbourne might make. In fact, some people at the University of Melbourne have complained that the publicity surrounding these discussions and investigations has rather misrepresented their position. But basically the university seems to be concerned that the higher school certificate is no longer a sufficiently precise device in order to make an appropriate selection of students for the University of Melbourne, whereas, on the other hand, others involved in the debate are arguing that there needs to be a standardised process of selection for all tertiary institutions in Victoria. I think that the Australian Council for Educational Research has been invited to undertake some studies, and I note that David Beswick has also been doing some work in this area. It is obviously a very sensitive matter, because one does not want to see a process whereby some students are excluded from access to some particular universities or colleges of advanced education. But, just as the honourable member mentioned in his question, the overriding concern that we would have is with the way in which it might affect overall access to tertiary education. Of course, we would not be wanting to interfere, as a government, in the decisions that the universities make in terms of their selection practices; but I think that we would want to direct the attention of all universities and CAEs throughout the country to the very important preoccupation that they ought to have with ensuring that they get as many people as possible who are qualified for entrance and who are applying for entrance actually into those tertiary institutions. We have seen the number who have been unable to find places this year, and we need to have a concerted effort to ensure that as few as possible of those qualified for entrance and who apply for entrance next year are turned away. That is where we would want to be directing the attention of universities and CAEs around the country. Mr HICKS —I direct a question to the Minister for Primary Industry. Is the Government aware that imports of substantially subsidised lamb and sheep meat from New Zealand have quadrupled since last year and that subsidised New Zealand lamb was offered to Australian consumers at prices as low as 42c per kilogram? Is the Minister aware that Australian domestic mutton prices have fallen 13 per cent in the past four to six weeks? In view of the New Zealand Government's high level of government support to its sheep meat industry, will the Government give urgent consideration to any request by the industry to impose countervailing duties under the terms of the closer economic relations agreement in order to protect the Australian sheep meat industry from a rapidly increasing flow of subsidised New Zealand lamb and sheep meat to our market? Mr KERIN —The honourable member for Hotham raised this question first in the House in the adjournment debate the other night. Of course the Government is aware of the concerns held by Australian producers that possible increases in imports of New Zealand sheep meat may be causing or are threatening to cause injury to the Australian industry. Sheep meat imports in January and February this year have been at values lower than those which applied last year. I am sympathetic to the concerns of our industry to the extent that these imports may have resulted from subsidies paid to the New Zealand industry. A recent statement by the Chairman of the New Zealand Meat Producers Board indicates that export mutton carcases are currently selling at a loss of between $3.50 and $6. 50 each. Various Ministers have received representations from the Sheepmeat Council of Australia seeking the imposition of countervailing duties. There are recognised procedures for investigating claims for protection against dumping and the matter of New Zealand subsidies should be considered in that context. The Sheepmeat Council is aware of these procedures and is taking action. I believe, however, that the claims that the New Zealand shipments constitute a breach of CER are unfounded. The CER trade agreement between Australia and New Zealand provides for the continued duty-free flow of sheep meat between the two countries. I will shortly be in New Zealand examining these broader questions. The Government and the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation are monitoring the situation closely. Following an industry request the Australian Statistician recently refined the statistics obtained on sheep meat imports to differentiate between lamb and mutton because, quite frankly, it is our belief that most of the increase in imports, on the basis of the value of the product, is in mutton. Mr Fisher —But is New Zealand dumping? Mr KERIN —That will be found out. Mr SNOW —Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware of the great human suffering caused to children and adults who contract hydatids? These innocent victims have frequently to undergo extensive thoracic and abdominal surgery and they carry the scars for the rest of their life. Will the Minister expedite the control of this disease in animals and humans? Mr KERIN —I thank the honourable member for his question. He has been concerned with this issue for quite some time in his professional capacity. Hydatids control affects city and country alike. There is little high technology needed to control the problem. In fact, if we look at the history of the issue we find that way back in 1929 Sir Ian Clunies-Ross lamented the fact that we had not tackled it effectively in Australia. It can be controlled by the application of simple measures of dog feeding and control. The electorate of Eden-Monaro is in an area of very high prevalance of hydatids. Also, in the electorate of the unemployed honourable member for Hume the rate of incidence of hydatids is probably the highest in the world. I recently met Dr Peter McCullagh, who is the Chairman of the south-eastern New South Wales and Australian Capital Territory hydatids control campaign. I must say that I was very impressed by the community program that he and his colleagues have worked up. The program is community- based, as it has to be, and it is funded on a very lean budget from seven shire councils, one city council and three Australian Capital Territory authorities. The disease of hydatids is controlled in New Zealand and Tasmania. Various groups have been formed in Australia in areas of high incidence, but unfortunately they have faltered. I think there has been a lack of medical and veterinary input into the program. Doctors and vets should be involved in the program, together with the community groups that are formed. This is a human and animal health problem that has a veterinary solution. The Bureau of Animal Health within the Department of Primary Industry is co- operating with this campaign in south-east New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. We are co-operating closely and effectively with it. The Government wishes to give every endorsement to its activities. As the honourable member has said, the effects on individuals if hydatids is contracted is very severe indeed. The measures for controlling the disease are simple. It requires not only doctor and veterinarian but also large community input to take the effective measures that are necessary. Mr HAWKER —My question is also directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. Following the suspension of 22 meat inspectors in relation to the findings of the Woodward Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry in October 1982, why have all but one of those inspectors remained on full pay for 18 months at a cost exceeding half a million dollars without any effective action being taken? How much longer will this expensive delay continue before the matter is resolved ? Why should the meat industry, which has already suffered heavy losses because of the meat substitution scandal, have to bear part of the cost of this inordinate delay? Mr KERIN —Recent publicity has been given to this matter. It gives me serious concern on two fronts. There is concern with respect to the due processes of law and concern with respect to the individuals themselves. The time that it has taken to bring this case to finalisation is unacceptable to me but was a consequence of the due processes of law. When I became aware of the situation I contacted my Department to see what could be done and I also wrote to the Public Service Board. The inspectors were suspended in October 1982 by the previous Government on the basis of charges laid under the criminal code. Following decisions on two of the cases in late 1983 it was decided by Commonwealth law authorities not to proceed with the remainder of the cases in court. They were consequently referred to my Department for action under the disciplinary provisions of the Public Service Act. The reason there was so much delay was mainly the processes of law in the Northern Territory; simply the time taken to get the people into court. Since the referral of the cases to my Department in January this year we have acted with maximum speed to complete the necessary action. As reported in an article recently in the Australian, the Department's chief officer has now all but finalised the case. I understand that I will get a report on my desk in the next day or two. Payment of hardship allowances during suspension was made in accordance with the conditions laid down under the Public Service Act. As these inspectors are employees of the Commonwealth under the Public Service Act, I, as the responsible Minister, have to follow those procedures. But I would like to make the point that the cases were referred to law; a decision was made by the law officers of the Commonwealth and, in addition, my Department has looked at the situation of these individuals. It is my understanding-I was informed on the telephone and I do not have the piece of paper with me yet-that penalties have been applied to these people in terms of the Public Service Act. I would just like to make it clear that these cases have gone through the law and through the Public Service Act. The second part of my concern is with respect to the individuals themselves. In terms of my reading of the evidence on these individuals there was no problem at any time with respect to the integrity of the meat inspection procedures they were carrying out. In other words, there is no way that any inspection procedure was ever undertaken in an untoward fashion. As I have said, these people were apprehended under the criminal code because of evidence they gave to the Royal Commission. That centred on their activities with respect to the trimming of meat in an abattoir; in other words, they were doing additional work. That was the basis of the charges that were laid. I am not going to go into the details of the matter because I am not going to put to the Parliament my views about the rightness or wrongness of what they did . I will say that a test case, to all intents and purposes, went to the Northern Territory courts. There was no conviction, and the case has been referred to the due procedures of the Public Service Act. Smaller penalties were applied. The effect on these people has been devastating, and I think that is something of which the Parliament should be mindful. Mr WELLS —My question is directed to the Minister for Science and Technology. Does the withdrawal of Canada from the Starlab project mean that this project is unlikely to proceed? Is the Australian Government taking any interest in pursuing the possibility of space-related industries? Mr BARRY JONES —The withdrawal of Canada from the Starlab project is serious but not, I believe, fatal. It will be necessary to find another partner who can be involved in the project and then it will have to be considered de novo, as they say in the classics. The division originally was that the United States of America would put Starlab into orbit, launch it, and provide the space platform, Canada would provide the telescope itself and we would provide the scientific instrumentation. The Canadians were faced with the fact that they were involved in two very expensive space projects. The Spacelab project, which is different from Starlab, was really their No.1 priority and was one in which they had the dominant role. In the Starlab project they were simply making the instrument package. There certainly was a feeling in Canada, when I discussed it with Ministers in January this year, that we were getting the best end of the deal and they were not. For comparatively modest sums we were getting the benefit of the scientific instrumentation package which they thought was likely to have a spin-off in the economy generally. The problem with the telescope, exciting project though it was, was that it was very difficult to see what one did for encore. It was not as if we were going to have another 50 or 100 ordered; it was an absolutely one-off exercise. It was very exciting and very challenging. The extension arm that the Canadians have made for the shuttle has been widely hailed; it is a great scientific achievement. But we do not find Boeing or Douglas saying: 'Terrific. We ought to get it on some of our aircraft'. It is simply sui generis; one cannot do anything else with it. However, the consultancy report that we had indicated that Australia will do best out of it if the total project goes ahead. The two leading contenders at this moment are Japan and the European Space Agency. The Deputy Secretary to my Department, Dr Roy Green, is in Tokyo at the moment talking to the Japanese about it. It will be either Japan or the European Space Agency. Our future role will have to be determined in the Budget context, of course. It is proposed that Starlab will go up in 1988 and 1989, so there is some lead time on it. I think it is potentially the most exciting scientific experiment of the twentieth century. Mr MILLAR —The Minister for Health will be familiar with the recent restoration to category 2 of a number of hospitals, including St Stephens at Maryborough, Queensland. Will the Minister inform the House of the position of privately insured patient benefits for the period from 1 February 1984, the date of initial recategorisation downward, to 22 March 1984, when the hospitals in question were restored to their original category? Dr BLEWETT —I am not quite clear from the honourable member's question about recategorisation downwards. A number of hospitals were recategorised upwards from their original classification of category 3 or category 2 at a later date, on submissions that had been made and reconsideration of categorisation. I will look into the specific hospitals concerned and give the honourable member a detailed answer. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 16 of the Pig Industry Research Act 1971, I present the Australian Pig Industry Research Committee annual report for 1982-83. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney) —Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented- inadvertently, no doubt. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for North Sydney knows that he must make the request to the Chair and be given the call. I call the honourable member for North Sydney to make his personal explanation. Mr SPENDER —I am sorry, Mr Speaker. I apologise for overlooking that. Last night the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) came into the House to defend himself in the adjournment debate concerning his handling of the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport question and the non-decision over the second airport site. In the course of doing so he said of me: The honourable member for North Sydney implies that the Government has somehow reached a position where absolutely no development of any sort improving operations of Sydney will take place under this Government. If he really believes that, he has forgotten the detail of the last Budget. We included in the last Budget provision for the development of fast taxiways at Sydney, which will increase and improve the traffic flow there . . . I neither stated nor implied that the Government was not doing anything in relation to improving operations. I was well aware of that program. It was instituted by the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife) when he was Minister for Aviation. What the present Minister is doing is no more than continuing the implementation of that program. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas) —Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented by the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren). Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for Dundas may make a personal explanation. Mr RUDDOCK —Mr Speaker, during Question Time the Minister misrepresented comments made by me on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio this morning in relation to housing in the Australian Capital Territory. This morning I was offering constructive comments to assist the Government in this important matter concerning the present housing crisis in Canberra. I regret that the Minister wants to claim credit for the improving local economy in this city but is unwilling to accept the consequences of that improvement as it relates to the housing area in particular. The Acting Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: Chiropractic Services To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows- That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the high cost of health care in Australia. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens 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. by Mr Cadman,Mr Cross,Mr Steele Hall and Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to stop the commercial exploitation of the kangaroo. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House re-apply the ban on the export of kangaroo products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Carlton,Mr Chynoweth,Mr Cross and Ms McHugh. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we, the loyal citizens of Australia firmly express our strong opposition to any proposals to remove or undermine the importance of the place of God and/ or the Queen in our national life, and democratic institutions. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Parliament assembled reaffirm our nation's total dependence on God the Creator in accordance with our Australian Constitution, which commences with the words ''Humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God'', and the Standing Orders of both the Senate and the House of Representatives which prescribe that Parliament each day shall open with a special prayer to Almighty God and the Lord's Prayer. We also call on the Parliament assembled to re-affirm our genuine loyalty to our Head of State, the Queen of Australia, Elizabeth II-'God save the Queen'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Carlton and Mr Mountford. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: 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 freedom; Entrench abortion funding and render liable to action Hospitals, Doctors and Nurses, who conscientiously refuse to become involved in morally objectionable operations; Deny to parents their rights to insist that the school ''community'' provide an environment conducive to the development, including moral development of their children. Deny to parents their rights to have their children enjoy single-sex sporting activities e.g., boys cricket team, boys football team, etc. Your petitioners humbly pray that the 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 all 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 Hunt and Mr Lusher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That an airport in the north-western region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. An airport would destroy 2,000 households and impose upheaval, noise and pollution on one million people presently unaffected. 3. The cost of an airport in the north-western region is greater than the alternatives, whilst fog and close proximity to R.A.A.F. Base Richmond would make operations impractical. 4. It would destroy the historic village of Pitt Town, environmentally important wetlands, and their unique adherent wildlife. 5. Your petitioners reject these proposals and call for endorsement of the MANS Committee findings. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That Australia's meat exports are being placed in an uncompetitive position by the imposition of substantial export meat inspection charges whilst Australia 's competitors receive free inspection plus considerable subsidies. 2. These charges are causing substantial loss of business for export abattoir operators and loss of jobs for their employees due to the disparity in inspection costs of export and non-export works arising from a 200% increase in federal government charges at export works. 3. That immediate steps should be taken to end serious injury being done by these charges to export abattoir operators, their employees, live-stock producers and all others dependent on the Australian meat and livestock industry . by Mr Hodgman. To the Honourable Members of the Australian Federal Parliament. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ''the existing Australian National Flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman. To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a Referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action nor legislate in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cross and Mr Humphreys. Petitions received. Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The concern and confusion created by the Government's Defence and Foreign Affairs policies, as highlighted by the leaking of the Strategic Basis Paper. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.0) —The Opposition has proposed this matter of public importance today following the leaking of a document which appeared in the National Times last week. I remind honourable members just what that document is. It is headed, 'Strategic Basis of Australian Defence Policy'. These strategic basis papers came before us when we were in government. The title indicates just how important the papers are. They form the strategic basis for the formulation of defence policy. It is fatuous for honourable members opposite to question the document's authenticity, which incidentally has been answered today by Air Chief Marshal Sir Neville McNamara, who conceded its authenticity, which is something that the Government ran from, despite the fact that if one puts this statement and that statement together one draws the obvious conclusion it is in fact authentic. The sight of the Government trying to deny not only the authenticity but also the importance of the document was embarrassing. The next step, I suppose, will see us getting into a situation which Ministers will be conceding either that they forgot to read the document or that it was endorsed by mistake. That is the sort of nonsense that seemed to be coming through in the vacuous allegations which were made yesterday when the Opposition was questioning Ministers in the House. There can be no doubt that, after the extraordinary events of last week and yesterday, Australia is now rudderless, not merely in the area of defence but also in the area of foreign affairs. These events confirm the fact that there is a lack of coherence in defence and foreign affairs policy. The Opposition has constantly said in this House that the Government will never get its regional relationships right unless it understands what the coherent framework of its foreign policy. Is, it announces it to its people and says: 'This is our strategic assessment and where we sit within the globe itself'. Unless it then moves from analysing Soviet-United States relations, Sino-Soviet relations, et cetera, it will not get regional relations right. That is why, for example, time and again the current Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) simply gets policy toward Vietnam wrong. I know that he has sought desperately to be the honest broker in regard to Vietnam. The reality is that we are part of the Western alliance. Our interests put us with the Association of South East Asian Nations, which reads the movements of Vietnam differently. Vietnam is a client of the Soviet Union. Her invasion of Kampuchea was the invasion of a client of the Soviet Union against a client of the People's Republic of China. If the Government does not understand the background of that, it will not get any affairs, let alone its regional relationships, right. This paper seeks to come to grips with matters such as those I have just touched on very lightly indeed. But this Government not only has denied the authenticity of the documents, although others have indicated that they are authentic, but also from the moment of the leaking has sought, in insignificant areas, to move away from what is contained within a paper that it endorsed last year. There is a strategic basis document endorsed by the Cabinet. When one reads it, it is worthy of endorsement. But the document is the antithesis of what the Australian Labor Party is all about. It goes against many of the Government's statements in its platform and policy. If that is the case and the Government does not agree with what is in the document, why the devil endorse it as the strategic basis for the Government's defence policy? The Government having endorsed it, why do we have the extraordinary shuffles day after day to point out the position in different areas, whether it be the relationship or the strategic balance between the Soviet Union and the United States that the Foreign Minister disagreed with in the papers yesterday or elements relating to nuclear non-proliferation? If the Government has endorsed it, that is its view. Why does it not have the courage to say so? The answer is that the pacifist elements within the Government party and those who are opposed to the stockpiling of nuclear weapons cannot allow the Government publicly to endorse a paper that has reality shrieking throughout it. Even before the leaking of this document this Government had enough problems in the area of foreign affairs. But the document went to the Cabinet. It was endorsed; it was accepted; and it was approved. Madam Deputy Speaker, honourable members opposite can use whatever words they like but last year the contents of the document did receive the sanction of the Government and no amount of specious argument can change that. The document and all its contents therefore represent the corner-stone for the Government's plans on vital defence and foreign policy matters. That document lays down the base for specific initiatives. It provides the yardstick by which individual actions are to be measured. Based on a substantial proportion of that document now in the public domain, I have indicated already that the Opposition endorses a great deal of it as being strategically sound. It seems to us, on the degree of reading that we have had before us in the article in the National Times, to be a cogent evaluation of Australia's position from a global perspective. It is extraordinary that the Hawke Government, having endorsed the document, is now in the process of disowning it. For example, the Foreign Minister has refused to accept that the Soviet Union has outstripped the United States in its nuclear capability. That is the net effect of what he said yesterday. In the process he is disowning one of the corner-stones of our strategic planning. All sorts of questions flow from the Foreign Minister's statement alone. It is well worth considering his change of face. Why is he doing it now? Why did he not raise last September the matters that he raised in the Parliament yesterday? What has transpired between September and now that makes him the enlightened Foreign Minister he seeks to present to the members of the Centre Left and the Left? But he was so mute when the matter went before the Cabinet last year, unless-and I will be fair to the Minister-he was away at the time. He may have been out of the country. If he was out of the country, and perhaps he was, I am sure he would have done what any of his predecessors have done and let the Acting Foreign Minister give the Minister's views on that document in the Cabinet. It is too important if the Government is adopting a strategic basis to allow that plan to go through without having the Acting Foreign Minister advise the Cabinet of the Minister's views. If he had not done that, when he got back from overseas he should have ensured that the matter came back to Cabinet again so that he could inject his view. So if the Minister were overseas, as I suspect from the Mephistophelean leer on his face when I raised the question of why his views were not injected into the Cabinet, perhaps he can tell us why this matter was not brought back before Cabinet when he returned. What is the Government's view? What is the Government's alternative? What will the Government base Australia's strategic planning on if it is rejecting this paper which has been leaked through the National Times? Yesterday the Government was at pains to state its commitment to nuclear non-proliferation, to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and to a range of disarmament initiatives. The Hawke Government has reverted to an expression of policy on nuclear issues based on idealism and on the love of peace, but for peace's sake. The salient fact about the strategic basis paper is that nuclear disarmament is endorsed not for idealistic reasons but for hard-nosed assessments of what is required in the world today. The Government and, indeed, the entire Labor Caucus have a question to answer: Is our policy towards nuclear non-proliferation conditional on a realistic evaluation of the world and the regional balance of forces, as the strategic basis paper sensibly puts it, or is our commitment to nuclear disarmament unconditional and unheeding of strategic and power realities ? I inject the term 'power realities' because of the nonsense that is talked by Government members from time to time. So long as the system of nation states exists, power will remain the major arbiter in world affairs. If Government members would recognise that as a basic fact, they would not be deluding themselves with the pacifist arguments they so frequently produce. That is an underlying reality accepted by every member on this side of the Parliament. Mr Hand —You are all right while you are sending people to Vietnam. Mr PEACOCK —I am pleased to hear the honourable member speak because he is winning support, as are the honourable member for Casey (Mr Steedman) and the three left wing Ministers in the Government-the great anti-nuclear people, the great anti-uranium people. One of them is returning to the Cabinet today for 30 pieces of silver-a Judas reward, if you like. What will these men of principle do after July? What will every member of this Cabinet who is a left wing member of the Caucus do? Will they put the proposition that there is an election at the end of the year and that that is more important than the principles they have carved on their sleeves for years? I can see now by the expression on the face of the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) that he would rather sit on this side of the Parliament-that is where he will be after the election-than compromise his principles. I move sideways to the uranium issue because it is akin to what is happening now in regard to the strategic basis document. There are harsh realities contained within that document. They have to be accepted by any party in government that is facing the reality of the international scene today. But because it does not mirror the hearts and flowers nonsense of Government members ' rhetoric, they have step by step, day by day, jettisoned it as their strategic basis. We are left in a position of being unable to know what the Government's foreign policy or defence policy is all about. If the Government accepted what is contained in that strategic basis paper, it would not be giving voice to the sort of nonsense that has been contained in so many statements of the Foreign Minister and the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes). That is the harsh reality. Their statements just do not sit together, nor does some of the nonsense in the Australian Labor Party platform sit with what is in that document. Unless the Government can work out what it is on about, it will further confuse the Australian people; nor can it endorse a strategic basis paper for the administration and formulation of defence programming in this country and allow the rundown in defence to occur, as was so well illustrated by my colleagues in this House last week. The rundown in defence is shown by the 1983-84 Budget. There was a cut of $164m from defence spending from the previous coalition Government's program, a rise of $3.9m in civilian manpower costs, and a fall of $20.7m in service manpower costs. The service manpower figures, which fell by 732, were referred to by my colleagues. We have had a series of conflicting statements from different Ministers, leading to continued embarrassment and a lack of credibility. We have a Cabinet which endorses a major document in the secrecy of the Cabinet room, yet in the light of public scrutiny seeks to back away from it with indecent haste. We have an endless ambiguity in this Government between a desire to live in the real world of foreign affairs and defence, and a quasi-idealism dictated by the pressure of the Left. The net result is a hotchpotch of half-developed initiatives, undirected sentiments and contradictory actions. No government can play an effective role in the world or in the region if it lacks coherence and direction in its approach to defence and foreign policy. This Government is the architect of a situation in which our allies witness the blunders and the zigzags between the Right and the Left, between idealism and realism. They can have little confidence that Australia will play a sound and consistent part in world affairs. The Government stands condemned by its own words and by its own actions, lacking that innate quality of enlightened realism that is needed in Australia today, in foreign affairs particularly. What we have is duplicity and deception, the adoption of a paper which shrieks common sense and the putting down of it publicly when it is released to show the Government for what it is and what the policy ought to be about. Come clean! Tell us. Does the Government endorse that document or is it going to continue to slide in the manner of the statements yesterday by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs)(3.15) —There was a lot of snorting and barking and a good deal of squealing and squeaking, but where was the major production we were promised? We were promised a sensation which would rock the Government. Instead, we got a squib. We did not get the Macbeth the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) said we would get. We got Little Nell, and the Leader of the Opposition cast in the main role. He gave us the whole tonal gamut , from Sistine Chapel choir falsetto to a dungeon deep bass. It was almost as if he were unsure whether he had brought all his necessary personal equipment with him into the House. His performance reminds me of Kingsley Amis's hero in his novel The Alteration, and I understand that many who sit behind him want to conduct the same sort of alteration on him. After listening to him today we can well understand why. Let us look at some of the observations which the Leader of the Opposition made . He says that there is lack of coherence in foreign affairs and defence policies. Then he went on in grandiloquent if not extravagant style to say that unless we pinpoint the Soviet-United States strategic relationship and the Sino- Soviet relationship we will not get any of our policies right. Peacock, the super-bird, is going to fix all! But the trouble with peacocks is that they cannot fly, and neither will this nonsense he is going on with. He asked why we do not endorse this alleged document as the basis of our commitments and went on to state unequivocally that the Opposition bases all its foreign policy and defence thinking on this document. How remarkable! All its thinking on foreign affairs and defence is based on this document! It does not even know what is in the document. It knows a couple of small extracts from a document which is 100 pages or so in length, but it is prepared to endorse the lot as substantiating its thinking. That is very easy because it is evident that the Opposition just does not think. The Leader of the Opposition asked why I did not protest in Cabinet. The fact is, as he correctly divined-after all, I gave him a nudge and a wink-that I was overseas when it was in Cabinet. But it did go into the foreign affairs and defence committee, and the Leader of the Opposition would be very interested to know my observations then. Would he like to hear them? Would he like to hear my observations in the foreign affairs and defence Cabinet sub-committee? Mr Peacock —Yes, please. Mr HAYDEN —I knew he would, but I cannot tell him because there are prohibitions . He says that power remains the major arbiter in world affairs. The principle of the Opposition is this: It is going to send troops all over the world to solve its problems. Presumably it will send them on wooden hobby horses with broomstick swords because it so disastrously depleted the capability of our defence forces in the period in which it was in government. I understand that the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair)-Australia's richest grave-digger who has turned to politics as a hobby-will follow me as the second speaker for the Opposition. If he treats the fortunes of the armed services in the way in which he treated the personal family heritage it will not be long before they are bankrupt and in the courts. The facts are that the condition of the defence forces today by no phantasmagorical stretch of the imagination can be attributed to a government which has been in office for scarcely 12 months. The condition of the defence forces in this country is a reflection of a long term rundown of quite malicious neglect on the part of the Opposition during the several years it was in government. I want to come back to this matter, but first I will make a few comments which ought to go on the record. The Leader of the Opposition challenges the Government to confirm the authenticity of the alleged document upon which the reports in the National Times have been based. The Leader of the Opposition knows as well as I do that there is a practice, and a very well founded one, that governments do not confirm or deny matters which are sensitive where there is a claim that there has been a leak. The Opposition, in government, had more experience of this than we have had. There are, in this document, 15 instances of major sensitive leaks which occurred when the Opposition was in government and it followed that practice. It is soundly based. I intend to subscribe to it on this occasion. In the meantime, I request leave, Madam Deputy Speaker, to have incorporated in Hansard that list of instances of leaks. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Is leave granted? Mr Peacock —It can be tabled. Mr HAYDEN —No, I have asked for it to be incorporated. If the Opposition will not allow the incorporation, I shall not waste any more time. I do not know what honourable members opposite are frightened of. I do not know why they are worried about their record. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I am told that the document does not fall within the guidelines set down by Mr Speaker. The Minister can table the document. Mr HAYDEN —No, I shall let it go. A crucial ground upon which the Leader of the Opposition developed his argument was that the Chief of the Defence Force Staff today confirmed the authenticity of the document. I have here a statement from the Defence Department that gives the lie to that. I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition not fabricate his evidence to try to keep afloat a rather desperate case. He says that there is something rather dubious about a decision of a government in respect of a strategic basis submission which came to Cabinet -and such a submission did come to Cabinet; I make that distinction from speculation on what has appeared in the paper-that there is something dubious about such a document coming to Cabinet and being endorsed for guidance purposes . The honourable member says that 'endorsed for guidance purposes' means that in all respects propositions which are presented explicitly or implicitly are accordingly endorsed. That is sheer nonsense. I accept, for instance, the telephone directory for general guidance. I endorse it for general guidance. But several months ago I had occasion to telephone my daughter in Sydney-she is now living there-and a strange male voice answered the phone. I thought that I had misdialled and I hung up and dialled again, and the same male voice came on the phone and abused me as a nuisance telephone caller. That was an unpleasant experience. But that does not mean that the telephone directory is no longer valid. It has its defects. Similarly, in the commercially available referdexes for the Brisbane area, one of the streets, at a junction at which we live in Ipswich is shown as a long, continuous street; but, in fact, it is not. A number of visitors to our place over the years have lost their way trying to follow this unfortunately misleading description of where we live. The referdex generally is reliable, and we endorse it. Unless it has been rectified in that respect, however, it certainly has a glaring deficiency there. So it is sheer nonsense on the part of the Opposition to try to fabricate that claim. The facts are that as a matter of sober concern we must all express some reservations about the propensity for the leakage of information over time. We have seen it. All governments, of all colours, have seen it. Mr Hunt —It never happened in our time. Mr HAYDEN —I have just sought to have incorporated in Hansard a list of nearly a score of cases in which it did happen, and I was prevented from having it incorporated by the Leader of the National Party; but he has a lot of skeletons to keep hidden, and no doubt he does this as an automatic reflexive action. The former Prime Minister extolled the principle of leaking. In July 1975, talking about leaks on a Four Corners program, he said: There could be circumstances, I believe, in which a Treasury official could regard his overriding duty to Australia as being greater than his duty to a government; and ultimately our duty lies to Australia first. So he enshrined the principle of the leak. He confirmed it on 17 November 1976 in this Parliament. There is incitement for this sort of thing to happen. I do not believe that the best interests of this country are served when there are leaks which take place on classified matters and which can be to the disadvantage of the national interest. I make that as a general statement, and I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition could perhaps soberly apply himself to this matter. If he asserts the principle that, in specific terms, leakage through the media of data on the strategic basis paper undermines the confidence of other countries in this country's foreign policy and defence policy, that it creates confusion, that it is disastrous, that the Government itself is recreant and culpable, let me remind him that under the Fraser Government, when he was a senior Minister, the 1975 and the 1976 strategic basis papers were leaked, and they were leaked through the National Times. That newspaper has a remarkable record-but gained under the previous Government. In 1980, documents on Australian defence and foreign policy for the period 1968 to 1975, in all their sensational detail, were published in a book. The Government, of which he was a senior member, had to take court action to prohibit the circulation of that publication. So there is nothing novel in it. What the Leader of the Opposition is trying to do, confronted by his own sagging standing as Leader of the Opposition, both in the community before the eyes of the public and in his own organisation, is to resort to this rather unpersuasive tactic. Let me deal quickly with the matter of defence. The fact is that the Government in which the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party were senior Ministers increased its spending on defence by an average of 2.5 per cent in real terms throughout its disastrous seven years in office. Yet they are lecturing us and saying that we have not done enough, that we have a deplorable set of conditions in defence in the country today. In our first Budget, we increased defence spending by 4.1 per cent in real terms. They say that we are not doing enough. We are not doing enough? We have just about doubled their real effort. Let me put a new focus on the same set of circumstances. The Leader of the National Party, preoccupied with appearing before courts or royal commissions, or defending his integrity-the last does not take long because there is not much of that left-was responsible for actually slashing defence spending by 1.7 per cent in real terms. We increased it by more than 4 per cent and he slashed it by nearly 2 per cent in real terms. In terms of opening up, developing, expanding defence spending, our effort was positively three times greater than his was. He was putting things into reverse gear and we are putting them into drive gear. Not only are we increasing defence spending; we are increasing it at a much faster rate. Honourable members opposite ought not, in opposition, to resort to these miserable debating misrepresentations, as today the Leader of the National Party has sought to do, complaining that defence forward capital programs were slashed by $160m in the last Budget. The slashing, as he described it, was from the notorious forward estimates of expenditure for 1983-84, which the previous Government, from evidence I have available to me, intended to bury after the last election had the country suffered the misfortune of the coalition being re- elected. That is what they are about-a confidence trick from Australia's leading confidence man in public life, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair). Let us go on. If they are arguing that that $160m ought to be restored, they are arguing for an increase of more then 7 per cent in real terms in defence spending. We increased it by more than 4 per cent; they are saying that it ought to be increased by more then 7 per cent. Yet the Leader of the National Party slashed defence spending by nearly 2 per cent in the period in which he was Defence Minister. Let us put in clear context the grand illusions of the right honourable member for New England on the issue of defence. He talked about forward programs. We have seen them. We saw several of them when the Opposition was in government. They were empty promises, grand in their description and empty when it came to fulfilment. We saw the 1976 White Paper, which fell apart within about 18 months -in fact, it fell apart this way. The five-year defence program proposed a substantial increase in spending. At the end of that five-year term some $3,000m of expenditure had been deferred. This Government is seeking to undertake a number of new spending commitments in defence, including spending on capital equipment. There is a very large accumulation of capital equipment spending obligations, some already in the pipeline and others unavoidable, which necessarily will have to be taken on in the future. This large bunching of capital spending was solely contributed to by the recklessness of the Opposition when in government, a matter I have pointed out on many occasions. The previous Government deferred again and again important defence spending programs. The right honourable member for New England slashed the last defence budget. We are now in the business of trying to catch up the lost ground and establish an adequate and credible defence capability for this country. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.32) —It used to be said that there were three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies and statistics. To modify that adage a little, we now know that there are liars, damned liars and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). Madam Deputy Speaker-- Mr Hayden —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I object very strongly to the right honourable member for New England associating me with those remarks . Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Is the Minister asking for a withdrawal? Mr Hayden —Yes. Mr SINCLAIR —After the things the Minister has said about me I think that is very mild indeed. They are false and he knows it. I believe-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the Leader of the National Party to withdraw his comments. Mr SINCLAIR —Madam Deputy Speaker, I withdraw them. I believe it is necessary for honourable members to remember that today the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) has been returned to Cabinet. All people in Australia will be interested to know that the high principle on which he withdrew from the inner Cabinet to the outer Ministry was his disagreement with the principle that the Government was adopting in allowing Roxby Downs to go ahead. Honourable members will remember that selective uranium export policy. We learned then that members of the outer Ministry do not need to subscribe to the policies of government. Today we have learnt that it is necessary for the-- Mr Chynoweth —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. This has nothing to do with the debate. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I suggest that the Leader of the National Party is leading up to his argument. Mr SINCLAIR —Madam Deputy Speaker, I assure you that it is very central to the target, that is, that this Government cannot be trusted. If honourable members care to look at the terms of the matter of public importance they will see that it states: The concern and confusion created by the Government's defence and foreign affairs policies, as highlighted by the leaking of the Strategic Basis Paper. The strategic basis paper relates, inter alia, to the question of whether there should be a development of a nuclear capability in Australia. The hypocrisy of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his Ministers cannot be better illustrated than by the fact that they are prepared to have within their ranks one who says that he disagrees, at least in private, within the left wing of the Party on the question of uranium exports, yet he is prepared to accept, as he now has, a strategic basis paper that foreshadows the development in some circumstances of a nuclear capability by Australia. Only last week we heard Cliff Dolan of the Australian Council of Trade Unions tell us that it was the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) who released that document on uranium exports. We all know that leaks are very common within some parts of the Australian Labor Party. One can only suspect that it was a member of the left wing of the Cabinet who leaked the strategic basis paper. But, of course, one cannot expect national security to be regarded very highly in a Cabinet that includes in its number a Special Minister of State who, in a rather memorable discussion in a car park, was prepared to breach national security. Let us go back to the comments that were made by the Foreign Minister. He suggested that the Chief of Defence Force Staff, Air Chief Marshal McNamara, in a statement today did not authenticate the strategic basis paper. The Australian Associated Press bulletin that was issued earlier today states: Australia's Defence supremo Air Chief Marshal Sir Neville McNamara today authenticated the leaked secret defence strategy papers published last week but stressed they did not represent government policy. We know that, nonetheless, they were endorsed by the Government. The Prime Minister has acknowledged that they were there for the guidance of government policy in defence. Australians have been let down badly by this Government in defence and foreign affairs. We all know the confusion between the Government's public position and its private stance. Regrettably, time after time, particularly in defence matters, the Government has shown its total and utter ineptitude. Time and again it has shown that, even when it does act, it does so in ignorance, haste and confusion. We have a Minister for Defence who behaves like a cross between a Zen Buddhist and a slapstick comedian. Most of the time he sits in his office contemplating his navel. If he decided to go to sea, he would find that there was no fuel for the Royal Australian Navy. When disturbed by a loud noise he jumps up and promptly falls over one of the stock of banana skins he apparently keeps for the purpose. The view of the Opposition and the defence community of the performance of the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) and, indeed, of the Government can be summed up in the words of the dangling rigger to his mate in the famous Bulletin cartoon: 'For God's sake stop laughing, this is serious'. This Government and this Minister for Defence have run down Australia's defences close to desperation point. Tragically, it has come at a time when the strategic basis document illustrates that Australia cannot afford that to happen. We were told last week in the debate on a matter of public importance and in a censure motion: There is no fuel for ships, no bullets for rifles, no boots for soldiers and no money for reserves. Those circumstances occurred over the last 12 months. There should be none of this business of blaming the previous Government. Those circumstances are all as a consequence of this Government not being prepared to meet both forward, necessary capital expenditure and the necessary running and maintenance costs of the Australian defence forces. The Government's total failure in defence was spelt out coldly and objectively in the testimony of members of the Department of Defence to the Defence Sub- Committee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on 20 March. That submission stated that Australia was incapable of supporting any sustained combat involvement. The submission spelt out the Government's failure to respond to the circumstances, of which it was aware in September last year, when it endorsed the strategic basis document. In September the Government endorsed that document which stated: While working to maximise the prospect of U.S. support in any national defence emergency, Australian governments have . . . required clear priority to be given to the development of capacity to conduct and support military operations for the independent defence of Australia. Yet this Government provides no money for training, no money for ships to sail, and little money for aircraft to fly. Six months later, a document was released to the Joint Committee which stated that low reserve stocks of ammunition, weapons and spare parts meant that only low level operations by our defence forces could be sustained. Those measures should have been corrected in this year's Budget; they are not old matters. It is not a matter of developing new capability; it is a matter of providing the sinews of survival and present capability to the Services. Funds should have been allocated for that purpose. The AAP bulletin also states in respect of the Chief of Defence Force Staff: His major concern on retiring . . . was that Australia lacked adequate controls over its air space, although he accepted that budget constraints ruled out funding for airborne radar aircraft for the RAAF. Yet we know that Singapore is acquiring three Grumman E2C Tracker aircraft at a cost of $US150m. We will have a position in which the Australian defence forces, under this Labor Government, are run below the capability of our near Association of South East Asian Nations neighbour. There can be no doubt about the spirit of our defence forces, their dedication or their ability to perform. What they need is a government that is prepared to give them the opportunity to do so. The language of the strategic assessment document is clear and unequivocal. Yet, six months after endorsing that document , the Minister for Defence stood up, without a trace of shame, and admitted that nothing was being done. His confession last week was one of failure. The biggest concern that we have is that, in order to meet forward capital procurement commitments that we entered into, this Government is today prepared to let day to day defence capabilities run down. The Foreign Minister has just made a great to-do about the consequence of that $160m cut in forward capital funds. The reason the former Government committed itself forward was that it was absolutely essential to upgrade the Defence Force. But in the level of funds for training for the Services themselves, we ensured that we provided funds so that the sharp end of the Services was not prejudiced. It is in that area that this Government has failed miserably. I have no criticisms of the strategic basis document. It is a sober, realistic appraisal of Australia's strengths and weaknesses. The fact that this document was published was a serious security breach. What is possibly worse was the Government's reaction. The document was endorsed by Cabinet in September. Cabinet members might have been euphoric in the aftermath of the America's Cup, but they are supposed to be able to read. Yet when the document they endorsed was published it was immediately disowned. The Government's media corps tried to persuade other newspapers that it was not important. The Minister for Defence and the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) said it was only for guidance. Yet the Prime Minister authenticated it and so too did the Chief of Defence Force Staff today. The important aspect of the document is that it has highlighted the concern Australia should have for the conditions we face today, the concern the people need to have in the application of our foreign policy under this Minister. In the application of our defence policy under the Minister for Defence there is a serious run-down which will prejudice our ability to meet the strategic situation which that authenticated document identified. It is not sufficient for this Government to come out with rhetoric and say it does not matter, to blame it on the past. The responsibility is the Government's and it should meet it. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The right honourable member's time has expired. Mr BILNEY(Kingston)(3.42) —People who have listened to this debate would be in no doubt about why the Opposition has become of such irrelevance in this debate, in matters of defence, in matters of foreign policy and in any other important issue. Members of the Opposition have treated us to a display of windy rhetoric, of empty bombast, of unconstructive irrelevance, which is all of a piece with the attempts they have made since we came to government to stir up trouble with our neighbours and to trivialise some important issues. It would be pathetic if it were not such a serious issue. No one knows as well as honourable members on this side of the House the dedication of people in the defence forces and in the foreign service. This kind of performance lets those people down and lets Australia down. The Opposition, when in government, had the most extraordinary record on defence matters. It treated us first of all to the great debate between forward defence and fortress Australia. This was put forward by such wonderful proponents as William McMahon and John Gorton, who engaged in a debate which was as irrelevant as anything that has been said today by either the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) or the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). This Opposition, when in government, gave us the great debate about Vietnam. One of the major issues was which group of people-not themselves-they would ballot to send to fight in a war that fitted in with a particular strategic preconception, one which, to its eternal credit, the Australian Labor Party never shared and from which it extricated us as soon as it last came into government. This is the Opposition which gave us the particularly instructive debate about Pol Pot. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would not wish me to remind him of the reason why he ostensibly resigned from the Government, but it was over a question of strategic and foreign policy, that is, whether the Government of which he was then part should support the butcher of Kampuchea or not. It is to his credit that he resigned. It is perhaps to his discredit that he goes on with the nonsense he has given us today. Finally, in the field of strategic and defence policy, this Opposition in government actually predicted the date of World War III. I have in front of me an extract from the National Times, believe it or not, of 22 June 1980 entitled: 'World War III: PM names the day-June 19, 1983'. Mr Chynoweth —Who was that? Mr BILNEY —This is Prime Minister Fraser. It reads: The Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, told the 11 members of the Australian Olympic Federation last Thursday that he believed there would be a world war in three years' time. The Prime Minister's warning followed a long discourse in which he described Soviet moves into Afghanistan, its involvement in Vietnam, the Vietnamese invasion of Kampuchea and Soviet involvement in the Horn of Africa and Yemen. At one stage Fraser predicted World war in the 1980s. Deputy Prime Minister, Doug Anthony interjected: 'It could be sooner.' Fraser subsequently gave the three-year deadline. That is the record of the previous Government. It is like Madam Zara in the circus tent looking at the lines on one's hands. That is approximately the standard of crystal ball gazing on the question of defence and strategic assessment we came to expect from Opposition members when they were in government. We have heard it said by members of the Opposition on three or four or probably 19 occasions in the debate that this paper is supposedly authenticated. They have quoted at some length from the Chief of Defence Force Staff, who they say said that this morning. Here is what he actually said. He was asked by a reporter in relation to these documents: Are you prepared to publicly endorse those views? He replied: I was on the Defence Committee which considered the strategic basis paper and therefore at least on a consensus basis I have to acknowledge that I was party to those decisions. Mr Hunt —Who was that? Mr BILNEY —This is the Chief of Defence Force Staff. If that is an endorsement of the authenticity then I am King Kong. The Department of Defence goes on to say that the transcript of the Press conference reveals nothing to suggest that the Chief of Defence Force Staff has either confirmed or denied the authenticity of those papers. Mr Hayden —The right honourable member for New England is forging again. Mr BILNEY —As the Minister says, it would not be the first occasion on which the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) has forged something. Mr Sinclair —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I ask that the honourable gentleman withdraw that remark. I take strong exception to it. Mr BILNEY —I withdraw. This is, after all, the person who, when Minister for Defence, thought that the best way of defending Australia was to buy the Invincible. That would have involved an expenditure of something like $1,400m-in fact, a straight transfer out of the country which would not have created one job in this country. It is to this Government's credit that it has adopted a very different defence policy which involves using Australian skills and Australian resources to build Australian ships in this country in a way that defends us far better. Turning to the paper itself, I must say that I have had a certain amount of personal experience with the drafting of strategic basis papers. My reaction is extremely similar to that of Peter Robinson which was reflected in his column entitled 'Candid Comment'. He stated: The most amazing thing about the so-called leak of the Government's Strategic Basis papers last week is that there seems to be some attempt to treat it with old-fashioned shock and horror. It was difficult to avoid doubling up with laughter when that well-known politician of wide-ranging probity Mr Ian Sinclair began talking about a ' massive security' breach. If Mr Sinclair thinks he can make political capital out of it, then normal people can probably reject the whole thing as being of monumental insignificance . He went on to say: The extracts from the Strategic Basis published last week are not reassuring in the sense that they probably took months of highly paid bureaucratic time to prepare, but could equally have been written by any competent journalist in a week or two. That accords with my own experience of drafting strategic basis papers. They very rarely have anything to do with what the government does. They have to be specifically endorsed, and in detail, by the government before they become a document of any use or relevance to anything that happens in the real world. The one sentence that has been authenticated was that which the Prime Minister quoted yesterday and which related to the nuclear weapons issue. He asked the House to take notice of this sentence: Australia's interests continue to be served by adherence to, and support for wider acceptance of, the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and for strengthening nuclear safeguards measures generally. That is the one sentence which did not appear in the account that was published in the National Times. It is interesting that the Opposition-particularly the Leader of the National Party of Australia-should raise the question of leaks. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) has already quoted from that well known beneficiary of leaks, the former Prime Minister. On 21 May 1981 the right honourable member for New England said this: It's obviously very true . . . that in Opposition you're very dependent on the public servant who is going to give you a little bit of insight into matters that are not otherwise freely available. I've tried in what I've said to suggest that all leaks are not bad but that some leaks are certainly very bad. The difficulty is to try and define the difference, and I suspect that in Opposition most leaks are good. It is of no surprise then that there is this breast beating about the dreadfulness of leaks when, as we all know, the record of the previous Government, so far as leaks were concerned, was absolutely horrifying. It is not surprising to me that permission was refused a previous speaker in this debate to table the list of leaks. I will read from the list, which is quite instructive. It states: CIA cable to ASIO leaked on February 1976-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) — The Minister for Aviation has sought the indulgence of the Chair to make a personal explanation. Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented? Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation) —Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was misrepresented by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) a few moments ago when he claimed that the decisions we had undertaken on the development of a taxiway system at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport were as a result of decisions taken and announced by the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife), the former Minister for Aviation. That is not the case. The previous Government's policy on the developments at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport did not contain such a package. I developed that package in connection with the new policy proposals that were brought forward in the last Budget session and following upon our decision not to proceed with the creation of the third runway at Sydney Airport. It was a new package developed by us to improve movement at Sydney Airport. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests : Health Insurance Amendment Bill 1984 Advance Australia Logo Protection Bill 1984 Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. [COGNATE BILLS: APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 4) 1983-84APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS) BILL (No. 2) 1983-84] Debate resumed from 30 March, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —Madam Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill, appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1983-84 and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1983-84 as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the three measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course will be followed. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(3.57) —These three Bills allow Parliament to speak on a wide- ranging number of subjects which affect the economy. They give us the opportunity to discuss here today the performance of the Government in relation to economic matters, not foreign affairs. I hope all honourable members will participate and make known their views of the first year of the Labor Government . In looking at the economy today and the general beat-up that has been given in relation to economic performance, we have to analyse precisely what has occurred . We have seen a quite dramatic turnaround in the rural sector, brought about by the change from the severest drought for many years to one of the best seasons for many years. As a consequence we have seen demand in areas such as restocking and machinery, which has flowed on to the general economy. On top of that we have had a very significant push in housing. The number of commencements has gone from 110,000 to 125,000 units. We now hear optimistic talk of the number of commencements heading towards 140,000 units. That in itself will bring out and point to a number of areas of congestion which will result in a wage push and cost price increase of the building industry. Already price increases in the order of 15 per cent have been effected in certain material sectors of the building industry. This has really been a catch-up position as the building sector has not been able to obtain a profit margin for many years. The much improved conditions of trading in that area have added to the price structure and I forecast more increases in the future. The third prong of the government-led recovery has been the continuation of sizable government deficits. There is no doubt that the level of government spending has been a significant factor in the appearance of an economy which gives the impression of being in reasonable shape. Apart from those three prongs -the rural sector, the housing recovery and government spending-one would have to regard the current scene as patchy. Very few in the economic or financial world would make any other assessment. Because of that we have to assess the likely impact of these factors. It is interesting to note that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) even admitted at a meeting of the Economic Planning Advisory Council recently that the recovery was not guaranteed. In a report to EPAC on economic conditions and prospects he said that to achieve a sustained recovery the economy needed business investment to replace the 'temporary influences which are operating at the moment'. That is quite some statement by the Treasurer. About a week later, during the New South Wales election campaign, he was quick to change course on that. But I have no doubt that, given the flexibility applied by the Government, he will be back on that tack when he approaches Budget considerations, because it must be causing concern in informed areas. Despite all these circumstances, there is no doubt that consumer confidence has vastly improved. This is borne out by the profit performances of the major retailing chains in Australia and by statistical services, particularly, going beyond the area of corporate profitability, the Australian Bureau of Statistics. To add to that, to the half-year to 31 December corporate profits, which were reported on by the end of March, generally reflected an improvement. The performance of certain industries-those in the manufacturing area in particular- was dismal. Those industries missed the bus. But the areas associated with the rural sector, finance and housing have all experienced substantial improvement. In my view, those improvements in profitability will continue right through to 30 June and probably to the end of calendar year 1984 will be used to heighten expectations. The fact is that we are very evenly balanced between a continued growth pattern and a conversion to stagflation. The general areas of concern are mounting. There are pressures on the wages accord. There are claims outside the general ambit of the accord. There are pressures on prices. Corporations are upping margins at present in view of better economic trading. All these matters must be of concern for 1985. There is little in the way of capital reinvestment. Few firms have increased their capacity. Until fairly recent times capacity usage certainly had not passed the magical level of 85 per cent within industry. Those firms which have approached those levels-as I said, only recently-have deferred any significant increase in private capital investment because they are concerned about whether, in the 1985-86 period, profitability and the prices and incomes accord can be maintained, the latter on which the Government places so much reliance. The encouragement of the private sector by the Labor Government is new-found. I remember one of its honourable members from Western Australia saying that he represented the private sector. I found that quite incredible. Nevertheless, this new-found love for the private sector will be tested by the disbelief of industry in its long term prospects. Only a week or so ago the mining sector indicated in a speech that it could see no reason for any substantial capital investment in the foreseeable future, that world metal prices were not sufficient to meet the huge capital costs which were required for any further development, that infrastructure development in Australia had been such in the last four years as to signal a very substantial fall in that area in the coming period. That fall would be such that any improvement in the private housing sector would certainly be offset by the falls in the commercial building area. These matters must be causing concern to the Government. At the same time we have seen the Government continue with the third leg of its improvement, government deficits. A very great sales job was done on the business world last year by the Government to sell a deficit of over $8 billion. This year we have had a general beat-around for the acceptance of a deficit of $ 7.5 billion which seems to be the general norm pushed by the Government. As a background to that, we have seen the performance in the money market in which very substantial amounts of money have been raised to cover the deficit in terms of both the direct funding of the Government's Budget and the funding of semi- government borrowings, both through the States and through the shire councils. You will recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, the recent decision of the Government to continue to expand that area so that more money can be borrowed outside the control of the Federal Government. So in that way the area of debt will be expanded significantly in regard to the States. Given the style of management that the States have put up over the last few years, there is little wonder that sections of the financial world are concerned about the future of government debt. It is worth spending a few minutes on saying that approximately half the deficit is now going towards meeting interest payments on debts. With the prospect of yet another $7.5 billion-plus deficit, that pressure will be maintained. If one accepts the projection that the deficit in 1985-86 will be even higher, with a dismal economic record and a $10 billion deficit talked of, the problem of interest payments becomes a major structural jam within the Government's spending program. I think we need to take that into consideration when we look at some of the money market problems of 1984-85. To cover this area, particularly the Government's stated intention to have a M3 target of 12 per cent, the Government will be forced either to raise interest rates substantially before 30 June or not to allow the general credit creation which goes with this period of the year. With the advent of the actions by commercial banks to seek more profitability, they have not allowed their annual build-up on the liquid and government securities ratio to occur. As a result of that, the banks do not carry the margin they once carried at this time of the year. If the Government is to apply any pressure in terms of funding its debt at this point, quite clearly a substantial rise in interest rates could occur. The consequence of that for the Australian savings bonds, which have been a very successful means of funding government deficits in Australia in the last few years, is that it is likely that they will come under pressure. Redemptions could result from that which would further add to the growth of M3. I make these points because, although I know they are not of enormous public interest, they are terribly important to the management of the economy. Madam Deputy Speaker, this brings me to another leg of the Government's problem , that which lies with the balance of payments. While in the last 12 months there has been a significant improvement in the balance of trade, we have not as yet seen an improvement in our competitive position that will match the flow of imports, and imports on a lagged period will not start to show up in Australia's balance of payments probably until the end of 1984. At that point, with the increase in invisibles, it is highly likely that the balance of payments will drift into debt and with that will come some pressure on the exchange rates, which are now floating. As a consequence we can only reflect back on to interest rates and the general competitive position in which Australia will find itself because as a trading nation we compare ourselves with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which has an average level of inflation of around 5 per cent. In Australia it is currently running at 9 per cent. With the new-found fix on the consumer price index which is coming up, it will be reduced to something like 6 per cent or 7 per cent, but the underlying level, the real level, is unlikely to go below 9 or 10 per cent. As a consequence our competitive position will deteriorate as opposed to that of our trading competitors. I add to those observations some of the forecasts which were put out by the Victorian Chamber of Manufactures, which pointed to the fact that the annual level of inflation is likely to rise to 9 per cent, compared with the average of 5.7 per cent in countries in the OECD. The Chamber goes on to estimate that real gross domestic product will fall from around 5.1 per cent in 1983-84 to 1.2 per cent in 1984-85, and unemployment is likely to increase at the same time in the order of 9.9 per cent. These are very different forecasts and put a very different emphasis on the development of economic policy in Australia from that which we have been getting in the last six months. But these are very real forecasts based on the facts as they exist, not on the political likelihood which suits a government, a government which is intent on going to the polls in December to maximise its position before these forecasts come to bear and before the people of Australia recognise the problems with which the Government is confronted. To ensure its position, the Government will now be facing the long winter of Budget formation. It is a major challenge as to how the Government will come to match up the spending requirements, particularly those of the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen), who is at the table, and the ability of the Australian taxpayer in the corporate area to provide the funds. That in itself was a challenge to our Government and will certainly be a challenge to the Labor Government. I can see in the future that to meet these requirements it is probable that the deficit will be sorely pressed to rise to $7.5 billion. The estimate of expenditure on forward Estimates that was provided was for $64 billion, but at least it was provided. Estimates of receipts, not provided but estimated on the basis of inflation, fiscal creep and the effect of inflation on income, is of the order of $55 billion, giving an overall deficit of $9 billion. We have had endless promises of tax cuts, not only in the lead up to the election; 'Ninety-nine per cent of Australians will get a tax cut', to quote the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). In the year from March 1983 to 1984 we saw the biggest single increase in tax in any year since the Second World War. That is quite a comparison. Mr McVeigh —What year was that? Mr MOORE —It was from l983 to 1984. The honourable member for Darling Downs, as a prominent citizen, would know this only too well from his tax bill. The Government is now talking of making a tax cut this year; not the promised one last year, not the one based on the substantial increase in income which the Government has received in the current year, but one that is being forecast for the election. So if there is to be a $1 billion tax cut, as has been freely thrown around, it will add another $l billion to the deficit taking it to just on $10 billion. How do we reach the magical sole figure of $7.5 billion? Where is the missing $2 billion to $2.5 billion? The long winter question for the Australian Labor Party will be how it can get to that point. Will it be raised in extra taxes when we have already been promised a tax cut? This will mean that we will be given a tax cut with one hand but it will be clawed back through expenditure taxes, through indirect charges. The Government has already indexed excise taxes; so it cannot slather it on the beer drinkers and the cigarette smokers as the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys) would recognise. But I forecast that the Government will find that it will have to expand its taxation areas into sales taxes, a capital gains tax and other charges to meet that end of the equation or will it attempt to cut Government spending? I have never known a Labor government that cut government spending. Labor governments have always been great spenders and politicians as a whole have loved handing money out, so why should not this Government? It is the easy thing to do. It is a wonderful thing to do, particularly when in government. I have even seen the Minister's name in one or two places and I am sure that he did not pay for the plaques that were put up. He is enjoying this new-found money bin. So as the Government addresses itself to these problems I wonder whether the taxpayers of Australia really know which way they will go. Will they be treated to a realistic tax cut to find the $2.5 billion or will they be treated to an illusory cut with extra tax at the edges? Will they be treated to a rigged Budget which will present a point of view in August for an election in December, with a totally different result in March? Dr Theophanous —You have not used that tactic, have you? Mr MOORE —The honourable member for Burke would have a fair bit to say on that matter. I am sure that he would not stand by and vote for a Budget that looked as bad as that. Mr Cohen —You did, on quite a number of occasions. What did you do in 1977? What about the fistful of dollars? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! I do not think that the honourable member for Ryan needs any assistance. Mr MOORE —Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thought the Minister needed assistance from time to time. I want to concentrate finally on the question of where we are today, having seen the difficulties and pointed out to the Government that it will need to improve substantially its outlook on business and its approach to the economy because things will be difficult in 1985-86 and a Budget of this size will only produce a bigger deficit in the future. It will produce areas which will be unmanageable unless attempts are taken to cut the deficit at this point. I do not believe for a moment that that will occur and as a consequence we will go into the high areas of stagflation in 1985-86, a dismal outlook indeed. The Bills before the House do point to a major problem which will face us all. It is something to which I hope all honourable members of this House, particularly Opposition members, will apply themselves. I hope they use their time to exploit all the weaknesses that occur. With those thoughts in mind, I indicate that the Opposition will not oppose the Bills. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Before I call the honourable member for Hughes, I point out to the House that this a maiden speech and I ask the House to extend to the honourable member for Hughes the normal courtesies. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(4.19) —I rise for the first time in this House to speak in support of the Appropriation Bills before the House. As is the custom in this place, I propose to speak in general terms on the state of Australian society and on the issues that I see as crucial to the future of Australia in the 1980s and beyond. May I say, Madam Deputy Speaker, how privileged I am to make my maiden speech with you in the chair as the first woman Deputy Speaker in the history of this Parliament. I take my place in this House as the member for Hughes, having been elected in the recent by-election which took place following the retirement of Mr Les Johnson. Mr Johnson was an extremely popular and effective local member and faithfully served the Australian Labor Party and the people of Hughes for a period spanning 28 years. I take the opportunity, on behalf of the Parliament, to wish Les Johnson and his wife Peggy a happy and rewarding future. Following my preselection by the Australian Labor Party to contest the seat of Hughes, another former member of this Parliament sent me a congratulatory telegram from Paris, where he conducts certain business on behalf of the Australian Government. His message read: May you continue to represent your part of my former electorate for many decades to come. I take this opportunity to thank Mr Whitlam for his good wishes. My first and foremost responsibility as a member of this Parliament is to serve the people of the Hughes electorate with the same dedication as that shown by my predecessor. I shall endeavour to do so to the best of my ability. The rank and file members of the Australian Labor Party in the electorate of Hughes selected me to contest the seat for the Australian Labor Party. To them, too, I owe a great debt and a responsibility to maintain my commitment to fight for reform and social justice in this country. The electorate of Hughes presents great challenges and contrasts. No other electorate in Australia has both an active peace movement and a large Army establishment, two national parks, coal mines, a vigorous community-based anti-uranium campaign and Australia's only nuclear reactor, and all on the doorstep of Sydney. I take great pride in being the newest member of the Hawke Labor Government. Our Government has the opportunity to cement itself as the natural party of government for Australia. Both the Prime Minister and the Government as a whole continue to enjoy high levels of public approval. We have gained, and clearly continue to retain, the confidence of the Australian people. Our Government, elected only one year ago, has already undertaken significant steps as a government of reform, and has begun to remove the legacy of gross inequalities and bitter divisions that so typified the Fraser years. Much still remains to be done, and I look forward to the many foreshadowed government initiatives, such as the enactment of national Aboriginal land rights legislation so desperately needed by Aboriginal Australians. Like the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins), who in his speech to the National Press Club last Wednesday described his political philosophy as that of a democratic socialist, I too embrace that philosophy. The road of a reforming government in this country is a hard one. That is so principally because of the dead hand of the conservative governments which have occupied the treasury bench in this House for most of my lifetime. The enduring contribution of Malcolm Fraser to the conservative forces in this country was the promotion of the myth that the Whitlam Government did too much too quickly, and for that reason was rejected by the Australian people. This conservative fabrication does a disservice to the intelligence of the Australian people. It has been accepted uncritically by a huge section of the media and warmly welcomed by the privileged and vested interests, who seek to defend by any means available their privileged position. The reality is, of course, that the reforming zeal of the Whitlam Government was most clearly in evidence following the election of that Government in December 1972 and throughout 1973, when the Sydney Morning Herald consistently carried banner headlines announcing: 'What the Government did today'. The Whitlam Labor Government was re-elected in 1974, thus dispelling the myth that the Australian people were not prepared to welcome innovative and radical reforms. To understand the reasons for Labor's loss of office in 1975 we should look primarily not to the speed of Labor's reforms but to the undemocratic institution of the Senate, the infamous role of the discredited Governor-General of the time, and the role of the privileged and vested interests to whom I have already referred. This Parliament has in its hands the power to influence the course of Australia for decades to come and is responsible for the future quality of life of young Australians. Last year I had the opportunity to officiate at the annual open air speech night of the Bundeena public school, situated in the Royal National Park in the neighbouring electorate of Cook. On that night, under the stars, I had time to reflect on the future of the young children at the school. At one time in Australia's history the children growing up in that small town in a national park may have been able to remain isolated from the economic dislocation evident in the world and from the threat of war. This is no longer the case. Perhaps for this reason those children had just finished writing an essay entitled: 'When I grow up I want the world to be here'. I believe that young Australians are increasingly conscious of the need to work collectively to build a better world. I am convinced that the quality of life of those children from Bundeena will depend upon whether or not we, as a Labor government, are able to develop and promote Labor's adopted alternative policies to replace the policies of free market forces promoted by the Liberal and National parties. There is no doubt in my mind that if the market forces of the conservatives were allowed to prevail, Australia would continue to become an industrial backwater of mass unemployment and human despair, while transnational corporations plundered our rich national resources to their hearts' content. The reign of three decades of conservative government since World War II has resulted in the wealthiest one per cent of the Australian population owning 22 per cent of the total wealth, and the richest 2,000 people in Australia owning as much as the poorest two and a half million Australians. The Brotherhood of St Laurence has estimated that over 2 million Australians live in poverty. The unrestrained operation of those free market forces and the record level of unrestrained foreign ownership of our industries and natural resources has resulted in a loss of economic sovereignty by the Australian people and their government. Crucial decisions affecting the wellbeing of Australians are taken not by the Parliament, not by the Government, not by the trade union movement, but by the controllers of transnational corporations in the boardrooms of London , New York, Tokyo, and elsewhere. Those corporations have shown time and again their contempt for national and State governments as they move to organise their production on a global basis to maximise their profits. If national governments get squashed in the process, that is just too bad. One of our major tasks as a Labor government is to initiate policies in co- operation with the trade union movement to force those corporations to be accountable to national governments. There can be no better example of this transnational tyranny than the actions of General Motors-Holden's Ltd when that company closed down its Pagewood plant in Sydney in 1980. On the very day of the closure the New South Wales Minister for Decentralisation and Minister for Industrial Development was in Detroit as the Government representative, trying to find out the future of the plant. On that day the General Motors official, Mr Chuck Chapman representing what must be seen by all decent Australians as the ugliest face of American capitalism, arranged for security guards to hand the workers their dismissal notices at the factory while he organised a slick Press conference at an international city hotel to try to sell this company decision to the public. The core of the Liberal and National parties' philosophy is that individualism is put on a pedestal. Solidarity with disadvantaged groups in this society is rejected and, as a result, injustice increases. This philosophy is spreading in many countries which have cut back on public expenditure, purportedly because of large budget deficits. The cuts which conservatives make hit the social welfare sector, and those who are worst off have to bear the brunt of those ill- conceived and conservative responses. The free marketeer opinion moulders say that people must make it on their own. They say: 'You fend for yourself and I will fend for myself. If I make it, that is fine, I will get my reward; but if you fail, it is your own fault and you have to take the consequences of that failure'. I believe that all decent Australians reject that philosophy as a dangerous and unjust creed to preach. Under that philosophy the weak are left to their fate while the strong, with good incomes and property, are left free to develop their individualism and further increase their profits and wealth. The end target of this conservative criticism is the public sector at the Federal, State and local levels. We on this side of the chamber recognise the crucial role played by the public sector in the future progress of Australia and the planning of the Australian economy. This applies, for example, to communications, education, research, social welfare services, water supplies, sewerage, occupational health and safety, environmental protection and many other areas. There is also tremendous potential for public ownership, the peoples' ownership, of productive enterprises and natural resources to generate profits not for foreign shareholders but for the benefit of all the people of Australia. I sit amongst a Western Australian contingent in this Parliament, and it is to the credit of the Western Australian Labor Government that it has already implemented the significant step of gaining public equity in the Argyle diamond mine in that State. I commend it for that. Many of those who criticise the public sector in this place forget that the activities of national, State and local governments influence favourably the profitability and production of the private sector in a direct way through the extensive procurement of goods and services. Those critics also forget that millions of Australians are directly or indirectly dependent upon government activities for their livelihood. The public sector can be an economic incentive in the development of Australia's economy, for example, by target-oriented procurement of technology, by public investments and by increased exports. I welcome the commitment of this Labor Government to ensuring the efficient operation of the public sector, to increase its accountability and yet to ensure and to enable the pursuit of important social objectives. This Government does not seek to build monolithic state bureaucracies which differ little in their operation from profit-oriented corporations in the private sector. The public sector is not only a support to and a condition necessary for the development of the Australian economy. Its activities are also necessary for the personal development and freedom of the Australian people. This freedom is not only the right to vote in general elections or the right to express one's opinion freely. Freedom is also the right to live and work in a decent environment, to have acceptable living conditions and the scope to develop as a person and to take part in the building of the community. Freedom and democracy, in democratic socialist philosophy, recognises the right of people, in co- operation with others, to be able to influence and to participate in the building of society. The Liberal-National Party concept of freedom and democracy recognises, and then only grudgingly, the right to vote once every three years to elect a government. This right to vote, important though it is, is really only the right to sign a political blank cheque and on its own amounts to the abdication of the political responsibility of individual Australians to a handful of elected politicians. Real democracy and freedom in other spheres of life-in the work place, at the local community level and in public institutions-are rejected by the conservatives. This participation is essential if people are to have confidence in the building of the future Australian society. Where were the democratic rights of the workers at Pagewood when the General Motors Corporation decision makers in Detroit took away their livelihood? The need to participate in decisions affecting the future of Australia applies particularly to young people. In fact it is my belief that the mass participation of Australians in the political process is the precondition of long term and sustainable progressive social change in this country. Thus, we would never have had a national sex discrimination law without the active participation of Australian women in the political process. I daresay that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, may not even have been a member of this Parliament had it not been for that political participation. In another sphere, and by the method of exercising the democratic right of peaceful protest, hundreds of thousands of Australians from all walks of life will march on Palm Sunday, 15 April, to echo their message that Australia ought to be doing even more to promote nuclear disarmament. If we are able to achieve a society in which the great worth of all its members is a reality and in which all people have the right to a free and independent life, we Australians who share these goals must, in a spirit of solidarity, take responsibility for the economic and social situation of our fellow Australians. Australians are not worried only about their material welfare. They are concerned also about issues which impinge upon our very existence and our prospects for survival. These are the issues of war and peace, of our life environment, of food, water and shelter for the starving millions of the world and of our ability to stop the continuing arms race. The growth of the anti- nuclear movement in recent years is tangible evidence of the serious concerns that people around the world feel about these issues. In a nuclear war there will be no winners, only losers. Political and ideological opponents must for that reason work together for disarmament and common security. It is for this reason that I view with alarm the publication in the last few days of a purported confidential Cabinet document entitled 'Strategic Basis of Australian Defence Policy'. I welcome and support the Government's assurance that the specific policy proposals in the document have not been endorsed and I place on record my support for the Government's view that we will not tolerate the importation or development of nuclear weapons by Australia. I regret that this view is not shared by a selection of the mad bombers on the other side of this House. We have suffered from decades of cold war hysteria, and its sole legacy is to leave arsenals of nuclear destruction in the hands of the super- powers. The development of the non-aligned movement is, in my view, further evidence of the quest of nations to find a role in international relations outside the shadow of the super-powers. Although differences exist throughout the world, we must remember that most of the invariables in people's lives-their big life project-are the same for all people right across national borders and for all time. They are the rights to grow up and be reared; to find playmates and friends; to get an education when one is young and prepare oneself for the various roles in adult life; to find a place in working life and to make one's living; to live in adequate housing; to have the right to select a lifestyle of one's own choosing; and, if chosen, to establish a family and bring children into the world. All these are the invariables of human life. It is that simple or it is that remarkable. These are some of the common bonds of humanity which ought to unite us all. Our task as members of parliament is to play our part in organising Australian society so as to allow all Australians the right to realise their life projects. The efforts of this Labor Government, I believe, are directed to these ends. To achieve our goals, I urge all Australians who share these ideals to take an active and continuing part in the efforts to achieve freedom and justice not only in Australia but also throughout the world. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(4.38) —Before starting my remarks I would like to join the colleagues of the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) on the other side of the House in congratulating the honourable gentleman on his maiden speech. Having listened to it very carefully, I must say that over the months and years ahead there may well be occasions when I marginally disagree with some of the things that the honourable gentleman says. But can I say in no sense of humbug or cant that I believe he delivered his speech in a very articulate and well- reasoned manner and I respect the integrity with which he holds to a genuine Labor viewpoint. I welcome the prospect of a sharpened debate along ideological lines with Labor opponents espousing what I have always understood to be the essence of Labor Party policies. I am, therefore, indebted to the honourable member for Hughes for reminding the Australian public and this Parliament that there are very large numbers of people in the Australian Labor Party who want their Party back. The honourable gentleman has certainly done that, and he has done the House and his Party a very great service in reminding us of just precisely what political difference in this House is all about. For that reason, I doubly welcome and compliment the honourable member for Hughes on the remarks that he has made. I should like to direct my remarks in this debate on the Appropriation Bills to the appropriation in regard to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. To be more precise, I should like to direct my remarks to the Minister in charge of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. I should like to make a few comments about the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I should like to make a few comments about the political conduct of the present Prime Minister, and I should like to make a few comments about his political double standards. Mr Cohen —Are you going to be nasty? Mr HOWARD —I am going to talk about the Prime Minister's politics. I am interested in his politics, and I am interested in the double standards of his politics, because I think that the double standards of his politics are very important to the Australian public, as, indeed, they are important to the members of the Party that the Prime Minister leads. Those who follow politics in Australia ought to be very indebted to the head of the Canberra Bureau of the Sydney Morning Herald, Paul Kelly, for his book entitled The Hawke Ascendancy. I think that anyone who has read that book would agree that it is fairly complimentary about the Prime Minister. I think that it is a very good book, and it is complimentary about the Prime Minister. But I think that we should be particularly indebted to Paul Kelly for doing one thing in particular, and that is putting to an end the myth and the idea that in some way the present Prime Minister is a person who, although he is part of the political process in Australia, is some kind of supra-political figure who stands above it all and never dirties his hands in a political sense, who never gets involved in any kind of machination, and that in some way the present Prime Minister is the fortunate beneficiary, in a benign unsuspecting sense, of circumstances that carried him along to high pinnacles of political success and authority. Really, Paul Kelly has done a great service in spelling out in a very accurate manner that it really is not like that. Far from the Prime Minister, some 14 months ago, going away, sitting down and contemplating matters in a very philosophical manner and suddenly finding out, quite without design and without effort, that things were moving in his direction so far as the leadership of his own Party was concerned. Paul Kelly's book spells it out fairly clearly that the Prime Minister was up to his armpits in all the manoeuvring and all the machinations that were going on at that time. Paul Kelly describes in great detail how the Prime Minister worked very closely with the Australian Council of Trade Unions to delay the announcement and the unveiling of the then Labor Opposition's economic policy, so that all of it would work to the disadvantage of the then Leader of the Opposition and, of course, to the advantage of the putative Leader of the Opposition, the present Prime Minister. It is very interesting for any student of recent Australian politics to understand that that book destroys for all time the myth and the idea that many Australians hold that in some way Bob Hawke is above all of us, that he is quite different from any of us, and that in no way does he get involved in any of the unseemly machinations which are characteristic of his Party. The book brings it home very clearly that he is right there in the thick of it. Any suggestion that in some way he is apart from it is absolute nonsense. That really exposes the first double standard. We have heard a great deal from the Prime Minister since he has occupied the office about how people should get around the table and different sections of the community should sink their differences. I want to analyse that proposition. I want also to analyse another proposition that the Prime Minister has constantly put and that is that oppositions should be constructive, that they should not be negative and that they should adopt a positive attitude towards sensible government initiatives that might be unpopular in the short term but important to the long term benefit of the country. I would have to say that in theory I agree with the Prime Minister that there are occasions on which an opposition ought not to take political advantage of the short term discomfort caused by a policy which is being promoted or being canvassed by the government of the day. Perhaps the present Prime Minister in particular and the Government in general would be having a little more success in their bipartisan appeals to the present Opposition and to the community if their track record of bipartisan approaches to difficult issues when they were in opposition had been a little better. There are a few of us on our side of politics who get just a little cynical and a little fed up with the way in which the Prime Minister in particular regales us and says: 'You are a negative, destructive opposition, and you never adopt a positive attitude or make a positive response to anything that we propose'. Has the Prime Minister forgotten the record of negativism of the Labor Party over the last few years to each and every long term policy proposal put forward or canvassed by the Fraser Government which inevitably involved some kind of short term unpopularity and discomfort? Has he forgotten the attitude that he and his colleagues took to the crude oil pricing policy? Has he forgotten that his colleague the present Treasurer (Mr Keating) said that that policy represented the establishment of a branch of the Australian Taxation Office at every petrol bowser in Australia? Not only has the present Government embraced the policy, but also it has not closed down any branches of that Taxation Office. It has gone on collecting the tax in exactly the same way, and now that members of the Labor Party are in government they are quite happy to accept the logic of that policy, but they were perfectly prepared to take short term advantage of the discomfort and the unpopularity. What did the Prime Minister say about that when he was in opposition? He supported that totally negative approach. What about the wage pause which has done so much to deliver the lower inflation about which the Treasurer and the Prime Minister now crow on every occasion on which they talk about the economy? That wage pause has contributed more to reducing Australia's inflation rate over the last year than the prices and incomes accord will do in 10 years. Yet what was the Prime Minister's attitude when that was introduced? It was one of a negative response. He described it as counter-productive. He said that it was a gimmick. His views were consistent with those of the President of the ACTU, Mr Dolan, who said in January 1983: I don't want to sound cynical about this and I'm definitely not trying to, but while there are 10 per cent of workers unemployed there are 90 per cent in employment. In other words, the view was: 'Do not worry about the 10 per cent who are out of work; there are 90 per cent employed. So the idea that that 90 per cent should make a sacrifice, in terms of their real income, to help the 10 per cent who are out of work is something that we dismiss out of hand'. That was a very constructive response! In other words, it was a totally negative response from the Prime Minister and from the Party of which he is a member when the wage pause was introduced. It gives the lie to any suggestion that in opposition Labor members were prepared to behave in anything other than a totally destructive and negative fashion. We all remember the way in which members of the present Government reacted when the report of the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System was tabled in November 1981. We had the Treasurer talking yesterday about all the deregulatory things that he was going to do. But when the Campbell report was tabled in this Parliament, I felt on a number of occasions that I was the only person who was the least bit supportive of it. Not one member of the Labor Party had any kind of sympathy or adopted any kind of approach other than a totally negative and totally critical response. In fact, in January of last year, when I announced on behalf of the former Government that we would be licensing the introduction into Australia of about 10 foreign banks, the present Treasurer said that I was a tool of overseas financial interests, that I was selling out Australia's interests to foreigners, and that I was behaving in a way that was totally inconsistent with the interests of the Australian community . So much for the constructive opposition of the Labor Party. So much for the Labor Party's desire on that occasion to behave in a positive manner. Finally in that vein let us look at taxation. The Government has talked a great deal about the need to reform the Australian taxation system. I agree with it. I have made no secret of the fact that I believe that a number of major reforms to the Australian taxation system are needed. I have also indicated that, if some of those reforms are adopted by the present Government, I for one will support its initiatives in that area. But let us take our minds back only a couple of years to the attitude of the Prime Minister and his colleagues when the former Government was canvassing proposals to change the taxation system. Their response was totally negative. Their response was totally opportunist. Their response was totally critical and destructive and was one that left no political room to manoeuvre as far as the then Government was concerned. Their response flew totally in the face of any proposition that we could have a bipartisan approach from the Australian Labor Party, of which the present Prime Minister was then a member in opposition, and gave the lie completely to the argument that he now advances that he has always been a supporter of a bipartisan approach. That brings me to another area, that is, the relations between the present Government and the Australian business community. I think that one of the interesting commentaries that ought to be made on the politics of Australia over recent years is that, to its great credit, the Australian business community has been willing to give to the new Labor Government the go that the trade union movement was totally unwilling to give to the former Government when it was elected in 1976. I think it is the role of all sections of Australian society to co-operate with elected governments, whether they approve of those elected governments or not. That applies to all people, be they in the trade union movement, a member of the business community or whatever. I think it is proper that large sections of the business community-indeed, that all sections-should co-operate and should deal and in every way associate with the elected government of the day, be it a Liberal or a Labor government. Of course, that is a concept that the Prime Minister is now very happy to embrace. He prides himself on being able, he keeps talking about how he is able, to talk to the business community. I think that is a good thing. A Prime Minister should have very good relations with the business community and should be willing to do so. But the interesting thing about the Prime Minister is that when the boot was on the other foot where was he to be found? Where was he to be found as the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions in 1977 when that body, representing the trade unionists of Australia, had a fiftieth anniversary dinner? What did it do? It was so narrow-minded, so mean-minded, that it refused to invite the elected leader of the Government of the day to that gathering. Honourable members opposite seem to think that is terribly amusing. We can imagine what would happen if today the Confederation of Australian Industry were to hold a dinner or a function of that magnitude and were to refuse to invite the Labor Prime Minister. If that were to happen we would have all the Labor members, including those on the Right, coming into this House and saying: 'That is yet another example of the negative attitude of large corporations and multinationals in Australia towards the elected government of the day'. That is yet another illustration of what happens when the boot is on the other foot. This Prime Minister who now craves consensus, this Prime Minister who now believes in a bipartisan approach, this Prime Minister who now asks for positive , constructive opposition, this Prime Minister who quite rightly expects all sections of the Australian community to deal with the elected Government and to accept the elected Government, which of course they do, when the boot was on the other foot and he was in another situation and acting in another capacity was willing to take a totally partisan approach, a totally negative approach, a totally mean-minded approach and an approach that compares very unfavourably with the approach that he now expects from the rest of the Australian community. It is little wonder that, when one goes back over the period of the 1960s and 1970s, one can find that the contribution made by the present Prime Minister in a former capacity towards a wages explosion and therefore the increase in unemployment in Australia was a very big one indeed. Many people who have studied the development of unemployment in Australia during that period talk very deliberately of the Hawke factor in unemployment. One is reminded of the impetus given by the present Prime Minister when he was President of the ACTU to so many excessive wage increases which cost so many jobs, to the fuelling of so many industrial disputes and to the adoption of a far more militant and destructive stance by the Australian trade union movement when he occupied that position. Regrettably, some of those things have passed from the immediate consciousness of many people in Australia. I think that, when we reflect upon the appropriations for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, it is as well to remind ourselves of the political double standards of the present Prime Minister of Australia, a person who preaches and advocates consensus and a bipartisan approach now that he is in government. It is great to have a bipartisan approach when in government; I can tell the House that. Of course the present Prime Minister is no exception to that rule. His only problem is that when he was in opposition he was not the least bit interested in adopting a bipartisan approach. He was there up to his armpits in the most partisan behaviour of a political kind imaginable. That is demonstrated very clearly in the events that are traversed in Paul Kelly's book, The Hawke Ascendancy, which ends the myth that in some way the Prime Minister is above it all, that even though we can criticise all the other people on the front bench we must not criticise the Prime Minister because he is different from everybody else and if anything goes wrong with the present Government it is Scholes's fault or Cohen's fault, or maybe somebody else's fault. Mr Cohen —He's got 78 per cent popularity. That's where he is different. Mr HOWARD —I do not care what percentage popularity the Prime Minister has; the fact of the matter is that the events of the last year and the events of recent years demonstrate that, far from the present Prime Minister being above it all and being immune to criticism, he has been there in the thick of it. He has been as divisive, as confrontationist, as negative and as partisan as any other political leader in Australia. He demonstrated that when he was President of the ACTU. He demonstrated that when he was a member of the then Labor Opposition. He is perfectly happy to join in criticism of the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher), but does he offer a word of criticism of the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) for what he is doing? Mr McGauran —No. Mr HOWARD —Does he talk about that Minister's subsidised flat? Of course he does not. He is perfectly happy to stand by and laugh at the fact that the Transport Workers Union has put a ban on the honourable member for Hume, but is he willing to criticise the conduct of his own Special Minister of State, whose crime was much greater because that Minister was responsible for leaking information that could have been dangerous to national security. Mr Cohen —Oh! Mr HOWARD —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, who is at the table, says: 'Oh'. I know that he does not like being reminded of these things. I know that he does not like being told about the double standards of his Leader, but they are double standards. I can tell the Minister that a lot more reminding about the double standards of the Prime Minister is going to go on in the months ahead. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(4.59) —Before I begin my comments on the Appropriation Bills , I offer my congratulations to the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) on his maiden speech. It was a wonderful speech and I look forward to working with him for many years in this Parliament. I was interested in the new-found obsession with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) of the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard). Obviously he was attempting to find out how the Prime Minister manages to get his 78 per cent popularity polling. I imagine he is particularly interested in the fact that the Prime Minister holds a higher level of popularity among Liberal supporters than does his own Leader, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). I think he should devote some of his attention to looking to his own Party and should let us look after our Leader. I also noted with interest the reference of the honourable member for Bennelong to Paul Kelly's excellent book, The Hawke Ascendancy. The chapters I was particularly interested in were those containing the comments about the honourable member's own performance when Treasurer, particularly the difficulties he experienced in getting so many of his policies accepted by the previous Prime Minister. I think he would do much better if he were to look at the problems he experienced in government and were to look towards reforms in his own Party. Today I wish to speak on the issue of consumer affairs. This is a topic which has been neglected by this House. It is an area which has an enormous impact on individuals' lives and it is an area in which this Government has made a substantial impact despite the fact that this issue has not been discussed in this House. The consumer movement is a creation of the generation represented by the younger members of this House. When I was a child there was no consumer movement in Australia. During the 1960s the Australian consumer movement grew from nothing to a force to be reckoned with in Australian politics. The new movement successfully lobbied for the creation of State consumer affairs bureaus . Between 1969 and 1974 every State and Territory established a consumer affairs bureau or department. Then, in 1974, the Whitlam Government created Australia's premier consumer protection agency-the Trade Practices Commission. Unfortunately, Australia's major political parties have been slow to recognise consumerism as a significant new social movement. I include my own Party in this criticism. Too many old style Labor people view the consumer movement as trendy and middle class or, alternatively, as not to be taken seriously because it is predominated by women. I recall references by some of my colleagues in past years to 'strident housewives whinging about food prices'. On the other side of politics, even more simplistic views of the consumer movement were put. It was regarded as a new power base for the radical Left and the blindly anti-business. These are the sorts of slogans that we have heard issued by the conservative members of this House. Fortunately, those honourable members in the Labor Party who want to discount consumerism have now become a minority. This Government is building a commitment to consumer protection reform which will be of historic significance. I am glad to see the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen), who is responsible for these matters, in the House today. Consumerism is not a passing fad. Choice magazine now has a circulation of over 200,000-an understatement of its impact because so many families share subscriptions and, as any librarian would tell us, so many read it in public libraries. Mrs Darling —It is a good magazine. Mrs KELLY —It is indeed. It provides a lot of valuable information. In 1974, the Labor Party came to realise that the consumer movement was the important new social movement of the late twentieth century, just as trade unionism was the emerging great social movement of the late nineteenth century. Exactly 10 years ago the Whitlam Government encouraged and funded the establishment of a peak council for the consumer movement-the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations, or AFCO. AFCO has a membership of 55 consumer groups. Through regular conferences, AFCO builds consensus within the movement so that it speaks to governments with one voice on matters of policy. The other important function of AFCO is to co-ordinate the activities of consumer representatives on some 70 governmental or quasi-governmental committees. No government has given greater recognition to the principle of balancing producer representation with consumer representation than the Hawke Government. The Prime Minister has appointed Dr John Braithwaite from AFCO to the Economic Planning Advisory Council-the most important advisory council in Australia. This Government has a philosophy of consumer representation which the conservative parties lack. The main points of this philosophy are: Producer representatives on government committees or councils should be balanced by consumer representatives wherever possible. Consumer representatives should be selected from nominees of a democratically constituted consumer movement just as trade union representatives are selected from nominees by the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The Fraser Government had a propensity to appoint political hacks and call them consumer representatives. These people had no means of consulting with and reporting to a wide base of consumers. Often they were no match for business representatives because they lacked a support network for information and research. Consumer representatives should be disproportionately women. While most business and trade union leaders are men, large numbers of women active in the consumer movement give governments a chance to increase the voice of women. I note with satisfaction the recent appointment by my colleague, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), of a female AFCO representative, Mrs Suzanne Russel , to the Interim Inspection Policy Council, the recent appointment of Dr Kate Harrison to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's National Program Advisory Committee, and the suggestion by the Minister for Health, (Dr Blewett), that AFCO's current male appointee to the National Health and Medical Research Council be replaced by a female appointee during the next triennium. In June 1983, soon after the election of the Hawke Government, AFCO published a policy paper proposing a wide range of reforms the new government should consider to give consumers a better deal. One of them was for enhanced consumer representation. I have already dealt with the progress of this Government in this area. Beyond that, it is remarkable to run through this document just nine months after it was released, and just over one year after the Hawke Labor Government came into power, to note how many of the proposed reforms have already been introduced by the Government. Let me list some of them. In its June 1983 paper, AFCO urged that the Commonwealth be given power to order the recall of hazardous consumer products. At the moment, governments can only try to persuade manufacturers to recall dangerous goods. By September last year, State Ministers had agreed with the Federal Minister that the Commonwealth should have a reserve power to force unscrupulous traders into recalls which they refuse to do voluntarily. The Department of Home Affairs and Environment is currently working on appropriate legislation. It is notable that the Confederation of Australian Industry has decided not to oppose this progressive legislation. The AFCO paper also proposed that the Trade Practices Act be amended to forbid the export of banned products. This suggestion has been adopted in the paper of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) outlining possible amendments to the Trade Practices Act. It is a very welcome advance. I understand that legislation will come before the House during its Budget session . AFCO urged implementation of the report of the inquiry into hazardous chemicals by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation. Included among the initiatives of this Government to implement that report are moves to establish a national institute of environmental and occupational health and a chemical hazards assessment unit to evaluate toxicological data on chemicals in the Department of Health. Drafting of legislation to control hazardous chemicals in the Australian Capital Territory has also finally begun. Much still remains to be done, however, to protect Australian consumers and workers from hazardous chemicals. However, progress is under way. AFCO also urged the Government to provide for legal action by groups of consumers who have suffered a common harm. This is Labor policy. The Government is awaiting a report of the Australian Law Reform Commission on access to the courts before introducing fully fledged representative actions. In the meantime, however, the Attorney-General and the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment have announced that it is proposed to allow the Trade Practices Commission to seek redress on behalf of consumers harmed as a result of business conduct which has been the subject of a successful Commission legal action. In the past, the Commission has been able to convict companies only to find that it has now power to act collectively on behalf of the large numbers of consumers injured by the companies. AFCO urged reform to deal with problems of discrimination in the market place, such as discrimination against women in the granting of credit. The sex discrimination legislation of my colleague, the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan), will go a long way towards dealing with these problems. AFCO urged that the warranty provisions of the Trade Practices Act be available against inadequate services, such as insurance, as well as inadequate goods. The Government has also indicated a desire to introduce this reform in the exposure draft Trade Practices Act amendments. AFCO complained of the unreasonable limitations of the razor gang ministerial directive to confine Trade Practices Commission consumer protection work to cases arising from complaints and only to cases affecting more than one State. This directive has been lifted. AFCO urged a need for energy labelling on major household appliances such as refrigerators, freezers, heaters, and so on. Such labels would allow comparative shopping on the basis of the amount of energy consumed by competing brands. The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) has made this a priority since March 1983. AFCO has been given representation on the Minister's Energy Labelling Implementation Code of Practice Drafting Committee. The consumer movement expressed a variety of deep concerns about the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal's report on cable and subscription television. Since the honourable member for Holt (Mr Duffy) became Minister for Communications, the Government has been responsive to the consumer movement's concerns for a cautious approach to cable and subscription television which guarantees public participation rather than monopolisation of the new technology, which protects Australian content and the quality of programs. I could outline many of the other developments in this area, but before I conclude I would like to make reference to some areas where progress should be made to give consumers in Australia the protection they need. Consumer education is one area where Federal initiatives are needed. The Fraser Government scrapped the Curriculum Development Centre in the Department of Education and Youth Affairs. The Centre has now been restored by this Government. There is a need for the Consumer Affairs Division in the Department of Home Affairs and Environment to do a lot more on consumer education. Another area that needs to be examined is that of electronic funds transfer systems. This new technology mystifies consumers and puts them at some risk of being victims of computer error or inadequate security over their plastic transaction cards. In the past, the Commonwealth has simply not done enough to ensure that new technology such as this is introduced in a way which provides maximum benefit to consumers and builds in guarantees of consumer education. Soon shoppers all over Australia will be putting a plastic card in an automated teller machine to pay their grocery bills. Unfortunately, the race between financial institutions to get in first with this technology may mean that consumers will have to confront a row of incompatible automated teller machines at the checkout-one for the banks, one for the building societies, one for the credit unions, and so on. It is important that the interests of consumers are protected as well as the interests of financial institutions when we are looking at new technology. Other areas need to be looked at in the future. One of them is the possibility of establishing an adequately resourced consumer product safety authority. Hazardous products traded interstate and internationally must be accepted as a national responsibility if we are to shake off our status as a Third World country with respect to product safety, a country in which other nations feel they can dump banned products with immunity. Australia needs a consumer product safety authority to get down to the job of writing mandatory standards in areas where there is evidence of serious injury to consumers. Examples of unregulated products which need national mandatory safety standards include plastics which come in contact with food, where a standard is needed to prevent migration of chemicals into food from plastic packaging, and particularly plastics which might be used in microwave ovens; constructional and flammability requirements to protect children from death and injury from toys; a standard to prevent the risk of eye damage from poor quality lenses in sunglasses; for motor vehicle tyres, new and replacement, a standard to prevent fatalities on the road from defective tyres; labelling of solariums to advise on the severe risk of skin damage; labelling of sun screen agents, to advise on the products' screening effectiveness; labelling of kerosene heaters to prevent use of dangerous fuels. I could give many other examples. I have outlined some of the developments that have taken place in the consumer area under the Hawke Government. At the same time, I hope that we will continue our advancement in the field of consumer protection. The philosophy of this Government is that some areas of consumer protection are a national responsibility. Not everything can be left to the States. The Government acknowledges that there must be consultation with the States, but it is important that the Federal Government take responsibility for certain areas of national legislation in the consumer area. Over the last year I have outlined many specific developments in the consumer area. Of course, Australian consumers are affected by a wide range of policy issues, including Medicare, the establishment of the Prices Surveillance Authority, and the improvement in the economy. All of these areas work towards making Australia a better place for the consumer. The Hawke Labor Government must continue its initiative in this area. I believe that it is an area which should receive a great deal more consideration by this Parliament. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Before calling the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), I remind the House that the honourable member is about to make his maiden speech. I ask the House to extend the customary courtesies. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(5.15) —On rising in this House to speak for the first time I should like to express my sincere thanks to honourable members. I am appreciative of the cordial and friendly way in which they have received me and helped me in recent weeks. It is my sincere hope that the cordial relationships which have developed in the recent past will continue for all my time in this place. Additionally, I should like to thank the parliamentary officers for their help in explaining the procedures and formalities of this House. If I fail to observe all of these formalities it will not be the fault of those who have tutored me. The electoral division of Richmond, which I have the honour to represent, was created at Federation and in that time has been represented by only six members, of whom I am the sixth. All my predecessors have been distinguished parliamentarians, all have been non-Labor, predominantly National Party or its predecessor, the Country Party. The first member was Sir Thomas Ewing. He was followed by Sir Walter Massey-Greene, then Roland Green, and then Larry Anthony, the father of the former member, the Rt Hon. Doug Anthony. Larry Anthony and his son Doug Anthony represented the electorate of Richmond for almost 50 years. I am extremely conscious of the responsibility and standard that both the Anthonys set and which I have to live up to. I take this opportunity to wish Doug Anthony and his wife Margot a long, happy and satisfying retirement. I also thank the National Party organisation in Richmond for selecting me to carry the Party's banner. I sincerely hope that I will be able to fulfil its confidence in me. Of the previous representatives for Richmond, undoubtedly the most distinguished was my predecessor, the Rt Hon. J. D. Anthony. He is well known not only to members of this House but also to Australians at large and to many people overseas. Doug Anthony represented the people of Richmond well. He served his country with distinction and credit, both at home and overseas. In the course of his long parliamentary career he held many high offices, including the positions of Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of my Party, the National Party of Australia. He will be recorded in the history of our Party as a great and successful leader. In the course of his long career, which extended over 27 years, Doug Anthony earned a reputation as a capable parliamentarian, a strong leader and an astute politician. To his great credit, he earned and maintained a reputation for honesty and integrity, a reputation that has never been questioned. It is an honour to follow a man of the calibre of Doug Anthony. It is an honour to represent the people of Richmond. I thank the people of Richmond for their support and pledge to work to promote and advance their interests. Richmond is perhaps one of the most beautiful and diverse electorates in Australia. The climate is warm, the beaches are magnificent, and the landscape is nearly always green. It has been described, justifiably I believe, as Eden. These basic attributes have been the foundation of the extremely rapid growth that has taken place in recent years. Our major industries are the traditional rural industries of the region and also the new industries based on the region's natural advantages. New crops such as avocadoes and macadamias have been introduced. Additionally, the tourist industry has grown. Richmond has become a playground for the residents of the metropolitan areas. To further our development in Richmond and to further the growth of the tourist industry, it is essential that priority be given to developing rational and economical air fare policies in Australia, and greater emphasis must be placed on road funding. The potential for growth in Richmond is almost unlimited, but we must be careful not to damage our natural environment. In my opinion if the so-called sunrise industries are to be encouraged anywhere in Australia they should be encouraged in the Northern Rivers region as that would appear to be the most logical place for them to grow and develop. Industry should be encouraged where people are and where jobs are needed. It is futile to fight economic and population trends. Why attempt to locate industries in cold southern climes except for short term political expediency? The Northern Rivers region is one of the fastest growing areas in Australia and it is common sense to encourage new industries to this area. The high technology sunrise industries are the logical choice to encourage to Richmond. They are clean, they do not damage the environment, and they provide employment for young people who are able to grow and develop with them. If we are to provide the right foundation for these new and exciting industries we must ensure that our work force can cope with the challenges that they provide and supply the work skills needed by them. Without doubt the Northern Rivers region requires additional education facilities. Priority must be given to developing fully the Northern Rivers College of Advanced Education at Lismore and more funds must be made available for technical education. The rapid population growth of the north coast region in recent years is a result of decisions by retired people, families and young people to enjoy the tremendous natural advantages of the region. I am committed to working to ensure that the people of Richmond enjoy a high and rising standard of living. I am concerned to protect our environment, to enhance the community's amenities and to promote economic development to provide prosperity and security. It is essential that we have a stable social and economic environment in which individuals and families can plan their future. In Richmond, small business is big business. It is the largest employer and the most important sector of our economy. Small business is suffering in the current economic environment. It is suffering because the Government does not understand business. It does not understand the need of business to make a profit. The Government feels that business is the goose that laid the golden egg, that it can be taxed and can pay increasing government charges to finance government largesse, for political reasons, in other sectors of the economy. It is the state and development of the Australian economy that now I propose to address. Governments in the Western world face a dilemma. On the one hand economists tell us to spend less, to restrict the size of Budget deficits and to limit the growth in the supply of money. However, on the other hand there are considerable and often irresistible electoral pressures on government to spend more. Considered in isolation, every individual cause or case is worthy of support or special consideration. However, the basic law of economics-limited resources to satisfy unlimited demands-restrains the generosity of government. This conflict-the spend more, spend less conflict-extends to other aspects of government activity. Often we are told that government has become too big; that there is too much law, too many regulations and too many obstacles in the way of individuals or the other entities that make up our economy to permit them to grow and develop. Most laws and regulations are to stop people doing things; they are negative in their impact. We hear cries for small government and the need to limit the size and power of the public sector. However, there is an essential conflict. While many people cry small government, the same people, in a different context, cry with equal conviction that government should do something about it, or them. Again a dilemma faces government. It is a dilemma arising from the contradictory attitudes that exist within our society. These contradictory attitudes exist simultaneously within each and every one of us. No one is immune; we are all susceptible. It depends on the issue. There is no simple answer to this problem which I believe is a major philosophical question facing any democratic government in a developed mixed economy today. It is possible to spend more and to have huge deficits and massive taxation. It is possible-it is attempted by some parties-to regulate everything that moves, to encumber the individual and enterprise with so much red tape that they cease to work. The result is to remove incentive from society, to tax away the will to work and to regulate to submission the incentive of the entrepreneur. The consequence is a society totally dominated by government and a population lacking in spirit. This is not what I want for Australia and it is not what Australians want for themselves and their children. The real answer to this philosophical problem is for government to recognise its responsibility and to adhere to that responsibility; to resist the temptation, which arises from political grounds, to become involved in areas that are more properly or best left to other institutions or to individuals themselves. The proper role of government is to provide a framework within which our society can operate in a social, commercial and industrial sense. It is always dangerous to simplify but the legitimate objective and role of government in our society is to provide for Australia's people a better place in which to live and work. It is not the role of government to employ everyone in Australia. Governments do not create wealth. If governments attempt to increase the size of the public sector beyond the capacity of the private sector to support it, there will be no Australia; we will all be on the dole of some other more far-sighted foreign country that allows the private sector to continue. A rational and objective consideration of the factors affecting life in Australia today will show, I believe, that this is the only approach that will ensure progress and growth. Ad hoc policies designed to provide short term solutions for the sake of political expediency do not stand up to scrutiny and will not endure. Ad hoc policies are in the nature of tactical decisions- tactical political decisions. If the motivation for such decisions is generally false then the response that they initiate in government will also be false. There is nothing more certain than the fate of governments without commitment to providing enduring solutions to the real problems that face Australia today. Superficial governments-governments that live by tactics-will die by those tactics. The Australian people are mature and sophisticated. They will inevitably reject the shadow of appearances for the reality of policy-providing, of course, that these policies are designed to make Australia a better place in which to live and work; a place where the average person can be confident of his or her future , where there are more jobs, less tax, freedom for the individual and a free enterprise economy which provides a rising standard of living. I believe that Australians are basically self-reliant, with a preference for looking after themselves rather than being looked after-especially if the price of being looked after is a loss of freedom. This loss of freedom is inherent in the continued growth in the public sector. This growth requires, for example, all Australians to carry a plastic card bearing a number and to submit to lodging returns for simple, basic health care for their families. Australians will not tolerate indecisive governments. Governments must not, under any circumstances, create feelings of insecurity or uncertainty among the people of Australia. This is a basic responsibility of government, a responsibility which must be lived up to. It should be of paramount consideration, especially in regard to the aged or families. It is grossly irresponsible for a government to create feelings of insecurity and uncertainty in a sector of our society-one which has contributed to our country for 40 years or 50 years in the work place-when people in that sector are trying to plan for their retirement in their old age without knowing the guidelines and rules which the Government will apply to their retirement. All government policies should be evenhanded. They should not discriminate between our citizens. We should not create classes of citizens within Australia. There is no role for positive discrimination in favour of one Australian on the ground that other Australians can look after themselves. All Australians should be equal before the government and should have equal opportunity. All Australians should have the opportunity to benefit from all the laws and provisions of this country irrespective of their sex, the colour of their skin or their religion. Australia is one nation and unless we are to face major social problems in the future it is essential that all government policies, as well as the public pronouncements and rhetoric associated with them, actually encourage unity. Australia's future lies as a trading nation. If we are to exploit and prosper from the natural advantages and resources of this nation we must ensure that they are available to the people of the world. Australians will maximise their standard of living only if the resources of this country are developed. It is total economic nonsense to attempt to be self-sufficient. Australia must trade. If we do not trade we will decline. We must sell what we can produce cheaply and well and we must buy the best products of our trading partners. All sectors of the Australian economy must recognise this economic truism. All Australians must be made aware of the costs of government intervention in the economy, the impact that government intervention has on the markets, the costs of distortion and the consequences of disrupting the rational allocation of resources throughout the economy. It is essential that the Government begin to dismantle the protection and support schemes which are burdens on our industries-burdens which cost jobs, increase taxes and depress our standard of living. Briefly, these are the objectives which I propose to work for in order to advance the interests of the people of Richmond and of Australia as a whole. I thank honourable members for listening in silence. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(5.33) —I congratulate the two honourable members who have given their maiden speeches today-the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) and the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt). Both of them were really quite impressive in their delivery and in their subject matter. I am sure that both of them will have a distinguished career in this House. I wish them well and I know that every honourable member who speaks in this debate later will also wish them well and will congratulate them on well delivered speeches. The House witnessed a rather unusual demonstration last week on behalf of a number of people who want more money allocated in the Budget to low cost housing . While no one can condone such an interruption of the business of the House, one can understand the frustrations and the anger of the lobbyists who came here trying to get low cost housing. I am pleased to note that the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) is assuring people who are lobbying for housing that the Budget will not forget these important interests. Of course, the Government's first priority must be to the citizens who have been working and paying rent and who suddenly find when they go on the pension that they have an enormous cut in income-perhaps their income drops by two-thirds or more-and they can no longer pay rent and must, therefore, throw themselves on the mercy of the State housing commissions. We all know and we all see people in our constituencies who are faced with this dilemma of a cut in income once they reach the age of 65 or 60 years. These people must have first claim on the limited stock of public housing. The previous Government, much to its disgrace and shame, provided no funds at all for public housing except for the aged. The whole problem regarding the rundown of public housing and the calamitous shortage of housing for families is a disgrace to our nation, particularly when we compare ourselves with other countries. It has also caused a great heating-up of the rental market for housing, both in the big cities and in country areas. During the debate today on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1983-84, the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1983-84 and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1983-84, which are before the House, I wish to say a word for the provision of additional funding for education in the Budget-funding for our children, our future generations. I want to canvass generally the need for extra funds for the state schools and for the non-state schools. These schools are filled with the young people of our own areas who in many cases, I believe, are not getting a fair go. They are not getting an education in decent schools because many schools which I visit, particularly in my area, are very old, very run down and considerably lacking in facilities. I believe that the Department of Education in New South Wales is unsure whether to keep some of them going. Perhaps for some reason those schools have missed out on funding over the years. Several weeks ago I visited Homebush West Public School in the electorate of Lowe. The situation there was so disgraceful that I came away quite upset. I felt that the little children in this school do not have a reasonably satisfactory establishment to attend for their daily education. The teachers there are dedicated and the children are very keen but the school is disgustingly run down. The school is essentially an ethnic school. The largest ethnic groups in the school are the Chinese and Vietnamese children who are mainly the sons and daughters of the boat people who have come here. Thirty-two per cent of the 183 children in that school fit into that category. The second group in the school comprises the Australian-born children or United Kingdom nationals, who make up 26 per cent of enrolments. The third largest group comprises the Turkish children, who speak Turkish at home and who make up 10 per cent of enrolments. The principal of the school, Mr Bill Allen, and his small staff work well and as hard as they possibly can to stimulate the children. Most of the classes are held in old buildings which comprised a former home science school for many years. It was called the Homebush West Girls Home Science School . In 1974 the secondary girls were sent off to Strathfield Girls High School and the school became a primary school. As I went around the school and looked at some of the old demountable classrooms, one of the teachers said to me in all frustration: 'I have 26 children in the class, which is not very many, but only one of these kiddies speaks English at home. The rest speak other languages. Can't you do something to help me?' I really felt sorry for this teacher because it was a very hot day, the kindergarten section of the school was housed in old, wooden, demountable buildings, there was no connection between the buildings and no covered way to the toilets for the little children in inclement weather. I felt that this teacher was almost at the point of despair when she said: 'Can't you do something to help me? I am trying to battle with 26 children, only one of whom has English as a first language'. These are some of the problems. The school receives funding from the Commonwealth under the assisted schools program, which used to be called the disadvantaged schools program. But being such an ethnic school, there is no parents and citizens association. There is a mothers club, which I am assured by the principal is very active, but in which only a small number of mothers are involved. The school has a small library but it is open only two days a week, despite the fact that such a preponderance of the children at this school come from families which may have no English language books or newspapers. So when we start planning for the Budget I hope and pray that there will be some real commitment to the capital funding of state schools in New South Wales and in every other State of Australia. Homebush West is not an exception. Unfortunately such schools are quite common in a State which must rely on Commonwealth funding and which must look to the Commonwealth for any capital injection to assist its state schools. Burwood Public School is a very large primary school in my electorate. As I have mentioned before in this House, the entire infants department of that school is housed in demountable classrooms. Also present at that school is that great ethnic mix of young children who have come to our nation and into its schools, perhaps not speaking English but speaking other languages. It is my hope that they will leave school not only able to read and write English but also perhaps able to read and write their own family languages. That will help to make our nation a greater place than it even is now. The whole of the infants department at Burwood Public School is housed in demountable classrooms. This is very pleasant on a nice, mild day but in the summer and in the winter it is appalling. It is a very sad commentary that parents have to take little children to start in demountable classrooms at a school which is crowded on a most unimpressive school playground which the State was to beautify some years ago but for which there has been no money available. Enfield Public School, North Strathfield Public School and many other schools in my electorate have similar problems. I know that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) came with me to visit Enfield Public School in my electorate in 1982. He was appalled at what he saw there. A parents action group was formed at that school and the State Government made some alterations. A certain amount of money was spent. The funds must come from the Federal Government. The previous Government starved the States of funds. It cut back all the money available for this type of development. No money was available in the kitty to make any real injection of funding to improve the run-down State schools in New South Wales or elsewhere in Australia. The schools in the non-government sector, and 90 per cent of the non-government sector is the Catholic education sector, are just as bad. In some cases they are even worse. Newspaper articles which talk about state aid and the funding of the Catholic school systems of the various dioceses make the point that many of the parish schools operate on funding levels 30 per cent below those of state schools. I think that, on the same day as I visited the Homebush West Public School, I visited also Saint Martha's parish school in Strathfield. That is also a small school and somewhat comparable, with an enrolment of 202 children, 50 per cent of whom are ethnic. The Principal, Sister Patricia Murray, OP, showed me around the school, which I had visited before, and explained that the big problem for the school is its total lack of playground space. The school is jammed right in next to the parish church. It makes use of an old church building in the grounds -the original St Martha's Church. The children have absolutely nowhere to play and this is a problem particularly with the ethnic kiddies who do not perhaps join in after-school activities as much as they might or who are not in sporting groups which meet at weekends. It is essential, if anything is to be done to help schools to get adequate playgrounds and facilities, that there must be a massive injection of Commonwealth funding. I do not see that massive injection of education funding going hand in hand with the tax cuts that the community is expecting and to which it is looking forward. I believe that the trade union movement and the others who are pressing for tax cuts will sell short the children of our nation if they want tax cuts at the expense of adequate funding of education. I also recently visited another parish school in my electorate, St Ambrose's school at Concord West. There the new principal, Miss Denise De Lean, was delighted to welcome me and with the new parish priest, Father Bayada, showed me around the school. She explained that no remedial teachers are provided in the Catholic primary schools. That rather surprised me because that school also has a very significant ethnic component. Miss De Lean explained to me that in the upper school classes she finds some children who have missed out on basic concepts and that without remedial teaching these kiddies are sent off to secondary schools lacking the basic concepts of education. They might have been ill. They might have come into the school system from overseas at a late stage. Having no remedial teaching was in this principal's view a serious problem. This situation can be overcome only by adequate funding from Canberra. The non-government schools look essentially to the Federal Government for much of their funding and it is a very sad commentary on our education systems that the whole of the Catholic parochial school system can operate without remedial teachers in an atmosphere in which the class teacher, perhaps battling with a big ethnic group of kiddies, has at the same time to run remedial courses. Teachers are very talented people, in my experience, and I admire what I have seen in the Catholic schools and in the state schools that I have always visited on a regular basis. There is a Catholic teachers college in Strathfield in my electorate and I am impressed by the training that the teachers obtain. I do not believe that at the same time a primary school teacher can teach some children, teach others to speak English and also, while trying to teach those two groups, run remedial courses for children who have perhaps missed out on basic concepts in lower classes. The Australian Teachers Federation is running a campaign against aid to non- government schools. It wants a moratorium on aid to non-government schools. I believe that is a shortsighted campaign. I think that the Australian Teachers Federation and other groups interested in education have far more to gain and far more possibility of success if they combine with the other forces in our nation seeking more aid for all schools. The Catholic system and the state system must be helped by any government with any compassion. Our Party, the Australian Labor Party, has a clear mandate and a clear policy to help the needy schools in our nation. Having been around practically every school in my electorate, some of them on two or three occasions, I know that the state schools and the non-state schools are extremely needy. Every one of these schools has problems, like Homebush West where the library is open only two days a week. It is much the same in many of the parish schools. There are accommodation and library problems in the secondary schools and in the high schools at Drummoyne, Burwood and at many of the non-government schools also. Many of the private schools in my electorate have problems. They have old buildings; they have difficulty in paying teachers wages and in keeping costs down. There are many problems and many needs in all of the non-government schools with which I am acquainted. State aid and aid to non-government schools is an emotive issue but it is an issue that I believe needs far more debate and rational clear-headed discussion than it has been getting in the past 12 months. We have witnessed heady meetings in Sydney, Melbourne and other places and have noted rhetoric and abuse being poured on a hard-working Federal Minister for Education and Youth Affairs ( Senator Ryan). Another matter that I want to mention in the House relates to some comments that I noted in a Melbourne diocesan paper, the Advocate. These comments were attributed to Bishop Eric D'Arcy, the Bishop of Sale, a man for whom I have the greatest respect. At a recent opening of a school by Senator Ryan, the bishop compared the funding of schools with the funding of universities and colleges of advanced education. Having been an academic, he made the point that tertiary education is free to all Australians but that schools, certainly non-government schools, are not free. I fully support these comments of Bishop Eric D'Arcy if he means that there should be no fees in schools. I have always taken the point of view as a State member of parliament for nearly 10 years and since I have been in this House that there should be no fees for state schools, no service fees or any sort of fees and that there should be no fees non-state schools. Any school which takes all comers from its area should not have to charge fees which would exclude anyone. Many people in our nation are unemployed. There is a vast pool of unemployed people, unfortunately. Many people such as single parents, widows or deserted wives cannot pay school fees, either state school fees, service fees or the fees in parish schools. These people should not have to pay fees, and I agree with Bishop Eric D'Arcy. But I am not sure that that is what the Catholic school authorities really want because when I talk to the people from the Catholic Education Office they say: 'Oh, no, there must be some element of fees. There must be an element of sacrifice by the parents'. I cannot reconcile these two viewpoints, but I certainly opt for what Bishop Eric D'Arcy mentioned in the article in the Advocate, which I have in the House today. I have also read that statement in several of the daily papers. I believe that, if a school picks its children without selecting them by competitive examination to weed out the duller ones from the brighter pupils, that school should not have to charge fees as it is prepared to take all comers. If a school wants to be selective and take only the brighter pupils, that is another question. A school that is scholastically selective cannot expect to receive a vast sum of government funding and very big money is involved in the non-government sector and in the government sector. I believe that there can be much criticism of some of the selective government high schools in New South Wales which take pupils who are the children of old boys or old girls from outside their drawing areas. Such a policy is discriminatory against people who have come here from other lands and who are not old boys or old girls of these schools. I believe that the State must look to its own system and get it in order. I have raised these matters in the House today because we are in the process of this debate around our nation as to what should go into the Budget and which areas should receive additional funding. I am making a simple plea for the funding of schools, government and non-government, which I know to be in great need. I also believe there must be more debate about exactly where the non-government schools are heading and what they want in relation to funding. Do they really want to be funded, in the same manner as colleges of advanced education and universities, as private institutions but totally funded by the Government? That is not the message I get from some of the people who set the philosophy for the biggest non-government school system in the State of New South Wales, the Catholic Education Office. I trust that, in formulating the Budget, the Prime Minister, the Treasurer (Mr Keating), and other Ministers will not forget that the children of Australia are our future. Their future is essentially tied up with the quality of education they receive. The schools have wonderful, dedicated teachers, but the teachers will lose heart and lose interest and the children will be disinterested unless they have basic facilities, teaching aids, decent classrooms, and adequate playgrounds in which they can be educated. I trust that my words to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet will not fall on deaf ears. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(5.51) —I join in congratulating the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) and the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) on the occasion of their maiden speeches in this place. I hope that my colleague the honourable member for Richmond continues to enjoy the confidence of his electorate for many years to come and that both honourable members obtain satisfaction from their time in this Parliament. The promise of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to 'not take money out of pensioners' cheques' has become one of a long list of broken promises. It was first broken with the application of a means test on pensioners of over 70 in November last year. To that may be added the promised application of an assets test at some time in the future. I want to speak briefly about the assets test and one aspect which has flowed from it. The Prime Minister's deferral of implementation of the assets test when the heat from his back bench became too great was not without significant cost to the Australian taxpayer. Apart from the cost of yet another government inquiry, there is the enormous cost of the continuing employment of staff recruited in anticipation of the scheme being introduced, as originally intended, on 1 November this year. Continuation of their employment must be regarded as strong evidence of the Hawke Government's ultimate intention to impose an assets test on age pensions, but it will probably occur after the next election. What other conclusion can reasonably be drawn? Some 1,400 people were recruited to oversee the introduction of an assets test in November. The assets test was subsequently deferred. The 1,400 people remain on the books. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that the 1,400 jobs in the Department of Social Security, specifically created to introduce and police a measure now deferred until after the next election, did not exist previously. It is equally reasonable to assume that those jobs no longer exist in terms of useful employment. Useful employment notwithstanding, those 1,400 public servants remain, and have not been made redundant. It is incomprehensible that the taxpayers of Australia are obliged to foot the bill for the salaries of those people to do work which is no longer available. It is an outrageous state of affairs. It is equally outrageous that some 170 employees of the Reserve Bank of Australia, who had the task of administering exchange controls, are still employed. Honourable members will recall that exchange controls were abandoned last December, when the Australian dollar was floated. At least on the face of it, most of the 170 people working in the former exchange control department of the Reserve Bank have no productive function to perform, but they remain employed, presumably to do tasks which did not previously exist and which were not previously essential. Those are just a couple of stark examples of the profligacy and managerial ineptitude of this Government. Other examples will no doubt become apparent as more information trickles through. It might be reasonably anticipated that the army of recruits engaged in the offices of the Commissioner of Taxation to administer the withholding tax introduced last year by this Government may come under close examination in the not too distant future. Mr Dobie —And the assets test. Mr ROCHER —And the assets test, as my friend reminds me. In some circles it has been suggested that 800 souls were employed to deal with the tonnes of paper generated by this withholding tax measure. Honourable members will again recall that the imposition of a withholding tax was to be subject to review following serious objections from many Australians. In the absence of an answer to a question on notice asked of the Treasurer, it seems more than likely that the cost of collecting a tax in the form of withholding tax, which, incidentally, is tax collected in advance and not additional tax, as may be popularly supposed, will not warrant continuation of the measure. It will be interesting to see whether staff recruited in the Australian Taxation Office are shed, as will almost certainly become appropriate after the review. From the examples I have cited there can be little hope that this Government will take the difficult decisions necessary to protect resources provided by Australian taxpayers. As with the Government's lack of fiscal competence, so also must there be some serious doubt about the efficacy of the prices and incomes accord and associated industrial relations considerations. As with other aspects of this Government's post-election policies-and I emphasise 'post'-its attitudes to industrial relations give many great cause for concern. Perhaps the most sobering appraisal of this Government's attitude appeared in a leading article published in the Canberra Times on 14 November last year under the heading 'Anything for a Quiet Life' and the sub-heading 'Morality at a Discount' . The leader writer concluded in his final paragraph: As far as the Government, the ALP and the union officials are concerned, all this conciliation, capitulation and compromise is good industrial relations. Principle and morality are at a discount. What is disturbing to the rest of the community-or should be-is that the Government and the employers are doing the capitulating, and it is the rest of the community's interests that are being compromised. The writer, being suspiciously sarcastic, I think, continued: For the sake of the unions' social conscience of course. Recall the settlement of the recent mail strike. Obviously, trade unionists are 'in' under the Hawke Government. That editorial encapsulates, better than anything I have read, the doubts that exist about the direction of this Government in labour and wage related matters. Mr Dobie —It has none. Mr ROCHER —It has none, as my friend the honourable member for Cook reminds me. Why should a leader writer of such a respected newspaper reach such a conclusion ? The editorial drew together a list of then recent events which give a clue to the author's logic. Among them were three decisions announced by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) on 3 November last year. They included the Government's undertaking to pay $10,000 in costs incurred by the Transport Workers Union in defending an action brought by the Trade Practices Commission, an action brought by an authority set up and commissioned by this Government. I add that similar assistance was not offered to the other parties charged as co-offenders with the TWU. Again, on 3 November last year, the Minister seemed to think that accumulated taxpayers' funds were adequate for all the Government's needs. At least, that is a reasonable inference to be drawn from a decision not to claim costs arising out of a prosecution in the Federal Court of Australia of trade union officials who refused to answer questions before the Royal Commission into the Activities of the Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation. Those same trade unions made it clear that they would not pay the fines imposed on them. I do not know what has happened since, but I suspect that they probably did not pay them. I would be interested to know whether the Government came to the party again. There was a third decision on that momentous day, 3 November, and it was to drop 29 charges against Australian Capital Territory trade union officials. The price payable on behalf of these alleged offenders was a Trades and Labour Council undertaking to call off bans and pickets protesting police action at earlier pickets as well as protests over an alleged under-supply of subsidised accommodation in the Australian Capital Territory. The Government not only is prepared to break into the public purse to free its cohorts of the obligations of others, obligations which no others in Australia could possibly escape, but also is prepared to drop civil charges against unionists in a way which leaves no doubt that it can happen again. I have heard of plea bargaining as it exists in America, but that is plainly ridiculous. It is crazy that charges for civil offences should be dropped at the behest of a friendly government, or any government for that matter. Central as it is to the Government's economic policy, it can only be with some trepidation that we see developments designed to get around the prices and incomes accord. Nowhere is it more apparent that the accord is under threat than in negotiations affecting remuneration in the building industry. The latest device used by building industry unions and some building industry employers is the capitulation on a superannuation fund for industry employees. I might add that these developments have happened with the full knowledge of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and his Department. Although it is not the employer of the great majority of building workers, the National Industrial Construction Council, the NICC, has assumed the role of chief negotiator on behalf of building industry employers. Last month the NICC agreed to implement what it called 'a genuine superannuation scheme within the building industry'. This intention was qualified as being 'subject to the understanding that a similar package to that of 1983 is reinstated'. I ask honourable members to remember that. Further, the NICC resolved 'that the Federal Government be asked to confirm its support for the NICC's approach'. That is, I want to make it clear, the implementation of an industry superannuation scheme. It is important to note that the NICC sought confirmation only of support, clearly implying that it thought that it already had government support and hence sought only confirmation. In that context one can only begin to guess at differences between the Prime Minister and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on the one hand and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations on the other. The Minister and his Department, having been actively involved in meetings which developed the 1983 package to which the NICC referred and which I quoted, would be well aware that the package breached the Goverment's guidelines as set out in the accord. That package was thrown out by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission last year for the very reason that it breached the Government's guidelines. So what do we see in these current finaglings? We see the Minister asked, but seemingly reluctant for the moment, to confirm support for the NICC in its promotion of a superannuation scheme dependent on the restoration of a package thrown out by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission because it breached the guidelines. From this it can be seen that there is a gap between the sanctity the Prime Minister claims for the accord and the involvement of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to defeat the very provisions of that accord. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, our speaking time has been restricted. I will abide by my Whip's wishes, not least because he is standing right next to me, but I would like to say that a couple of the matters that I have raised are symptoms only of the direction in which this Government is heading. I ask all Australians to examine not only those symptoms I have cited but also some that my colleagues have already mentioned and will mention in this debate. I believe that this Hawke socialist Government is on notice. I hope that if it does not have the presence of mind and the intestinal fortitude to tackle the difficult problems the electorate will cast it out at the very next opportunity. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(6.06) —I join with previous speakers in commenting favourably upon the speeches of the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner), who sits alongside me here, and the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt). It is good to see new members of this House presenting such a favourable picture to the public at large. I believe that both of them can take some pleasure from their speeches. I certainly know that we on this side of the House are very pleased with the contribution of the honourable member for Hughes. He had some substantial and thoughtful things to say and it is good to welcome him to this chamber in the full sense. There has been considerable discussion with respect to Appropriation Bills Nos 2, 3 and 4 and some comments by honourable members opposite need to be dealt with. When we are talking about the whole thrust of this Government since it has been in office, for just over a year, we have to take quite realistically some of the propositions put by those opposite. The honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) talked about the divisiveness of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the fact that the Prime Minister sought to oppose matters when he was in opposition and is now seeking a bipartisan and consensus approach to government. The problem that we faced when in opposition was that the whole style of government was dominated by the former right honourable member for Wannon, the then Prime Minister. I believe the Australian community recognises that there has not been a more divisive person in the history of Australian politics. He created a climate in this place. To respond very quickly, I believe that what we ought to say is that the atmosphere in this place has changed quite considerably and remarkably. We now have a Prime Minister who governs by consensus and to some extent from time to time we have a Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) who participates in that consensus. I think that the honourable member for Bennelong, who talks in this place about divisiveness, should look at the record of those opposite during their seven years in government. The honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) touched upon industrial relations. The hallmark of industrial relations policy under the previous Government was divisiveness and conflict. The hallmark of economic policy under the previous Government was divisiveness and conflict. I will not dwell upon that because I would be committing exactly the offence that I am claiming those opposite committed, that is, being partisan about these matters. But if we are to talk about divisiveness, the record has to be put straight. Those opposite established under Malcolm Fraser a style of government that haunted them to the end of their period in government. They know that and the electorate knows it; and they will continue to know it as people look back in history. There were times when I believe divisiveness was used unfairly in this chamber. This Government has a responsibility to the entire community. We represent not just those who voted for us but also those who did not vote for us. We have a responsibility to represent both of them and I believe that under this Government we are doing that very effectively. The approval ratings certainly demonstrate that. The honourable member for Curtin also touched on the issue of the assets test. He concluded by saying that we have to start taking some tough decisions. He is quite right. We are trying to take tough decisions, and this is one of them. But it is a decision that should have been taken a long time ago by the previous Government. We are faced with an aging population and a burgeoning welfare bill, and we have to do something about redistributing resources in such a way that we will use them most effectively in the Australian community. That is the genesis of the assets test. No one particularly likes having to enter an area such as that, but in equity and in fairness we must proceed to do that in the interests of managing this economy. The honourable member for Curtin also touched upon the withholding tax. That tax was introduced because, reflecting back, one of the hallmarks of the Government of Malcolm Fraser was to talk about a tax revolt. There was a tax revolt in this country, and it was encouraged by the then right honourable member for Wannon. One can recall that one prominent newspaper in Australia encouraged the tax revolt. It occurred in the building industry and in industry right across the board. What has happened is that we have had to respond sensibly and to try to introduce a taxing regimen which will try to recoup some of that tax that was being avoided. The people in the building industry recognise that, we recognise that and I, as the member for Stirling, recognise that. Having introduced a system of withholding tax, one of our important goals must be to ensure-and here I am echoing the thoughts of the building industry- that it is not too cumbersome in terms of paper work. We are looking at that position, in terms of the review, and I am hopeful that we shall emerge with a withholding tax operation that will be fair, equitable and effective in terms of its collection. There has also been some comment about the prices and incomes accord. It is important to talk about that accord in terms of our Government, because what we have tried to do is to set in place a recognition by government, by companies and by unions that we have a responsibility across the board to develop a system of wage fixation and to achieve some social policy goals that will satisfy the large population of this country that the Government is about fair and decent government. That is what the prices and incomes accord is about. We are achieving that, and I believe that it worries those opposite that the accord is sticking together. At present there is one renegade union in Australia-the Australian Medical Association. I know that it gives comfort and support to honourable members opposite and that the Leader of the Opposition seeks to raise funds from the AMA, but I am certain that the Australian community is not pleased with the behaviour of that renegade union. On the wider issues of economic policy, what we have to put before the public at present is the fact that, after a year, there has been a substantial improvement in the economic performance of this country. Some of that is due to natural factors, some of that is due to world circumstances, and some of that is due to the policy of this Government. Talking of this Government in terms of some of the performance indicators, we now have gross domestic product looking to have increased by the time the year is out by 11 per cent. An 11 per cent growth in GDP is a substantial improvement particularly when one recognises-and this is the sorry part of the story-that in 1982-83 it fell by 2.5 per cent. So we are turning GDP around from a declining position to a growth position. That is an important thing. It is important because people in the wider community will have more goods and services to enjoy. That ought to be the goal of any government in this place, be it those opposite who would seek to attain government at some stage in the future, or we on this side. Our goal must be to ensure that we improve the economic performance of this economy so that the welfare of the Australian community in general is improved. That is happening. The record at this stage is very good. This Government must take some of the credit for that, because what it has put in place is some positive stimulus in the last Budget. I should like to talk about the last Budget. There was a deficit of about $8.5 billion with that Budget. The important thing that happened with respect to that Budget was that the money market accepted that Budget in terms of its projections and we did not see any adverse impact upon interest rates. We were able to fund that deficit quite effectively through the sale of bonds. What we have had is a Budget that has received the acceptance of the wider community. It is a Budget that has achieved an important stimulus in the economy just when we needed it. One of the areas of important stimulus has been the housing industry. This is an area that gives great satisfaction to us, in government, and it should give satisfaction to all in the community-to the building companies, to those who are getting into houses, to those who are working in the building industry, and to the wider community that benefits from the multiplier effect of expenditure. The first home owners scheme has been a remarkable success. Great credit is due to the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) for introducing that scheme and to the Government in general for having the good sense to have consulted the master builders and financial institutions and for being seen to have introduced a scheme which delivers in terms of its objectives. The objectives have been to get more housing starts and to get people into homes. The housing start picture is quite remarkable. The announcement at the beginning of this week that we are now looking at l35,000 commencements in l983- 84 indicates a remarkable performance. The projection for 1984-85 is 145,000 commencements. That is a very good picture for Australia, because it means that we are not only building houses but also getting people into homes. We saw the previous performance of 105,000 starts. That is not good enough. The previous Government must have acknowledged that. It really was a great area of deficiency in its policy that it never did enough to introduce some important stimulus in the housing sector. The trouble was that what I refer to as the Fraser-Howard pattern of economic vandalism succeeded in doing just that. It destroyed the building industry. We have restored that industry and we are now getting building activity up again. Taking the figures as at 30 March, in Australia-wide terms, the number of inquiries on the first home owners scheme reached 405,885, and in Western Australia the number of inquiries on the first home owners scheme reached 67,606 . That is a remarkable performance. In terms of the actual applications received from the public, the national picture as at 30 March showed that 59,668 applications had been received nationally under the first home owners scheme. That is a very important figure, because in Western Australia 8,494 applications have been received. What it means is that we are getting a remarkable response from the community for the first home owners scheme. That is excellent, because we are getting people at moderate income levels into housing. Two weeks ago I interviewed one constituent who had the good fortune to have moved into a $42,000, three-bedroom brick and tile cottage. He previously had lived in a caravan, and he is now living in a three-bedroom home in Perth. The $ 7,000 grant for which he qualified has made an enormous difference to the lifestyle of that person and his wife and two children. Suddenly, they are moving into a situation of looking at buying a refrigerator, a washing machine, a stove and other appliances for the home which will stimulate the rest of the economy. That is a remarkable thing. It is remarkable for two reasons. First, here we have someone who, in terms of his gross income, is on $16,000. That is his base rate. With allowances and penalties he gets $19,000. He works as a maltster in a malting works in Perth. As a maltster, he is someone on a moderate income. But what he has been able to do with the first home owners scheme grant is to turn around from living in a caravan, and most recently in a very tiny unit, to living in his own three-bedroom brick and tile house in suburban Perth. He has two children and a wife who are now able to be housed properly. They are people who should have been housed properly before, and they were not housed properly before. Living in a caravan is a disgrace. It might have been all right for the former right honourable member for Wannon to fly from here on Fridays and go to his property in western Victoria, but this person could not do that; he lived in a caravan under that Government. What a disgrace! What a lamentable situation that honourable members opposite let it happen. But they let it happen. They called it economic management. It was not economic management; it was economic vandalism. That is why they are over on the Opposition benches and why they will stay there. The wider community knows that they are incompetent and incapable of decent management, and it was prepared to say to them in massive numbers that it was going to vote away from them and vote in the Hawke Government. That has happened, and the case that I have just cited is substantial evidence of that. While we have people on moderate incomes in Australia living in caravans, with a wife and two children-- Mr Staples —That Government left them in the streets. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —It did as my honourable friend says. There was a substantial increase in unemployment, with 250,000 people being added to the unemployment list in the last two lamentable years of management by honourable members opposite. That is not management. It is economic vandalism. They know it and the electorate knows it. It is no good them coming to this place and bleating and trying to whip up a case, because they do not have one, and there is not a substantial case to make. What we have been able to do is to turn the economy around. We have seen a substantial improvement in jobs. We are predicting at this stage that by the end of this financial year there will be about 190,000 extra jobs added to the list. At present the figure is about 140,000. That is an important performance, because we are getting jobs coming through and we are getting people back into work. The inflation rate has come down. The implicit price deflator shows that we are looking at a rate of about 6 per cent for the end of 1983. Again, that is a remarkable performance, looking back on the 11 per cent figure of the previous Government. I think that, when we are in this place and we are talking about matters such as the Appropriation Bills, we have a responsibility to try to paint a picture which reflects the reality out there in the Australian community. The reality out there is that the economy has turned around in a remarkable way, but more importantly the social circumstances of lots of Australians have been turned around in a remarkable way. The reality is that the job is not finished. This Government has had one year. It has a large job ahead of it. As the honourable member for Hughes indicated earlier, those tasks have a lot to do with creating jobs, with getting people into houses, with having a reasonable and decent educational picture, with having the infrastructure of public sector facilities, with having a substantial improvement in health and welfare in the community and with having some prospect on the world scene with respect to disarmament and peace. These are all goals that we take seriously in this place. I hope that in the coming weeks honourable members opposite can contribute to this debate in a positive way because, to return to where I began, it is not good enough to come into this place and talk about the present Prime Minister and divisiveness. The divisiveness that came to Australia began when there was a new Leader of the Opposition back in 1974. That was the hallmark of the Government that took over in a most unrepresentative way in 1975. What we have seen is, in fact, a turnaround in this country. We now have a Prime Minister who governs by consensus. We have an economy that is performing effectively, and the Australian community recognises that. In reflecting on these issues and in talking on behalf of my electorate of Stirling I am proud to say that I believe the performance is there. We are conferring with the community. We have policies that are working. I am pleased to commend these Bills to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Cadman) adjourned. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the Chair to add to an answer I gave to a question at Question Time? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —The Minister may proceed. Mr UREN —During Question Time, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) stated that 48 officials were now on their way to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands with the United Nations Mission which departed Canberra today. That is a complete distortion of the facts. I said in my reply: 'I cannot verify the number but a Boeing 707 aircraft is going there'. The facts are that there are 15 Australian Government officials accompanying the United Nations Mission today. Also accompanying the Mission are 11 media representatives, including representation from Film Australia. The United Nations Mission itself consists of four members plus a secretariat of four. The total size of the party is 34, not 48. As I said during Question Time, representatives of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Council will be returning to Australia with the United Nations Mission. One extra official from the Australian Electoral Office, who is currently on Cocos, will also return with the Mission. I seek leave of the House to table the full list of people travelling on the Boeing 707. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister may table the document. Mr Cadman —Does the list contain the positions that they hold? Mr UREN —Yes. Sitting suspended from 6.24 to 8 p.m. Consideration resumed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(8.00) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Judiciary Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 serves two purposes. In the first place, it aims to relieve the High Court of Australia of some of its existing work load by removing provisions for appeal as of right to the High Court and by empowering the Court to remit certain matters now within its exclusive jurisdiction to the Federal Court or to State or Territory courts. Secondly, the Bill provides for the establishment of the Australian Government Solicitor in place of the present office of Crown Solicitor. Measures to Relieve the Work Load of the High Court The justices of the High Court have expressed concern about the effect of the increasing work load of the High Court on its capacity to function effectively as a final appellate court in Australia and as the interpreter of the Constitution. This Bill deals with two of the matters that have given rise to that concern. One is that, where a case involves subject matter to the value of $20,000 or more, there is a right of appeal from the Full Court of a State supreme court or the Federal Court of Australia to the High Court, irrespective of the merits of the points in issue. The amount of $20,000 was fixed in 1976 and changing money values have had the result that many more cases fall within the provisions for appeal as of right. In the second place, there are certain matters within the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court which may, on occasion, involve a lengthy trial of the issues of fact involved. It is not appropriate that the time of the High Court should be taken up with the trial of issues of fact which could be more conveniently disposed of by another court. The appellate jurisdiction of the High Court derives from section 73 of the Constitution. Section 73 provides for appeals to the High Court from State Supreme courts, or State courts exercising Federal jurisdiction and Federal courts. The Parliament may prescribe exception to that appellate jurisdiction and regulate its exercise. I have already indicated that an appeal lies as of right from a State full court or from the Full Court of the Federal Court to the High Court where the appeal involves subject matter of the value of $20,000 or more regardless of the merits of the matter. The case involving constitutional issues may also be taken on appeal as of right from a State full court to the High Court whether or not the constitutional point is of real substance. It is generally acknowledged that a financial test is not really an appropriate test for determining whether there should be an appeal as of right. The value of the subject matter of an action is no necessary indication of the intrinsic importance of the action. Officers of the Attorney-General's Department have had discussions with representatives of the Law Council of Australia on the matter, and I have also discussed the matter with representatives of the Law Council. They have not been able to suggest a more satisfactory test to isolate those cases in respect of which there might be an appeal as of right to the High Court . Consequently, the Government has agreed to accept the proposition put by the justices of the High Court that all appeals to the High Court from the Federal Court and from State and Territory courts should be by special leave only. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has had discussions with the Chief Justice on measures which might be taken by the Court itself to meet some of the criticisms which the legal profession has made of the existing procedures for seeking special leave to appeal, and those discussions are continuing. The Attorney-General hopes that, in particular, arrangements will soon be able to be made for regular sittings of the Court in Sydney and Melbourne to hear applications for special leave. The Bill inserts a new section 35A setting out in general terms criteria to which the Court must have regard in deciding whether or not to grant an application for special leave to appeal. The present exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court is defined by section 38 of the Judiciary Act. The matter specified in that section covers matters arising directly out of any treaty and suits by the Commonwealth and the States. Except to the extent to which jurisdiction is already conferred on the Federal Court of Australia, the High Court also has exclusive jurisdiction in matters in which a writ of mandamus or prohibition is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth or a Federal court. The Bill would amend section 44 of the Judiciary Act. This section already provides for the High Court to remit to a Federal court or to a State or Territory court matters commenced in the High Court in which that other court has concurrent jurisdiction. Clause 5 of the Bill will empower the High Court similarly to remit matters arising directly out of any treaty or suits between the States or suits between the Commonwealth and States. The High Court will be empowered to remit the whole of the matter or it may remit part of the matter as , for example, the hearing of evidence to establish findings of fact. The proceedings in the court to which the matter is remitted will be subject to any direction of the High Court, so that the High Court will retain control over the progress of the matter. The Australian Government Solicitor An important function of the Attorney-General's Department is the provision of the services of a solicitor to the Commonwealth, to Ministers, departments and, as required, to Commonwealth instrumentalities and other persons. The Secretary, as permanent head of the Department, is ultimately responsible under the Public Service Act for the proper carrying out of this function, as for all other functions of the Department. However, the greater part of the work of the solicitor for the Commonwealth performed by the Department, particularly the conduct of litigation, is carried out in the States and Territories. The supervision of this work must be done on the spot in each State and Territory. An administrative structure is required to ensure that this work is properly integrated with the other legal work of the Department and that there is effective accountability, both under the Public Service Act and to the courts, of those who perform these solicitor functions. During 1983 a comprehensive review of the structure and organisation of the Attorney-General's Department was undertaken at the Attorney-General's direction . The review had as its objective improving the Department's efficiency, effectiveness and responsiveness to the Government, the Attorney-General and clients. The committee which conducted the review recommended the change in the solicitor functions of the Department embodied in this Bill. Clause 6 of the Bill provides, in place of the personal office of the Crown Solicitor, for the establishment of a statutory corporate entity, to be known as the Australian Government Solicitor. The Australian Government Solicitor will perform the function of solicitor for the Commonwealth, Ministers, Commonwealth authorities and certain other bodies and persons. The Australian Government Solicitor will be, in effect, the 'firm name' under which the legal services functions of the Attorney-General's Department which would ordinarily be performed by a solicitor for his client will be carried out. The Australian Government Solicitor will not be a separate authority consituted by a person or body of persons, nor will it have its own staff. The Secretary of the Department and certain legally qualified senior officers of the Department authorised by the Secretary for that purpose will be empowered to act in the name of the Australian Government Solicitor. Thus, the members of the firm will be, in effect, the Secretary and the authorised officers and they will have the ordinary responsibility of a solicitor to the courts in respect of acts done in the name of the Australian Government Solicitor. This will ensure judicial control over those responsible for handling matters before the courts. Officers authorised to act in the name of the Australian Government Solicitor will be responsible for their actions in the conduct of their activities to the Secretary of the Department and, through the Secretary, to the Attorney-General. In addition, the authorised officers will be subject to the direction of the Secretary and, where so directed, the responsibility to the courts for acts performed in accordance with those directions will rest with the Secretary. The Australian Government Solicitor will be empowered to act on behalf of those entities, persons and bodies on behalf of which the Crown Solicitor is presently empowered to act by virtue of section 55E of the Judiciary Act. For the purposes of acting as solicitor for these persons and entities the Australian Government Solicitor is entitled under the Bill to the same rights and privileges of a solicitor in each of the States and Territories. These entitlements which are the same as those currently bestowed on the office of Crown Solicitor will enable the Australian Government Solicitor to carry out the function of solicitor in the various States and Territories. In addition, for the purposes of acting in the name of the Australian Government Solicitor, the Secretary or an authorised person will be entitled to do all things necessary and convenient to carry out the function and will be entitled to all the rights and privileges of a solicitor in each State or Territory whether or not he is entitled to practise as a solicitor in any State or Territory. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Consideration resumed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(8.10) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill complements the changes proposed in the Judiciary Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984, which removes existing provisions for appeals as of right to the High Court of Australia from State supreme courts. The effect is to remove the right of appeal from the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia to the High Court where the appeal involves subject matter of the value of $20,000 or more. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Consideration resumed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(8.11) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to make a number of amendments to legislation consequential upon the provisions of the Judiciary Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 for the establishment of the Australian Government Solicitor. A number of Commonwealth Acts contain references to the Crown Solicitor or to a Deputy Crown Solicitor. A number of these references are such that they may not be conveniently dealt with by the interpretation provision contained in that Bill, by which references to the Crown Solicitor or a Deputy Crown Solicitor were to be converted into references to the Australian Government Solicitor. It has therefore been found necessary to make specific amendments to the Acts in question. Generally speaking, the provisions which are amended by the present Bill are such as to require a person to be identified for the purposes of the relevant provision. The approach taken in this Bill is to amend those provisions so that references to the Crown Solicitor or a Deputy Crown Solicitor are translated into references to the Secretary to the Attorney-General's Department or to an officer of that Department authorised by him to act in the name of the Australian Government Solicitor. It will be recalled that, in setting up the Australian Government Solicitor as a body corporate, it is intended that all acts done in the name of the body corporate shall be done by the Secretary to the Attorney-General's Department or by legally qualified officers of that Department authorised by the Secretary for the purpose. The Bill is purely of a technical and consequential kind, and accordingly I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Consideration resumed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(8.14) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to facilitate the giving of effect to the intentions of the Parliament when Acts of the Parliament fall to be interpreted. The Bill makes a number of amendments to the existing Acts Interpretation Act 1901 for this purpose. Eighteen new provisions are proposed to be inserted in the Act, in some cases in substitution for existing provisions. Some of the amendments are of a technical nature and are explained in the explanatory memorandum that has been circulated. I shall now deal with the more important provisions in this second reading speech. Use of Extrinisic Material in the Interpretation of an Act First and foremost I refer to the proposed new section 15AB, which provides that, if any material not forming part of the Act is capable of assisting in the ascertainment of the meaning of a provision of the Act consideration may be given to that material. This provision has been favourably received by leading jurists and legal bodies since it was introduced in the other place on 8 March 1984. The important point to note about these provisions is that the word used, in proposed sub-section 15AB (1), is 'may', not 'shall'. That is to say, reference to such materials is not to be compulsory but is to be left to the discretion and the judgment of the courts. The proposed sub-section also states that, in the contemplation of Parliament, such material would be used for one of two purposes: (a) to confirm that the meaning of the provision is the ordinary meaning conveyed by the text of the provision taking into account its context in the Act and the purpose or object underlying the Act; or (b) to determine the meaning of the provision when either the provision is ambiguous or obscure, or the ordinary meaning is manifestly absurd or is unreasonable. The provision therefore does not contemplate that extrinsic material would be used to overturn the ordinary meaning of a provision, arrived at by taking into account the purpose or object underlying the Act, unless there is an ambiguity or obscurity or something that is manifestly absurd or unreasonable. On the other hand, the provision does make it clear that extrinsic materials can be looked at to confirm the ordinary meaning of an Act. The fact is that judges do this already, and have been doing so for some time. The provision goes on in proposed sub-section (2) to specify, in a non-exhaustive way, the main categories of extrinsic materials that can assist in the interpretation of Acts. As well as such obvious matters as headings and marginal notes to provisions, and end notes in the next text of the Act as printed by the Government Printer, the following categories are covered: Any relevant reports laid before or made to Parliament before the time when the provision was enacted; any treaty or other international agreement that is referred to in the Act; the explanatory memorandum relating to the Bill circulated to members of parliament before the time when the provision was enacted; the second reading speech of the Minister; any document that is expressly declared by the Act in question to be a relevant document for the purposes of section 15AB; finally, any relevant material in the journals or votes or proceedings or in Hansard. Attention is also drawn to proposed sub-section (3), which conveys the clear wish and intention of Parliament that in applying secion 15AB regard shall be had to: the desirability of persons being able to rely on the ordinary meaning conveyed by the text of the provision, taking into account the purpose or object underlying the Act; and the need to avoid prolonging legal or other proceedings without compensating advantages. This provision was expressly approved by Lord Wilberforce, a distinguished jurist of the House of Lords, who said: 'I like, particularly, sub-section (3) of the new section 15AB'. In the ministerial statement tabled in the Senate on 30 November 1983 the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) said that the reaching of a satisfactory outcome in relation to the use of extrinsic materials would depend on the good sense of both judges and Parliament combining to produce a situation in which the range of materials, and the way in which they are used, are reasonably defined and confined. Proposed section 15AB meets these requirements. It does so in a way that respects the independence of the judiciary. Judges are neither required to nor prohibited from looking at any materials. On the other hand, the Parliament in proposed section 15AB would be giving a clear lead as to the way in which extrinsic materials can best be used, without imposing undue burdens on the users of legislation or on the legal system generally. The provision is in accord with the deliberations of the top level Symposium on Statutory Interpretation, the proceedings of which were tabled at the time of the ministerial statement of 30 November 1983. The Symposium supported the proposition that Parliament should give a lead-as it had already successfully done in section 15AA of the Acts Interpretation Act-by recognising that judges have, or should have, a discretion to refer to extrinsic materials where to do so can assist in the interpretation of Acts. There is a clear link between the proposed new section 15AB and section 15AA, which was inserted in the Acts Interpretation Act in 1981 on the initiative of the then Attorney-General, Senator Durack. We strongly supported that provision when in Opposition. It requires the purpose or object underlying an Act be taken into account when interpreting its provisions. The Government successfully moved the adoption of a similar provision for inclusion in the Companies and Securities (Interpretation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act passed in 1983. I am pleased to say that the provision so inserted has already had a significant beneficial effect. In a decision handed down on 28 February 1984, Mr Justice Hampel of the Victorian Supreme Court expressly relied on that provision in deciding that a share offer should have been made by way of a prospectus. As one commentator observed, use of this approach will lead to less legalistic or literal interpretations of the national code of companies and securities legislation, as was the original intention. A provision identical with section 15AA was included in the Interpretation of Legislation Bill recently introduced into the Victorian Parliament. That Bill also contains a provision dealing with the use of extrinsic materials. That provision is less elaborate than the proposed section 15AB, but the two provisions are basically consistent one with the other, partly as a result of consultation at officer level. Bills have now been introduced into the Western Australian and South Australian parliaments which contain provision giving effect to sections 15AA and 15AB. Perhaps in time there will be greater commonality between the laws of the Commonwealth and the laws of various other States in this area. However, I am sure honourable members will agree that it was appropriate for the Commonwealth to take the lead in this area, as indeed it did with section 15AA. Reference to Gender in Acts The existing Acts Interpretation Act provides in section 23, and has so provided since 1901, that words importing the masculine gender shall include the female, unless the contrary intention appears. I propose by this Bill that this sexist way of dealing with matters of gender should be altered so that the provision simply provides that, unless the contrary intention appears, words importing a gender include the other gender. Modern Methods of Recording Information Section 25 of the existing Act needs to be rewritten to define 'documents' and 'writing' so as to include modern modes of storing and reproducing words, figures, symbols et cetera. Also, a provision needs to be inserted to provide for the production of records kept in a computer or in similar facilities, where an Act requires a person to produce the information in question. This is dealt with in the proposed new section 25A. Statement of Reasons A new standard provision needs to be inserted stating that where an Act requires the giving of written reasons for a decision, the instrument giving the reasons shall also set out the findings on material questions of fact and refer to the evidence or other material on which those findings are based. The form of this provision is derived from section 28 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 and from section 13 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. Attaining a Particular Age There is a little known legal rule of medieval origin that a person attains a particular age at the first moment of the day immediately before the anniversary of his birth. Thus a person becomes say sixty, not on the first instant of the sixtieth anniversary of his day of birth, but on the first instant of the day immediately before that birthday. I refer anyone interested in this esoterica to the judgment of Sir Owen Dixon in Prowse v. McIntyre (1961) 111 CLR 264. References to age in Commonwealth legislation clearly need to be brought into line with the common understanding that a person attains a particular age on the first moment of the actual anniversary of his birth. This is proposed to be brought about by the new section 25E to be inserted by the Bill. It is proposed that this particular provision will apply on and after 1 January 1985. Alterations in Penalties The Bill inserts a new section 45A (1) providing that, where an Act increases a penalty for an offence, the penalty is to apply only to offences committed after the commencement of the provision of the Act increasing the penalty. The Bill also inserts a new section 45A (2) providing that where an Act reduces the penalty the penalty as reduced extends to offences committed before the commencemnet of the provision reducing the penalty-but not so as to affect any penalty imposed before that commencement. Both the above provisions are in accordance with the requirements of Article 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Other Amendments I have already referred honourable members to the explanatory memorandum in relation to the other amendments. They are all of a technical nature. The only comment I would make is that they deal with deficiencies that have come to light over the years and are long overdue for attention. The Bill has no financial implications. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(8.23) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The primary purpose of the Bill I am introducing today is to make certain amendments to the co-operative companies and securities scheme legislation consequent upon the proposed new articles and business rules of the various stock exchanges permitting corporate membership of the exchanges and the unfixing of certain brokerage rates. The Bill also contains a number of other relatively urgent amendments, of a technical nature, to the co-operative scheme legislation. I would like to outline, for the benefit of honourable members, the administrative and legislative context in which the Bill has been prepared, and some of the principal amendments proposed. A detailed description of the provisions of the Bill is contained in the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated to honourable members for information. Co-operative Companies and Securities Scheme The formal agreement executed by the Commonwealth and all the States on 22 December 1978 provides the framework for a co-operative Commonwealth-State scheme for a uniform system of law and administration regulating companies and the securities industry. The scheme covers the relevant law operating in the six States and the Australian Capital Territory. In accordance with the formal agreement, the Bill before honourable members has been agreed to by the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities. If passed by this Parliament, it will have the effect of automatically amending the corresponding State legislation. As indicated in our business regulation policy, the Government considers that the co-operative scheme should be retained while it demonstrates progress in the achievement of its aims. However, in the longer term we would prefer to move to a national system of companies and securities regulation administered by the national Parliament. Neither system can be effective if it does not extend to the whole of Australia, including the Northern Territory. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) is currently corresponding with the Northern Territory Government seeking its entry to the scheme. Content of Bill A brief outline of the Bill is set out at paragraphs 1 to 4 of the explanatory memorandum. I will briefly mention the main provisions in the Bill. More detailed commentary on the individual provisions is contained in the explanatory memorandum. Time-sharing The proposed amendments define time-sharing for the first time. Time-sharing has become a popular method of allowing multiple use by different families or groups of one facility, spread throughout a year or other specified period of time. For example, a holiday unit may be booked by different groups for separate blocks of three weeks a year, throughout a year. Time-sharing schemes are different from regular or return bookings of rented holiday homes, in that the time-sharers own, in common with those who share the premises at other times, the facilities they use. The marketing to the public of the bulk of time-sharing schemes is regulated under the Companies Act and the Securities Industry Act under the prescribed interest provisions of those Acts. Division 6 of Part IV of the Companies Act 1981 restricts the offering of prescribed interests to the public except in the manner set out in that Division . Also, the National Companies and Securities Commission in July 1983 issued a policy statement on time-sharing arrangements. This indicates the circumstances in which the NCSC is prepared to relax some of the provisions of Division 6. 'Prescribed interests' is a wide net which catches most profit-making schemes and investment schemes marketed to the public. Examples of other types of schemes which are or have been liable to be regulated in the same manner include property trusts, franchises, various plantation schemes, horse-racing syndicates and retirement villages. The purpose of the proposed amendments to the definition of prescribed interest in both the Companies Act and the Securities Industry Act-clauses 4 and 10 (2) of the Bill-is to ensure that all time-sharing schemes will continue to be regulated under the prescribed interest provisions, notwithstanding that in some cases the investment in question is structured by reference to rights attaching to shares in a corporation. The Ministerial Council resolved to make this change to close what was perceived as a loophole created by the decision in Brentwood Village v. Corporate Affairs Commission (New South Wales). In that case, the New South Wales Supreme Court held that rights attached to a share that may normally , when considered apart from the share, have been characterised as prescribed interests, are indivisible from the share and, therefore, not subject to Division 6 of Part IV. Accordingly, time-sharing schemes structured in this way would not require execution by the management company of a trust deed appointing an approved trustee to protect the interests of investors. The Ministerial Council has taken the view that consistency of treatment of time-sharing schemes should be maintained and that the higher degree of disclosure and regulation under the prescribed interest provisions should apply to all such schemes. Registration of Charges Paragraph 200 (1) (h) of the Companies Act requires registration of a lien or charge on a crop, a lien or charge on wool, or a stock mortgage. Clause 5 of the Bill will amend section 200 of the Companies Act so as to clarify what securities come within paragraph 200 (1) (h). The effect of the amendment will be that a lien or charge on a crop, a lien or charge on wool or a stock mortgage over property of a company is registrable under the companies legislation of the place of incorporation of the company if it is registrable under specified legislation in the State or Territory where the property the subject of the security is situated. Some types of charges that fall within the scope of section 200 of the Companies Act and hence are required to be registered under the Companies Act, may also be required to be registered under separate State or Territory legislation. Section 211 of the Companies Act attempts to overcome the need for dual registration in relation to securities over personal chattels with the meaning of the Australian Capital Territory Instruments Ordinance 1933. However, doubts have been expressed whether section 211 of the Companies Act and State codes satisfactorily remove the obligation to comply with the relevant provisions of the instruments or bills of sale legislation in the various jurisdictions. In respect of bills of sale over personal chattels, the Companies Act interacts with the relevant Australian Capital Territory legislation as originally intended. Section 211 has been slightly re-cast simply to ensure that the companies code applying in each State will interact equally well with the local bills of sale legislation in each particular State. However, section 211 as it applies in the Australian Capital Territory does not currently exempt persons registering crop liens, wool liens and stock mortgages under the Companies Act from the operation of the Instruments Ordinance. This does not, however, affect the validity of these securities but failure to effect dual registration under the Instruments Ordinance will result in the chargee not being able to take the benefit of certain rights conferred under that legislation which he would not have at common law. The amendments to section 211 contained in clause 6 of the Bill will remove the need for dual registration in relation to crop liens, wool liens and stock mortgages and will ensure that registration of the relevant security under the Companies Act will confer on the chargee the benefit of any rights contained in the Instruments Ordinance. In the process of ensuring that the companies legislation interacts as intended with the relevant local legislation relating to bills of sale, crop liens, wool liens and stock mortgages, translator regulations will be required in each State which differ according to the different approaches currently adopted in the particular instruments or bills of sale legislation. Stock Exchanges Shortly after the Trade Practices Act 1974 came into effect, the six capital city stock exchanges applied to the Trade Practices Commission for authorisation of various restrictions imposed on members by stock exchange business rules amongst which are rules relating to brokerage rates to be charged by members and rules governing eligibility for membership of stock exchanges. After a process of public consultation and the issue by the TPC of a draft determination in June 1982, the TPC released its final determination on brokerage and stock exchange membership on 27 September 1982. The TPC denied authorisation of the stock exchange business rules for fixed brokerage rates, but allowed a phasing-in period for unfixed rates. Interim authorisation was granted until 1 April 1984 for fixed rates on all transactions and until 1 October 1985 for fixed rates for that part of a transaction up to a threshold value of $100,000. The TPC denied authorisation of stock exchange business rules which restricted entry to membership of stock exchanges, prevented incorporation of stockbroking businesses and restricted certain other activities of stockbrokers. The TPC granted interim authorisation until 1 April 1984 for the current membership rules in order to give stock exchanges the opportunity to make amendments to their rules. To date, the TPC has granted interim authorisation to the draft business rules relating to the unfixing of certain brokerage rates and to the draft articles of the various exchanges dealing with membership of the stock exchanges by natural persons and corporations. Parts III and IV of the Bill contain amendments to the Companies and Securities (Interpretation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1980 and to the Securities Industry Act 1980 consequent upon the proposed new rules of the stock exchanges permitting corporate membership and the unfixing of certain brokerage rates as from 1 April 1984. On 14 July 1983 at a meeting of the Ministerial Council, the Attorney-General announced that it was the Commonwealth's firm view that the stockbroking industry should remain subject to the Trade Practices Act. The opening up of membership of the exchanges to corporations and the unfixing of certain brokerage rates from 1 April 1984 represent a major watershed in the development of the securities industry in Australia. It will undoubtedly lead to both innovation and increased competition among brokers. The Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System clearly favoured deregulation of brokerage rates and removal of the barriers against the entry of corporate members to the exchanges. The amendments contained in the Bill make necessary changes consequent on the TPC's authorisation and the alterations to the articles, memoranda of association and business rules of the stock exchanges. This represents the first stage in the adaptation of the legislation to the impending changes to the stockbroking industry. In the months ahead, as the new system settles down, it is likely that the Ministerial Council will need to address a number of further issues that may require amendment of the securities industry legislation. These will be best dealt with after the market and the National Companies and Securities Commission have had some experience with the changed environment. Nevertheless, there are some issues which all parties recognise may need to be examined. I would like to discuss some of these issues. Clause 10(1) of the Bill contains a number of amendments to the Securities Industry Act which are designed to ensure that a body corporate is covered by certain key definitions such as 'member', 'member firm' and 'sole trader'. Further consideration will need to be given to whether any provisions in the legislation should be extended to a director of a member corporation who is himself a member of an exchange. The proposed new articles of the stock exchanges will enable a broker to be a member of more than one exchange. This raises the question whether the present approach in the legislation in relation to fidelity funds is still the most appropriate. The fidelity fund provisions in the legislation were originally drawn up on the basis that a broker would be a member of only one exchange and each exchange would have its own separate fidelity fund. The Bill does not disturb the present position of each exchange having a separate fidelity fund and the effect of clause 17 in respect of a broker who is a member of more than one exchange is to make the fidelity fund of each exchange that has admitted the broker as a member liable for claims against the member's fraud, subject to the existing $500,000 limit in respect of each member. In the longer term it will be necessary for serious consideration to be given to the question whether the time has not come for the introduction of a single, national fidelity fund. While not wishing to pre-empt any decisions on this important issue, the establishment of a single national fund would seem to be logical in the light of the proposed new business rules that will enable a broker to be a member of more than one exchange. However, the future structure and function of the fidelity funds will have to be considered in conjunction with the proposals for a centralised scrip and accounting system Censas. The Censas proposals are presently being reassessed by the stock exchanges and the future role of the fidelity funds as an investor protection mechanism will be critically examined by governments when considering revised proposals on Censas put forward by the exchanges. The inevitable entry of financial institutions into the stockbroking industry will raise new conflict of interest issues that will need to be addressed. The Ministerial Council has therefore directed the NCSC to monitor the operation of the securities industry legislation and stock exchange rules that relate to conflict of interests in the stockbroking industry and to report to the Ministerial Council on any amendments to the Securities Industry Act and stock exchange rules which appear desirable. Financial Impact Statement The Bill is unlikely to have any material effect on costs, revenue or savings to the Government. There is not expected to be any loss of revenue in the Australian Capital Territory to the Government from the removal of the need for dual registration under the Instruments Ordinance in respect of crop liens, wool liens and stock mortgages as none of these securities has been registered in the Australian Capital Territory since 1979. The impact of the Bill on industry and the general public would be varied and, because in most cases it would be indirect, the net costs or benefits are difficult to quantify. For some promoters of time-sharing schemes-that is, those who after the Brentwood decision wished to structure their scheme by reference to rights attaching to shares in a corporation-the expenses connected with the preparation and lodgment of an approved deed and with the costs associated with the appointment and remuneration of a trustee would no longer be avoided. On the other hand, these direct costs would need to be set off against the intangible public interest benefits accruing to investors in the scheme who would be afforded greater protection by reason that the scheme was being regulated under the prescribed interest provisions. While the direct pecuniary savings to the public from the removal of the need for dual registration under the Instruments Ordinance and the Companies Act would be small, the intangible benefit of simply not having to complete the registration process must also be taken into account. This observation must, of course, be qualified by the fact that no crop lien, wool lien or stock mortgage has been registered in the Australian Capital Territory since 1979. There would not appear to be any direct costs associated with the stock exchange amendments in the Bill as these are only consequent upon the proposed new stock exchange rules on corporate membership and brokerage rates. I commend the Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. [COGNATE BILLS: APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 4) 1983-84 APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS) BILL (No. 2) 1983-84] Debate resumed. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Before the debate on this Bill is resumed, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill, Appropriation Bill (No.4) 1983-84 and Appropriation ( Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1983-84. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(8.38) —I think that the time has come for us to examine how Australia is getting on, how we are going as an Australian family, where we are going and from where we have come. About six months ago I made just such an examination to ascertain for myself and on behalf of the electors of the electorate of Mitchell where we stood and where we were going. On that occasion I took the opportunity to make a few comparisons between commitments and the delivery of promises. However, circumstances today are somewhat different. How does one design a Budget in April 1984 to meet an election at the end of 1984? Let us look at all the circumstances that may be involved in that process, because that is the Government's intention. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has made a commitment that there will be an election later this year or early next year. Mr Goodluck —This year? Mr CADMAN —Yes, indeed. The problem for the Government is how to design a Budget that will get past the election successfully? Mr Groom —And win votes. Mr CADMAN —And win votes, gain seats or encourage the Australian people to support the Prime Minister. We know, for instance, that during the past year the average Australian family has paid out about an additional $15 a week. Mr Hodgman —Seventeen. Mr CADMAN —The honourable member for Denison says it is $17. I am being conservative tonight but I think that Medicare, the indexation of petrol costs, the lump sum superannuation tax, the failure to index spouses' allowances and all of the other measures that were promised but were not fulfilled, are costing the average Australian family about $15 more than was the case about 12 months ago. The Government now has to design a Budget which will meet the needs of the Australian people, who will say: 'What good management; what splendid activity on behalf of the Australian Government!'. We have had a year in which wages did not go up, but more people are in work in the Australian community, as was predicted when the wage freeze was introduced. People have had to pull in their belts a little because there were no wage increases, but there are more people in jobs. That is fine. We accepted that at the time; we still accept it; and we still think it is a good idea. During the last year the drought has broken. The drought will break only once, but it has broken and it will mean a tremendous amount to every individual in Australia. City people tend to underestimate the importance of rural industries, the value of rural industries and their export earnings. The jobs they create in cities are very significant to the Australian economy. Last year the Government said: 'We will go out and borrow a lot of dollars, stoke up the fires a bit and get this country moving'. That is what the Prime Minister said he would do. So he borrowed a lot of money. He has borrowed it from everywhere around the world and from Australians as well during this year. Therefore, Australian families have seen the Government borrow money to help us through this difficult period. We did not have our wage rises but we know that our children are starting to get more jobs than before. The jobs are not as good as we would like, but they are starting to get more jobs. What can be done next year? No drought will break. What sort of bank account do we want at the end of next year? Do we want to be well in the red or a little into the red? How will we balance our books for this coming year? Will we borrow a lot or can we cut down a little on our spending as a family? Government members interjecting- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —I suggest to honourable members that the honourable member for Mitchell has the floor. I call the honourable member. Mr CADMAN —They are extremely encouraging. I can understand the support I am getting from members of the Australian Labor Party for the contentions that I am putting now. They are supporting every word I say. They cannot contain themselves. Do we cut down a little on our expenses? Do we as a family draw in the belt a little more and say: 'We will not spend as much. We will not be as extravagant this year'? We could do that. We could raise a little more income by raising taxes. We could get some more money into the tin by raising taxes or we could borrow more. Just what size do we want the overdraft to be? How big will our overdraft be at the end of next year and how big should it be when we want a Budget designed to win an election? Mr Hand —Have we got an overdraft? Mr CADMAN —Australia has a massive overdraft, and the Labor Party has led us into it. It was $8.5 billion this financial year. What does the Government want to do next year? What should we do? If the Government wants to be popular and give a lot of things away, it will say: 'We will have a fairly big overdraft again'. I guess that the overdraft will be about $7.5 billion. Responsible people say it will be $5 billion, but let us say it will be $7.5 billion. Mr Groom —Ten. Mr CADMAN —The forward Estimates show a deficit of almost $10 billion, but I do not think it will be $10 billion because an atmosphere of responsibility is required. We must be careful as the Australian Council of Trade Unions and many other people believe that a promise was made in regard to tax cuts. So I tend to think that there will be a fairly big deficit because to offer significant tax cuts there has to be an expenditure of public funds of about $1 billion. That would give the average family about $3 or $4 in the pocket next year as compared with last year. I predict that the Budget will raise a few taxes from the tall poppies, people who do not really matter in the Government's eyes. Such people only employ others; so they do not really matter. The Government will say: 'We will raise a few more taxes from them. We will give some tax cuts and we will not withdraw much from government services'. I predict that is what the Budget will do, and that will make the Government fairly popular. It will allow us to retain a fairly big overdraft but it will be presented as a responsible decision. I wonder why I suspect that the Government will adopt this type of economic approach. I think it will take this approach because it has been the practice of this Government to make itself popular and at the first opportunity to say that it can no longer keep its promises. It then reins back on expenditure and changes the whole scene very quickly. The Government has made commitments in the past, and I suspect that that is what will happen in this Budget. There will be tax cuts for middle and lower income families, there will be some tax levied on the tall poppies and the Government supporters will think that is good; there will be no cut in government services. So the Government will basically remain popular. It really cannot sustain that situation if it is to be economically responsible, to create jobs and to be able to encourage the investment that we need in Australia to create more jobs and to allow the economy to expand. The Government will create a popular Budget. It will stick around for a couple of months and say what good fellows its members are, then it will have an election and very quickly bring on a nasty mini-Budget. I wonder why I suspect that. I suspect it because I have looked at the record, and the record tells me, as my colleagues have been telling me, that the Government is rather keen on taxes. It is rather keen on wealth taxes, capital gains taxes, assets tests, death duties and things like that. They are being examined at the moment. I do not think that these matters are being examined so that they will never be used; they are being examined so that they can be put into action. I am sure that this will be the Government's approach. I will read some of the promises made before 5 March 1983, which stated in part: Our Government's total income tax package is being released concurrently with this speech. Mr Groom —Who said that? Mr CADMAN —I have a copy of the speech that the Prime Minister made at the opening of the Australian Labor Party campaign on 16 February at the Sydney Opera House. He said: Its key elements include immediate reductions in income tax for almost six million Australian taxpayers . . . The Prime Minister mentioned 'six million Australian taxpayers', yet Australian families are paying an extra $15 each. I cannot understand that. I cannot believe it. The Prime Minister continued: . . . with the greatest tax cuts going to those on the lowest incomes . . . a taxpayer without dependants earning $225 a week, for example, will get a tax cut of $4.76 a week. Nobody has seen that act, but that was the commitment. Mr Groom —People are suckers. Mr CADMAN —People are suckers. They were taken for suckers. The Australian community is very shrewd in assessing these things. The people know that when we have a generous Budget followed by an election we will have many promises in the Budget and in the election campaign. They know that, as last time, these promises will not be fulfilled. There were many promises. On page 14 of the Prime Minister's speech he promised to reduce the price of petrol by 3c a litre. Actually, he has put up petrol prices by a fancy indexation process. There was a promise made by the Prime Minister that he would not break promises. That is an unbelievable promise and we are sure to hear it again. Promises were made to increase funding for government schools by $37m. That has not occurred. Promises were made to all sorts of communities, to pensioners and fringe dwellers. The Government has introduced legislation to change the Australian oath of allegiance by removing reference to the Queen, with all that that concept stands for in our society. The Government is seeking to remove reference to the Crown Solicitor in legislation introduced tonight and it wants to change the Australian flag. It has enacted sex discrimination legislation. It has spoilt a brilliant migration program so that now, where migration does exist, it is based on all sorts of unusual attitudes and ideas of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs ( Mr West). It has introduced a lump sum tax on superannuation. It has fooled around with and mucked up the totality of our defence system. It has gone to extremes to try to change by subterfuge the very attitudes that it tries to present. The Prime Minister appears glib and confident on television. Actually, what is happening in the Cabinet room and in other areas is the exact opposite of the presentation put forward by the Australian Labor Party in the public place. I will read to the House what the Labor Party promised about defence, a most serious matter affecting the security of all Australian families: Labor is committed to the re-establishment and maintenance of a well equipped, highly trained and mobile Defence Force to ensure the security of Australia's sovereign territory, particularly in the vulnerable north and west, its economic zones and its areas of vital interest. We have withdrawn from Butterworth. Mr Groom —We are disarming. Mr CADMAN —We are disarming. We were told this week that our soldiers do not have sufficient supplies. They do not have decent boots and they have to buy their own ammunition. Time after time, as we read the policy speech the Prime Minister made at the Opera House a little over 12 months ago, we find that promise after promise has been broken. I predict that we will have a Budget which appears generous, a promising Budget, an encouraging Budget, a Budget that will lead into an election campaign in which more promises will be built on the promises of the Budget. I ask honourable members of this House: How much real work has been done in this place over the last two weeks? Insignificant legislation has been introduced. One or two Bills a day are being introduced and debated cognately. Government members cannot find sufficient matters to interest them even to attend in this place. Mr Hodgman —Where are they? Mr CADMAN —Where are they? They support these important economic measures of the Government so strongly that there are only three members in the House and the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) is at the table. There is no enthusiasm for the Government's policies. Government members have been confounded by the sheer cynicism of the approach adopted by the Australian Labor Party. We are about to begin that cycle again, a cycle that I find concerning and damaging. The Government, instead of giving the tax cuts promised, takes taxes out of people's pockets indirectly. The taxes come from individuals and the Government' s coffers are built up to the extent of a $15 contribution by the average Australian family. One after another, the Government has done its best to remove, step by step, the promises of tax cuts, cuts in the price of petrol, better defence and better foreign relations. It is a really cynical process that I see going on in this House. Commitments are made publicly by the Prime Minister, but the announcements made by other Ministers go in the opposite direction and the socialist commitment to change the face of Australia is gradually being fulfilled. I warn the Australian people that they should not be taken in by a generous Budget. That can only spell disaster eventually for the Australian nation, and that disaster will occur in 1985. In 1985 the reins of government need to be in the hands of responsible, good managers. There will be a change of government at the end of the year because the Australian people have seen through this process. Mr STAPLES(Diamond Valley)(8.55) —I am glad to hear that the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) is resigned to losing the next election, and well he should be. The people of Australia will not forget quickly the mess in which the previous Government left Australia in 1983. He talked about economic responsibility. The economic irresponsibility of his Government left Australia with a massive deficit, in massive deceit, and he knows it. The weight of the borrowings the Fraser Government made over the years is now being reflected in the interest bills this Government and the people of Australia have to pick up. I will refer later to the problems with which we were left. I want to talk tonight about the great Australian dream. The great Australian dream for thousands of homeless people in this country is not to own their own homes; that is the dream of a dream. The real life Australian dream for thousands of homeless families and young people is just to live and sleep in warm, secure accommodation at reasonable expense. Throughout Australia, in all our States and Territories, the story is the same and the dream is the same. People who are poor, unemployed, black, single male or female parents, the single man or woman, the young, invalids, migrants or the aged, if they are not entirely homeless will most likely be paying half their income as rent. Warm, secure accommodation is a basic need for us all. It is a right that all of us in this country should expect to be delivered. Today, and for decades before, that right has been denied to an increasing number of people in Australia. Many are homeless or struggling in the private rental market. Families face long waiting lists for what in Victoria are mainly high rise flats in the public sector. Low and moderate income earners in Australia continue to face a housing crisis. Approximately 70 per cent of Australian householders own or are buying their own homes. For the remaining 30 per cent, home ownership is, and has been, to dream the impossible dream. Approximately 20 per cent of Australian households are occupied by private tenants. A number of studies have proved that a large percentage of private tenants are more financially disadvantaged than those in public housing. Of the 670,000 social security pensioners renting privately, nearly all would be eligible for public housing if it were available. Among private tenants, it is the 670,000 people dependent on pensions and benefits who are in the worst position. A 1976 survey showed that 86 per cent of those people were paying out more than 20 per cent of their income on rent, and 62 per cent of those people were paying over 50 per cent of their income on rent. To give honourable members an indication of the struggle that hundreds of thousands of Australians face in their day to day existence, let me quote some figures from the South Australian Housing Trust of September 1983. The weekly income of a person who is unemployed and under 18 is $45. The average weekly vacant rent for a flat at the time of the figures quoted was $72.51. That is one and a half times the person's weekly income. If a person is unemployed, married and with two children, 59 per cent of the family's weekly income of $177.20 would be spent on renting a house. In other words, that family has only about $ 70 a week to clothe, feed, educate, entertain, travel, pay the gas and light bills and keep healthy. I should be more accurate in my figures, for $1 or $2 in those circumstances can mean so much to a family; so much, in fact, that the weekly disposable income would be $72.49, or $18.12 per person per week for week after week. I seek leave to have the table from which I quoted incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INCOME AND RENT FOR SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFICIARIES Average weekly vacant rents Weekly average rents Flats Houses $57.77 $72.51 $104.71 Weekly as % of as % of as % of Pension/benefit income income income income Unemployed under 18 $45.00 128.4 161.1 232.7 Unemployed over 18 $73.60 78.5 98.5 142.3 Unemployed married + 2 children $177.20 32.6 40.9 59.1 Supporting parent + 2 children $117.90 48.9 61.5 88.8 (Source: S.A. Housing Trust figures for September, 1983) Mr STAPLES —Why do so many Australian citizens live in such poverty? Clearly from the figures I have provided, figures that have been around for decades in one form or another, it can be seen that the problem is that people have just so much to spend on rent. Why are the rents so high? Why has this problem not been addressed before? In Victoria thousands of people live in inhumane high rise buildings. Honourable members on their next visit to Melbourne should look out of the window of their aircraft at those high rise buildings, and see how they rise interminably out of the ground, out of the city below, and try to imagine how they would live, as a single parent perhaps with a couple of kids, in those sorts of conditions. They should try to imagine the lack of privacy, the lack of open space, the inconvenience, the danger and the lack of amenities. If members of this Parliament or the community in general had some time, my colleague the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) would be very happy to show them some of the housing problems in his electorate. His problems are the problems of so many. In the estates closer to ground level, houses that were built during the 1950s and 1960s under successive Liberal-National Party governments in that State, under Bolte, Hamer and Thompson, are cracking and falling apart. Plaster falls from the ceilings and from the walls. Windows are smashing in their frames because of the sinking and twisting of the buildings. Cracks centimetres wide appear in the walls overnight. The Victorian Government is doing something. It is doing some magnificent work in estate improvement, tenant participation and structural repair, but it is hampered by lack of funds. For those millions of Australians who live in spacious suburban homes- Mr Cadman —Give them some money. Mr STAPLES —Where has the money come from in the past? I will get back to that and the honourable member will see where the money has not come from and why this has happened. Most people like me and most of us who live in spacious suburban homes would spend as much in one night in a restaurant as millions of Australians who live in poverty now would be able to spend on food for weeks. It is another world but it is a world we should be more concerned about. What is the real use of our National Gallery, our sumptuous High Court of Australia and winning the America's Cup if so many millions of our neighbours live in poverty, so often without decent shelter? Thousands of our fellow Australians right now will be trying to get warm and trying to get to sleep in a car or a tent in the cities around our country. Many will break into a vacant office or church to escape the cold and many will sleep in some old clothing bin at a suburban service station or elsewhere. The Whitlam Government set about doing something very concrete about public housing and housing-related poverty. Honourable members interjecting- Mr STAPLES —Let those honourable members opposite who interject, to ask why we are not doing something, listen now. Let them interject now. In 1974-75 dollar terms the last Hayden Budget gave $290.5m to the States through the Commonwealth -State Housing Agreement. There was a tremendous boost to public housing through the Whitlam years, as there was in urban and regional development in general. But the Fraser years eroded that Federal contribution to public housing and housing in general. In constant dollar terms, the housing budget fell from $290. 5m in 1974-75 to $139.6m in the last Fraser Budget. In that period the policy of market rents was also imposed on the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement and on the public tenants. That was done explicitly to ration the available public housing stocks because that Government was not going to build them; it was going to force these people out on to the streets and into expensive rents; it did not care. This had the effect of turning public housing into welfare housing. Public housing is not welfare housing; it is public housing. There are hundreds of thousands of Australian families who need public housing right now at cost rents . In its first Budget the Hawke Government has increased the appropriation for public housing by 50 per cent from $330m in 1982-83 to $500m in 1983-84. With the phenomenal success of the first home owners scheme and other associated housing programs, as was indicated earlier by the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards), there has been a 24 per cent increase in the appropriation for public housing to $1.3 billion. That contrasts vividly with the real terms reduction of 40 per cent during those Fraser years. Had the spending in the Hayden Budget been maintained by the Fraser Government throughout its term of office, $3,750m- Opposition members interjecting- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. The Chair has had occasion to speak to both the honourable member for Mitchell and the honourable member for Braddon on three occasions. The honourable member for Mitchell was protected by the Chair while he was speaking. I ask him to give the same courtesy to the speaker, the honourable member for Diamond Valley. Mr STAPLES —I shall reiterate what I said because I am sure that honourable members opposite did not hear. Had the spending of the Hayden Budget been maintained by the Fraser Government over those years, $3,750m would have been spent on public housing. Had that $3,750m been spent on public housing, thousands would not be homeless or living in squalor or poverty now. That is where the blame lies. As was demonstrated last week during Question Time, hundreds of thousands of people are frustrated, distraught and angry. Who can blame them? They are the impoverished, the unemployed and the homeless. If they are a little luckier in this lucky country of ours, they are the impoverished, the unemployed and those who are paying more than half their meagre incomes on rent, often for substandard accommodation. We need more money for public housing. We have to erase the misery and poverty for our fellow Australians. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron), who is trying to interject, wonders what he can do. I will tell him. This House has passed legislation to recoup tax from the bottom of the harbour tax avoiders , but its implementation is continually frustrated by the Liberal-National Party Opposition and some members of the Australian Democrats, including its leader, and Senator Harradine of Tasmania. Three bottom of the harbour Bills have been rejected by the Senate. Only last week it rejected the cherry-picker superannuation tax rort. What a sham! Those opposite have no reason to yell abuse at me with a record like that. If this Government were allowed to recoup that money, if the Senate would pass that legislation and if members of the Liberal-National Party Opposition would support it by putting their money where their mouths are, fewer people would be living in misery and fear. If we all thought about it and put ourselves in the position of these people, many of us would be able to understand the anger of the unemployed, the homeless and those on the public housing waiting lists. Public housing is a public issue. Public spending on public housing must grow and we as a nation must together give a fair go to our fellow Australians who tonight will sleep in the streets, in their cars, in tents, in caravans and in clothing bins. We have to give a fair go to those who now have to spend more than half their meagre incomes on very basic and insecure accommodation. We have to inject a massive increase of funds with a base level of at least $1.7 billion to enable the Federal Government to begin to double the proportion of public housing within ten years. We have to bring back cost rents or non-profit rents instead of the regressive market rents introduced under the Fraser Government. We have to allow tenant control and participation in the management of public housing. We have to introduce new flexible housing programs under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement which includes equal access to public housing for single people. We should be looking at the community housing expansion program which would fund programs such as the rental housing co-operatives, which are so successful in many Labor States now, and local government housing programs. We have to accept rent rebates as an income security responsibility and provide carefully targetted home ownership assistance, ending the unfair subsidies to home owners and purchasers and ensuring equity for public and private tenants-the concept of tenure equality. We have to introduce an annual housing budget based on social needs and not just on economic conditions. We have to develop national housing policies in consultation with tenant and community housing groups. We have to bring in a Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement that will mean something. I am sure that the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) is doing this. Our work with him is showing that this will happen and that people are going to be protected. We are a wealthy country, and we are a lucky country. We must now invest much more money in public housing in this new Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. The burden must be lifted from the poor. They have waited too long. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(9.10) —Before I deal with one of the issues of great concern to me, the Government's community employment program, I want to comment on the problem of unemployment and the problems about which the honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr Staples) expressed concern. I think that every member of this House has a concern for those people who have had a great difficulty in obtaining proper accommodation. The former Government went a long way down the track with the resources at its disposal to try to overcome a very serious situation. I share the view of most members of this Parliament that it is absolutely essential to ensure that people in this country have adequate housing , and that includes the Aboriginal people who live out in the back blocks of my electorate. The Aboriginal people have a greater demand for proper housing, proper education and job opportunities than they do for anything else, including land rights, in my part of New South Wales. I am sure that most people would support a policy that was within the bounds of realism to ensure that people receive adequate housing and facility. One of the issues upon which I wish to concentrate is a serious anomaly that has arisen in the Government's community employment program. That program is currently providing jobs for about 40,000 people. To that extent, it is a very beneficial program. On 1 August last year the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, the Hon. Ralph Willis, announced details of this program, and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was also party to its launching. Honourable members may recall him doing so at a function near Sydney not so long ago. I have a copy of the statement, taken from the Commonwealth Record of 1 August to 7 August 1983, which, Madam Deputy Speaker, I now table. The Minister for Employment and Industrial relations said: Federal allocations under CEP will begin gradually during 1983-84 until the program becomes fully operational in the latter half of the financial year. When it is fully operational, CEP is expected to create up to 70,000 new jobs nationally in a year on worthwhile community projects. That statement clearly shows that the Government expects the CEP to be fully operational in the latter half of the present financial year-in other words, around now-and that it should be creating 70,000 jobs at a cost of $300m in this financial year. But there seems to have been extraordinary change in estimations on the part of the Government, almost overnight, on the CEP potential. On 29 September last year, the Minister issued a progress statement on the CEP. Again, I have a copy, taken from the Commonwealth Record of 3 October to 9 October 1983 . I quote from it: The Federal Government is spending $300m on CEP during 1983-84 to create up to 40,000 jobs. What has happened to the remaining 30,000 jobs? That is the first question. The Minister also repeated his 40,000 jobs estimate in the House only last week. During Question Time on 29 March, speaking about the CEP, he said that it was: . . . being successfully implemented and will, in the course of this year, assist 40,000 people to obtain employment. I have subsequently been advised that of the $300m allocated for 1983-84, a total of $260m has been approved so far for job creation projects, although not all of this has yet been taken up. In his answer in the Parliament on 29 March, the Minister told us that up until now there was a total of 33,661 jobs that had either been approved or were awaiting approval under the CEP. Is the Minister therefore saying that it has cost $260m to provide fewer than half the original estimated 70,000 jobs that would have been created under the scheme? It seems an amazing change of circumstance when we are initially told that the $300m will provide 70,000 jobs and then find out that in fact $260m provides only 33,600 jobs. Why has the Minister not explained any of this to the Parliament or to the Australian people? No doubt this is an issue to which an Estimates committee could well devote itself. A very large slab of the taxpayer's money is involved here and we have a right to know why such huge anomalies have come to light. There is more than just a hint of maladminstration by the Government and of bureaucratic bungling. Has the Government had the wool pulled over its eyes as to just how many jobs could be created under the scheme for $300m? Is the truth of the matter the fact that to provide 70,000 jobs would cost a massive $600m under this scheme, which is double the original estimate? Does the Government intend to pursue the original 70,000 jobs target which was promised by the Prime Minister, or has it realised that job creation schemes are too costly to be of lasting benefit? There are many serious questions about the whole administration and intent of the community employment program that this Government must answer, and it must answer them in detail to this Parliament and to the people. I turn to two issues of vital concern to Australia's international trade and our rural sector-our share of the Japanese beef trade, and recent problems with the importation of sheepmeat from New Zealand. The first of these issues has arisen due to what can only be described as negligence on the part of the Government. Just two months ago the Prime Minister, from Tokyo, reassured Australia's beef producers that their share of the Japanese market would not be disadvantaged by the bilateral talks between Japan and the United States. It is now becoming increasingly evident that the reassurance given by the Prime Minister will not be fulfilled. This was no more evident that in the media reports emanating this week from Tokyo which give credence to the growing suspicion that the Australian share of the increase in the Japanese market will, at best, be nominal. This week media reports indicate that Australian exporters will receive an allocation, at most, of only an extra 1,800 tonnes in the 1984 fiscal year, whilst the United States will be offered an additional allocation of 6,200 tonnes. This represents an increase in the new allocation of 22.5 per cent for Australian exporters, as against a 77.5 per cent increase for the American exporters. Last week I sought an assurance from the Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) that every effort was being made to maintain our vital share of the beef market in Japan, but the House was treated to what can only be described as a non- answer. The Minister for Trade said that he thought that Australia might have difficulty in maintaining its market. His limp defeatist response was a disgrace . The Prime Minister, today, did not do his Government any justice in trying to admonish me for having asked the question and trying to cast upon the Japanese Prime Minister a suggestion that I was doubting the honour of the Japanese Prime Minister. Nothing was further from the truth. I asked the Prime Minister to explain why Mr Nakasone appeared to be breaking undertakings given to him. I can only go on the word that the Prime Minister had given to the Press conferences. That is why I thought that he should make a statement to this Parliament on the extent to which undertakings were supposedly given to him in respect of the Australian share of the beef market. I assure honourable members that the industry is now deeply concerned, and, it would seem, with every justification. It is concerned that its share of the new Japanese allocation will be dwarfed by the share given to the United States of America. What makes the situation even more serious and disturbing is that we can only speculate about what happened in Tokyo. Why is it that the Government has failed to come clean on the issue? Why is it that a growing stream of reports emanating from Japan predict that Australia's beef producers have been overlooked in the new year's allocations, yet we have heard nothing from the Government to confirm or deny those rum- ours? I believe that the answer is simple: The Government has bungled the beef negotiations. It has made a mess of our export trade to Japan, and it knows it. If this week's reports are borne out the beef industry will be dealt a serious blow on top of the reduction of the intake to Korea. The only indication we have had from the Government that all is not well with our Japanese beef trade has been the belated decision to send the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) to Japan on 10 April. That is nothing short of a joke. That will be two and a half months after the Prime Minister told us that he had an assurance from Mr Nakasone that nothing would be done to disadvantage Australian beef producers and exporters. An announcement was made by officials in Japan that that was not a fact. I called upon either the Minister for Trade or the Prime Minister himself to go to Tokyo as a matter of urgency to clear up the apparent misunderstanding between the Prime Minister and Mr Nakasone. Today there seems little chance that we will maintain our proportional share of our hard-won market in Japan. Clearly the Government has been out-manoeuvred, allowing events to drift along to the point where, virtually overnight, this bombshell has been dropped on the beef industry. What conclusion can the beef producers of this nation draw other than that the Government has bungled the beef trade with Japan? It has made an ass of itself at the expense of the cattle producers in a great number of constituencies throughout Australia. Mr Hodgman —They have been sold out. Mr HUNT —They have been sold out. If the Prime Minister were genuine in his concern for the industry he would have been on the first plane back to Tokyo as soon as he heard of the threats to our market share. The rural sector is now beginning to see this Government in its true light. It has no regard for the rural areas of Australia. It is too busy trying to satisfy and trying to quieten some of the internal Left-Right fights within its own ranks to worry about the cattle producers of this country. I turn to an issue in which the Government can still intervene before the worst of the damage is done. I refer to the concern of sheepmeat industry leaders that heavily subsidised imports of New Zealand mutton and lamb are contravening the terms of the closer economic relations agreement with New Zealand. The Government must be ready quickly to respond to any calls by the industry for countervailing duties to be imposed in order to restore a market balance. In a statement last week the President of the Sheepmeat Council of Australia, Mr Ralph James, noted that imports of subsidised New Zealand sheepmeat into Australia had grown by 1,500 per cent over the past three years. He said imports were set to quadruple since last year. Of particular concern has been the declining unit value of those imports, heightening fears that extensive New Zealand subsidies were supporting the country's sheepmeat exporters. In the year to September 1983 the New Zealand sheepmeat industry in fact received $219m in support for lamb prices and a further $69m was provided for the mutton industry. Added to this would be related government aid to the New Zealand wool industry. The concern of the industry in Australia has been growing for some months but it has now come to a head with the sale of imported lamb at prices as low as 43c a kilogram. There is simply no way that Australian lamb producers can compete against such heavily subsidised imported meat. There will be no winners in Australia if this situation is allowed to continue unchecked; there will only be losers. In the short term the New Zealand exporters will offload a large proportion of their current oversupply, which was estimated in one Auckland newspaper last week to stand currently at around 100,000 tonnes, or about three times the normal level. If our market prices were to be heavily undercut many hundreds of Australian sheepmeat producers would be forced to the wall. That, in turn, would force a contraction along the meat industry production chain, throwing many hundreds of people out of work and reducing the production capacity of our industry. I might say that already the abattoirs of this country are in serious difficulty. We have already had enormous unemployment problems in many of our regional centres as a result of the difficulty they have been experiencing. If that situation is allowed to continue we will see more abattoirs closing down and further unemployment in an industry that is very important to this country. If the cheap, subsidised meat supply were then to dry up-this is the other consideration that consumers ought to bear in mind-the Australian market would be left with a severe undercapacity to meet demand, with the inevitable result of inflated prices to the consumer. I believe that the industry has every reason now to approach the Federal Government seeking the imposition of countervailing duties in order to balance the effect of the heavy New Zealand subsidies. If the industry were to do so, and I believe such an approach may be forthcoming in the next few days, it will be up to the Government-I hope that the Minister for Trade and the Minister for Primary Industry will co-operate-to respond as a matter of urgency to protect the Australian industry and, in the longer term, the Australian consuming public . Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(9.26) —Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1983-84, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1983-84 and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1983-84 seek additional appropriation to meet commitments that have been approved by the Government since last year's Federal Budget and to meet requirements which the Government has considered appropriate to achieve this financial year. Division 592 of Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1983-84 provides for an additional appropriation of $2m for the year 1983-84 for the Australian Tourist Commission. The Australian Tourist Commission is Australia's national tourist office and is responsible for tourist promotion. It was established in 1967 with the aim of encouraging travel to and within Australia. The Australian Tourist Commission seeks to maximise for Australia the financial benefits of international tourism. It seeks to develop and maintain working relationships with appropriate Australian companies and bodies so as to maximise the return for Australia of both public and private sector spending on developing international tourism. The 1983-84 Federal Budget provided an increase of 75 per cent; that is, an increase of $7.5m, for the Australian Tourist Commission. New procedures have been initiated not only to promote domestic tourism but also to increase dramatically overseas promotion of tourism to Australia. Accordingly, the Australian Tourist Commission has launched a major campaign to attract American tourists to Australia. The campaign is taking the form of short television adervertisements and other campaign material. It features the famous Australian comedian, Paul Hogan. The advertisements in the United States of America have so far been aimed at audiences in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego. However, market penetration of the advertisements has also been extensive in the east coast of the United States. The flood of inquiries in the United States seeking further information on Australia as a tourist destination are a direct response to this excellent media campaign. The campaign will be further promoted in the United States next financial year and it will be a most effective boost to the ongoing and extensive promotional and marketing activity being undertaken by the Australian Tourist Commission and the Australian travel industry. Last week the Australian Government, through the Australian Tourist Commission, embarked on a major advertising campaign, again featuring Paul Hogan, to promote this initiative. This program is aimed at encouraging Australians to take their vacations in Australia. In addition, a motivational booklet will appear in the April issue of the Australian Women's Weekly magazine. Some two million copies of this booklet have been printed and these will be available in airline offices and from travel agencies throughout Australia. If the domestic tourist market could be expanded by a mere 5 per cent as a result of the launching of this program, some $600m more would be injected into the Australian economy and some 20,000 extra jobs could be created. The domestic campaign has been applauded by the Australian tourist industry. The Australian Tourist Commission has received $1.6m from private contributions to promote the domestic campaign. Major contributors include General Motors-Holden Ltd, Trans Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia, to name just a few. Contributions are still being received. Tourism can provide thousands of jobs for the semi-skilled or unskilled men and women and young people throughout Australia. The industry can be easily decentralised and is suitable for the economic rejuvination of naturally attractive areas which have suffered economic decline. The number of jobs currently attributable to tourism in Australia is about 375,000. Recent surveys by the Bureau of Industry Economics estimate that tourism contributes around $12 billion annually or between 5 per cent and 6 per cent of gross domestic product. As an industry, it is of the same rank as the mining and motor car manufacturing industries. The results from the Bureau of Industry Economics study suggest that Australians aged 14 years or more took more than 52.6 million trips of one night or more away from home in the 12 months to September 1982 spending an average of between $150 and $160 per trip. Since the average trip length was just over four days, this amounted to an average of $35 to $40 per person per day. Preliminary estimates of foreign exchange earnings from tourism are $1,211m in 1983, an increase of 12.4 per cent over 1982. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) has led the recovery of the Australian international and domestic tourism industry. He correctly identified high fares and lack of promotion as curbing travel by international visitors and Australians within Australia. The Minister has developed a program which will create 100,000 new jobs in the tourist industry by 1988. This program is designed to refurbish, restructure and establish the tourist industry as a major, robust and expanding growth area of the Australian economy. The Hawke Government, an authentic Australian government, has set about creating new jobs. The Government has decided that tourism is one of the best prospects for creating new jobs. To that end a special grant of approximately $ 1m was made in the 1983-84 Federal Budget to subsidise diesel fuel costs to Great Barrier Reef tourist resorts. The Hawke Government has also reinstated the exemption from sales tax for certain tourist boats. This exemption was backdated to 19 August 1981, the date that the Fraser Government put a tax on the building of tourist boats within Australia. This was also the date that the Fraser Government imposed a 6c a litre tax on the use of diesel fuel in the tourist industry. This was a major blow to the operational costs of the Great Barrier Reef island tourist resorts. A special grant of approximately $1m to subsidise the diesel fuel costs to Great Barrier Reef island tourist resorts will allow the development of major new facilities on Barrier Reef islands. In addition, the Hawke Government provided over $490,000 in last year's Budget to assist the operation of the tourist industry training commitees-an increase of around $120,000 over the last year of the Fraser Government. Work is well under way on a Hawke Government program-the Townsville School of Catering and Hospitality-for which $1.138m has been appropriated under the States grants legislation. More than 80 per cent of visitors to northern Queensland travel on the Bruce Highway. In recognition of the importance of providing a highway to enable tourists to travel in relative safety and comfort, the Hawke Government has allocated more than $15m for the development of road works in the Herbert electorate during the last year. Tourist attractions within the Herbert electorate are a major tourist destination for domestic and international visitors. Direct weekly flights by Qantas Airways Ltd from New Zealand, South East Asia and Europe to Townsville have established Townsville as a major tourist growth area of northern Australia. South East Asia is one of our fastest growing markets. Last week Sir Leslie Thiess announced the $45m casino project to be built at Townsville. The Sheraton Hotel group will be a partner in this spectacular development. Work is expected to commence within the next few months . Plans by Air Pacific to commence a weekly service from Fiji to Townsville in November this year will provide Japanese visitors with easy access to Townsville to enjoy not only the Great Barrier Reef and the many tourist facilities in my electorate but also to gain first hand acquaintanceship with koala bears which live in great numbers on Magnetic Island. I have had lengthy discussions with Japanese officials both in Australia and Japan to encourage Japanese tourists to enter Australia through Townsville as part of a packaged tourism circuit of Australia. Furthermore, the State Government has nominated the Townsville Barrier Reef world project as a bicentennial commemorative project. Reef World is a unique maritime museum which will enable visitors to walk along transparent tunnels and view living coral and other reef life. This breathtaking project will be administered by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. The establishment of a tourism development assistance program will provide substantial benefits to the tourist industry. Last year the Government concluded an agreement with the McDonnell Douglas Corporation of the United States of America for offsets related to Australia's purchase of the FA18A tactical fighter. Under this agreement the McDonnell Douglas Corporation will promote tourism to and within Australia. It will provide appropriate promotional support and marketing assistance to the Government and it will undertake mutually agreed research surveys both in Australia and overseas. The Hawke Government accepts the challenge of organising the tourist industry, fragmented by the Fraser Government, into a cohesive and more professional entity. The challenge is to bring all the competing forces within the industry to a single point of view, that is, the creation of jobs for Australians. For these many initiatives the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism deserves the highest commendation and the thanks of the Australian people. For the Australian industry it represents the beginning of a vibrant and permanent future. I now turn to Division 334 of Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1983-84. The Australian War Memorial's current approved average staffing level is 159 full time and 25 part time personnel. In estimating the expenditure required to meet the salaries of these staff, the following unforeseeable factors were not provided for: First, an unusually high expenditure related to cessation payments , particularly one Second Division officer who was voluntarily retrenched requiring the expenditure of an additional $160,000; secondly, the 4.3 per cent national wage increase at a cost of $110,000; and thirdly, the need to employ short term staff to assist with the movement of large numbers of collection items and equipment at short notice in association with the building renovation program at an additional cost of $30,000. Given the Memorial's very poor staffing position in comparison to other similar institutions-for example, the Australian National Gallery has approximately 100 more staff and fewer functions-and the increased visitor numbers which were three-quarters of a million in 1980 and 1.3 million in 1983, to a major tourist destination in Australia, it is impossible for the Memorial to absorb any of the unforeseen expenditure. All staff are already heavily burdened and programs are operating at levels which could not be cut further. Programs concerned with the documentation, conservation and curatorship of the Memorial's collection need to be significantly upgraded in accordance with criticisms levelled by a Joint Committee of Public Accounts inquiry and an addition of 42 to the Memorial's average staffing level for 1984-85 has been sought. The Memorial is an institution of importance to all Australians, and the interest in it and respect for what it commemorates grows every year. Its existence must be supported by the provision of adequate funds to maintain existing staffing and allow necessary growth. Finally, I turn to Division 865 of Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1983-84. The Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) stated in his second reading speech: Almost half of the additional appropriations sought is for natural disaster relief and restoration. During January and February this year floods extensively damaged the Flinders Highway and the Great Northern Railway between Hughenden and Cloncurry. Damage is estimated at in excess of $8m. Both the highway and the railroad are the lifelines of the remote communities in far western Queensland. The great city of Mount Isa depends almost entirely on the highway and railroad for its sustenance and for the shipment of its vast mineral production to Townsville. I am confident that the Federal Government will provide whatever money is required to ensure that the costs of rectification are met. These Bills are further written evidence of the accomplishments of the Hawke Australian Government in carrying out its pledge to pursue national reconciliation, national recovery and national reconstruction. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(9.42) —In this wide-ranging debate I, like the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), look at the performance and activity and credibility of the Government. Today I asked a question of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) relating to his care of sensitive documents. Mr Robert Brown —A terrible question. Mr TUCKEY —I am pleased that the honourable member says it is a terrible question. He might be the person who will explain to me why it is a terrible question. The basis of the question was whether or not the Prime Minister had been careful with certain sensitive documents he left in a hotel room and whether he had suffered a similar degree of carelessness-this has now been confirmed-in the loss of some $5,000 or more. In fact, it could have been as high as $5,600. My advice is that the money was in Australian currency, and some $1,000 in American currency, and an undetermined amount in travellers cheques. It was not only an undetermined amount, but it was also not known from which bank they came. Nevertheless, the Prime Minister got extremely angry at this question. I note that he attacked the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), presumably for being party to this question. My question to the House and to the honourable member who interjected a moment ago is this: Why did the Prime Minister get so angry? I think he is man enough to take the criticism that he might have been careless. He said he was not, we have to presume it was not that. I think he has added up the pluses of his trip to that champagne function at the Royal Perth Yacht Club. That did not make him angry. What did make him angry? Was it my example of another time when he had a loss? I am sure most honourable members on some occasions have lost money in one circumstance or another. Why then did the Prime Minister, on his own admission, say that this was a very low trick? Quite clearly, there was something wrong with that money. Mr Robert Brown —No. Mr TUCKEY —Well, if there was not, why did he get so unhappy? I do not know that . Mr Robert Brown —We have all carried travellers cheques. Mr TUCKEY —Oh yes, and $1,000 worth of American currency. I am not saying there was anything wrong with the Prime Minister having $5,000 or $6,000 cash in his room. I am asking why he got so upset about it. Why did he believe that there was something wrong in my giving that example, unless guilt rests very squarely on his shoulders? Let us get that out of the way first. I was interested in national security when I asked the question and I must now be concerned with the propriety of the Prime Minister and what he has done. I saw no reason whatsoever for him to get so angry. Let us get away from that point-I simply used the opportunity to make that point-and look at what is happening in other parts of the Government. The Government has gone out to woo big business, and in the forefront it has the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins). I thought we might have a look at the rhetoric and the reality of the Minister for Finance. I have had a look at his maiden speech which he made in 1974, and I am sure big business would be thrilled to read some of the things he said. He stated: . . . Australia's capitalist system has faltered because capitalism by its nature is ill-fitted to respond to the demands of a just and equitable society. This is because the modern capitalist system is not only hopelessly ramshackled . . . The capitalist theory is founded on an unquestioning faith in the market . . . That is a good message for the people he tells that this Government is in favour of big business. I thought we might give the housing sector a bit of encouragement by reading what the Minister said in that speech. He stated: This has meant that most of the rental housing available is privately owned by people intent on making a profit. Shame! He continued: The high rents that inevitably resulted only served to make the purchase of a house on a mortgage basis relatively more attractive. This process was spurred on by speculative builders and advertising agencies which brainwashed the community into believing that owning one's own home was not only cheaper but indeed was the only Australian thing to do. Further on he stated: The once proud homebuyer realises he has been hooked. He realises that behind the rosy propaganda is the lie. I guess that might have something to do with what we hear from the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) and the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) about the great success of the $7,000 scheme. Clearly, the Minister for Finance thinks that people are being hooked. Going back to his maiden speech, he said: He realises that behind the rosy propaganda is the lie. He finds he is committed probably for the greater portion of his working life to something he does not really need to own and probably cannot afford. The promise that capitalism in this country makes in regard to private ownership is indeed an illusion. How do we tie that in with some of the rhetoric? That is the reality. That is getting inside the rather competent brain of the Minister, who has been able to dream up more tax avoidance schemes than most other people in this Parliament. That is what he says inside. Recently he made an Australia Day speech, and it is funny that once he got outside the Parliament he had a few things to say of a similar nature. In that speech he said on 26 January, 1984: We have lived through a period when the political debate has been dominated by economists who have debauched their profession by claiming too much. . . . . Monetarism has failed and increasingly we are seeing both in Austalia and elsewhere a return to interventionist policies of reflation which have their origins in Keynesian theory. More importantly, he stated: Great public commercial organisations have in the last few years been vandalised as a side effect of the monetarist experiment. He is talking about the bureaucracy here. He continued: We intend to reverse that trend. Shortly we will announce a renewed commitment to the role of public sector activities and a new approach to ensure their efficient operation within guidelines . . . Those are a few questions to confront. Since then the Minister has made an address to the National Press Club and answered a few questions. Peter Harvey from the Nine Network said: 'Minister, to paraphrase somebody some time ago, where is the money? In particular, where is the $3 billion the Auditor-General referred to in the second part of the question?' The Minister has a lot to say about what that is all about. He said: 'Only yesterday we saw a repeat of the gutlessness by the Senate when they rejected another piece of legislation designed to retrospectively crack down on a scheme'. He went on: 'We increased substantially the resources available to the Tax Commissioner. He did a review of his top structure to better fortify himself in his war with the tax avoidance industry'. He went on to talk about the continuing immorality of tax avoiders. Finally he said that people should pay what they ought to pay. If everybody was paying what they ought to be paying, presumably tax levels would be lower than they are today. Of course, we heard Senator Walsh talk about greedy tax cheats. The honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr Staples) just gave us a tearful effort on the lack of public housing because people cheat on their tax. It was 5 October 1983 when I came into this Parliament and drew the Government's attention to a tax evasion scheme and massive evidence of tax avoidance contributed to by the Minister for Finance. What has the Government done about it at this stage? It has done absolutely nothing. The Minister is still embraced by the Government. For any honourable member who interjects I mention that I am happy to look at the vote. I brought in the record showing all of those honourable members who supported the Minister and denied the Opposition's condemnation of him. There are some interesting names on that record. Of course, the honourable member for Diamond Valley who complained about what tax avoidance and tax evasion was doing to the industry voted too. He is guilty by association . Mr Hollis —Do not try to threaten us. Mr TUCKEY —I am not threatening those opposite. I am just making it quite clear that not one Government member can be classified as anything but a tax cheat because they came in here and backed up a tax cheat. That is the difference between the rhetoric of the Labor Government and the reality of the Labor Government. Government members embraced the Minister and stuck by him. All honourable members on the Government side who are on that list are guilty. But do not take too much notice of that. Let us look at what I am talking about. Recently I got hold of the probate figures relative to this matter. What did I find? I found that the estate could have been valued as high as $2,153,130. I found- Mr Maher —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! Before the honourable member for O'Connor proceeds I alert him to the fact that in the judgment of the Chair he is sailing rather close to the wind in respect of the standing order which precludes reflection on any honourable member of the House. I will hear the honourable member further but I ask him to be very mindful of what I have said. Mr TUCKEY —Mr Deputy Speaker, I will. I was referring to matters already raised in the House by myself. Mr Maher —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member for O'Connor to resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Lowe on a point of order. Mr Maher —Mr Deputy Speaker, my point of order actually refers to another standing order. I refer to standing order 71 under which no member may allude to any debate or proceedings of the same session unless such an allusion be relevant to the matter under discussion. I submit to you that the Appropriation Bill is not an appropriate occasion on which to run all these matters which have been debated at great length for days during this session. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. The Chair is not of a mind to rule that at this juncture there is a point of order. I call the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr TUCKEY —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. All I was able to do was calculate in relation to this matter that on an estate of that size the probate would have been $988,831. I leave the matter at that. As far as the honourable member for Diamond Valley is concerned, that would be a lot of houses. While we are on the subject of tax avoidance and tax evasion I thought I would bring up a new matter related to the tax avoidance industry which I have labelled the bottom of the sandpit scheme. This is a scheme whereby certain contractors go along to the owners of sandy properties in the Perth metropolitan area and maybe in other States as well. Instead of saying to those people: 'You have a nice looking sandhill there which has value to me because I will cart it away and sell it to somebody else and I will pay you a royalty'-which of course would be taxable in the hands of the recipient-they say instead: 'No, we will offer to buy that sandhill off you for a capital purchase. But as we are not going to carry the sand away on the day of purchase we want a terms deal on it. What about we buy it over the period during which we will take it away, maybe two years or maybe three years?' The purchaser says: 'Fine, I will do that'. That scheme is all very attractive because in fact no tax is then charged. The most interesting thing about the bottom of the sandpit scheme is that some people might end up with a hole on their property. Those people write to the Commissioner of Taxation and say: 'After all, I have had diminution of my capital asset. My land is no longer as valuable. They have taken something away' . If there is a hole left on the property the facts of life are that the Commissioner would probably be quite right in agreeing. Of course, it was originally a sandhill it just might be that the owner of the property ends up with a nice level block which he is planning to subdivide anyway. Of course, that nice level block has improved in value. The owner does not pay tax on what he gets for the sand taken away. Of course, when the owner subdivides and sells that land-if he has held it for any period and runs a few sheep and cattle on it -he will not pay any tax on that either. Mr MacKellar —Who did that? Mr TUCKEY —Is it not remarkable who has been involved in the bottom of the sandpit scheme in Perth? I wonder whether any honourable member would like to take three guesses? I would start with the Minister for Finance if I were the honourable member. This gentleman has not even learnt his lesson. He is still not prepared to act on some of his own rhetoric. He is not prepared to come out and do what he expects other people to do. It is a disgrace. It reflects on the Government. That is what I am here to speak about. I am here to speak about the rhetoric and the reality. We could go on time after time. Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask your guidance. Are we limited in this debate to 15 minutes or has it just been by accident that some honourable members have stopped at 15 minutes? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The provisions of the Standing Orders enable the honourable member to speak in accordance with the time indicated on the clock. Mr TUCKEY —I thank the Chair but I understand that there is some special arrangement. I do not wish to break the arrangement and interfere with other members. However, as I was interrupted for a moment or two by a point of order, I repeat that it has happened time and again. Other members have stood up here today and said that the Government is not dinkum. Honourable members have said that the Government does not do what it says. More importantly, members of the backbench are prepared to embrace people who break the basic concepts that this Government professes to stand for and they ought to be considered as bad as anyone else. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(9.58) —As I understand it, the debates on the Appropriation Bills, even minor ones, provide an opportunity to canvass a very broad range of subjects. Consequently, I want to make a number of remarks about what is set out in the so-called 'Strategic Basis of Australian Defence Policy 1983' which, I am sure all honourable members would be aware, has been well and truly eschewed by the Government, insofar as policy prescriptions are concerned, particularly in regard to the suggestion that Australia needs to be in a position to match the potential nuclear capability of other powers within the region. Honourable members presumably would recall my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) yesterday when I referred to the specific matter of the claim made in the document that the Soviet Union had in fact achieved strategic nuclear superiority over the United States. I will quote from the relevant section of the strategic basis paper as it appears in the National Times. It asserts: Initially greatly inferior in nuclear armament, the USSR, by its own sustained efforts and aided by the relative US neglect of US nuclear forces, has achieved superiority in the critical area of ICBMs and intermediate nuclear forces which is not fully compensated by US maritime and air forces. I argue that that sort of proposition is the basis of a regeneration of the Cold War mentality. It is something that all honourable members of this Parliament ought to resist strongly. I also reiterate that it is not the Government's view that that is the case-at least as reflected in the answer of the Minister for Foreign Affairs yesterday. I really think that what we are looking at here is a document which is the product of a group of bureaucrats in the Defence establishment and senior military officers. Frankly, I am frightened to think that that sort of thinking predominates even in those quarters. I am pleased to see that it does not predominate in Government quarters. Obviously that sort of proposition has great relevance so far as the Australian Government is concerned in terms of its action. If we accept that that sort of statement is true, that has important implications. The fact is that whether we like it or not the presence of United States bases on our soil means that we are a significant element of the United States global strategic war fighting capability. Obviously we have to give great consideration to whether those bases make a greater contribution to peace by contributing to the verification of compliance with strategic arms treaties or whether they increase the probability of war by facilitating the development of a first strike capability. They are the sorts of questions we need to consider. That sort of proposition, if accepted in significant circles within the defence establishment, obviously is a matter of grave concern. The fact is that a number of Press commentaries have appeared on the strategic basis paper. Some have chosen to focus on the fact of the leak having occurred. Others have chosen to focus on the actual content of the paper. The Australian Financial Review for one, while certainly not a journal noted for its left wing opinions, was moved to comment that the analysis appearing in the strategic basis paper was highly incompetent and expressed grave concern on that score. I think it would be true to say that in the comments on the content of the so- called strategic basis paper most of the emphasis has been on the suggestion that Australia ought to be in a position to match any regional power in developing a nuclear weapons capability, should such an eventuality or possibility arise. I would like to focus on the quotation which I read out earlier, which relates to the claim of Soviet strategic nuclear superiority. I think it needs to be borne in mind that a claim of that type is not currently pursued even by the military leadership in the United States, the Pentagon. I think that the general speculation on the strategic basis paper seems to be that it was prepared in about 1982, at which time Reagan made a well publicised statement to the effect that the Soviet Union had acquired a significant edge in the area of strategic nuclear capabilities. I am certainly not an apologist for the actions of the Soviet Union. I think that it has committed many reprehensible acts. I think that its own actions in the area of a strategic nuclear build-up are-to put it mildly-extremely questionable and not consistent with the best interests of world peace. In asserting that, I also absolutely reject the thrust of the Reagan Administration ; that is, that world peace and international security require a massive arms build-up on the western side of the East-West division. I think that in analysing these sorts of claims about the relative strengths of the Soviet and Western blocks, it needs to be borne in mind that the Soviet and Western armed forces are structurally different in various ways. The Soviet Union is peculiarly dependent on intercontinental ballistic missiles for its strategic nuclear capability. The overwhelming bulk of its capacity in that area is land-based heavy ICBMs. The United States by contrast places a considerably higher reliance on submarine-based missile systems, air-launched cruise missiles and strategic bombers. There is a great difference in the composition of the forces which exist. So to restrict an analysis to a comparision of the number of warheads, the number of missile launchers and the throw weights available in terms of the land-based ICBMs possessed by both sides leads to a grossly distorted image of the real position. In making assessments of superiority, if one is talking about the capacity to destroy or to knock out the other side's strategic nuclear launchers as well as the throw weight, the total explosive power that can be brought to bear, one obviously needs to take account of the accuracy of the missile systems possessed by both sides. I think it is generally conceded that the United States still has a pretty substantial edge in this area. In that context I shall quote briefly from a paper written by Desmond Ball of the Australian National University Research School of Pacific Studies Strategic and Defence Studies Centre. He delivered the paper on 12-15 July 1982 at a conference on international security in the South East Asian and South West Pacific regions. In that paper he discusses this sort of question and talks about the various indices and measures of the capacity possessed by nuclear powers to deliver a warhead within a certain accurate radius. So far as the capacity to destroy an opponent's nuclear silo is concerned, he argues that a particular index called the 'counter military potential'-CMP-is a significant factor. He argues: CMP is the most meaningful general index of destructive capability of nuclear weapons against 'hard' or 'point' targets such as ICBM silos . . . As far as that capability is concerned-in other words, the ability to knock out a hardened installation-he goes on to say: As of July 1982, the total CMP of the US strategic nuclear forces was approximately double that of the Soviet arsenal . . . so that by the end of the decade the total CMP of the Soviet forces should be almost as great as that of the US forces. So, far from the Soviet Union having a strategic edge at the moment, in fact, if one extrapolates the Soviet Union's current weapons development programs on an assumption of roughly static United States capability, we will be waiting until the end of this decade before we even get parity. Of course that does not take into account the massive United States arms building program which is currently going on-the development of the MX missile system, which has a greatly enhanced capability to hit a target with a great deal of precision. So I submit that the sorts of claims which are made of Soviet strategic superiority by way of justification of a massive arms build-up on the American side are unjustified, unwarranted, dangerous to world peace and conducive to a further massive misallocation of resources to the arms business. Mr Deputy Speaker, I understand that arrangements have been made by way of curtailing the length of speeches. I have a great deal more I would like to say on this matter, but I shall simply continue a little on the general theme of the incomparability of the strategic forces deployed by the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. One claim which is sometimes made is that the United States possesses a superiority in submarine-launched missile capability but that fails to compensate for its deficiency in the ICBM area. Various facets of that argument exist. One major point made which is, I think, of relevance here is that it is generally conceded that the United States has a very major edge over the Soviet Union in terms of allowing its submarines to run silently and undetected, and a far greater capability than the Soviet Union so far as the technology of detection of an opponent's nuclear submarines is concerned. So I think that if we take into account those sorts of technological differences it serves to reinforce the general point that I am making; that is, that the claim of Soviet strategic nuclear superiority, as asserted in the strategic basis document, is not warranted. It is not conducive to world peace and is something which the Government and elements within its bureaucracy and defence establishment ought to eschew. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(10.08) —Tonight we are discussing the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1983-84, the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1983-84 and the Appropriation Bill (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1983-84. I would like to concentrate on the appropriations for the Department of Health. This morning the Sydney Morning Herald ran an editorial headed 'Doctors: now is the time to quit' . There followed an analysis of the present industrial situation, which is very unfortunate and in which doctors for the first time in the history of Australia have felt that they should go on strike. I think that is a very unfortunate outcome of the present Government's policies. I understand the concerns which the doctors have. The editorial analysis is extraordinary because it merely analyses the industrial muscle which the doctors are able to put up and comes to the conclusion that they do not have sufficient muscle to beat the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett). But nowhere in the whole editorial is there any examination of the underlying issues, no examination of whether it would be in the interests of the Australian people and of good health care if the arguments being advanced by the doctors were to prevail. It is within that framework that I would like to address some remarks to the House tonight. Within the Government's general program, within its Budget and within the scope of these Appropriation Bills there are two main thrusts of the Government's health policy. The first is a major move in the direction of increased government control over health care insurance and delivery. That is the first thrust of the Government's policy. Certainly, honourable members opposite would acknowledge that that is a clear objective of the Labor Government-a major move in the direction of increased government control. The second thrust of the Government's policy is the implementation of one aspect of the Australian Labor Party-Australian Council of Trade Unions accord which aimed to produce a nationalised or almost nationalised health scheme and within that to gain control over non-wage incomes. That is the second main thrust of the Government's health policy. The component of increases in Government control within health policy covers three main areas. The first one I draw particularly to the attention of the business community which has in some respects been lauding the conservatism of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in economic policy. In regard to health insurance, this Government has actually nationalised $1.7 billion worth of private health insurance premiums. It has taken those over into the public sector. It has dislodged 5,000 private sector employees and has taken on employees in the public sector to take over the duties that private sector employees have been carrying out. So there has been a major act of nationalisation in the health industry, as I said, amounting to $1.7 billion. We have not heard a peep out of the business community about this major act of nationalisation. The second major area of nationalisation concerns the doctors. This relates very much to the matter discussed in the Sydney Morning Herald. There were two aspects of the Government's extra control over doctors. The first is to move government or taxpayer support for doctors in their surgeries in respect of the schedule fee from the 30 per cent government subsidy under the old scheme to an 85 per cent government subsidy. So a scheme which had a measure of government intervention up to the level of 30 per cent under the previous Government, with some tax concessions, has now moved to an 85 per cent taxpayer subvention. The aim there is to try to get all doctors to bulk bill the government for surgery consultations and to accept 85 per cent of the prescribed fee in full payment of the bill. As a result, those doctors will be directly dependent on the government payroll. A direct billing system inevitably leads to high utilisation because the patients have no financial constraints on visiting their doctors. They make no payment at the point of service. The doctors merely have to send a bill, virtually anonymously, to the Department of the Treasury, and the bill is paid. Also, because of the 15 per cent discount there is a temptation to increase the number of services rendered both on the part of the patient, who does not have to put in anything at the point of service, and on the part of the doctor who sends a bill anonymously to the government. If doctors are foolish enough in very large numbers to go into the bulk billing system and if their rates of utilisation start to increase, the Minister for Health will say that they are guilty of overservicing and will exercise his control over their incomes either by reducing the schedule fee or possibly by moving to capitation or salary systems. So this is the first element in controlling the doctors to a much greater extent than before. The second element is to control the hospital specialists. This has been done in a very crude fashion by introducing a new section to the Health Insurance Act which gives the Federal Minister direct control without arbitration or appeal over the contracts that visiting medical officers to public hospitals have with those hospitals. The purpose of this move is the same as that involved in the bulk billing objective; to make these doctors wholly dependent on the Government for their income; so doctors in surgeries and doctors visiting hospitals will both be entirely under the control of the Federal Government, and therefore will be getting around the provisions of section 51 of the Constitution, which prohibits the civil conscription of doctors for the purpose of providing government medical services. I think that the doctors would be wise to challenge that legislation in the High Court of Australia as I believe there are sound grounds for believing that it contravenes that provision of section 51 of the Constitution which prevents civil conscription of doctors and dentists. The third area of increased Government control is that of private hospitals. The Federal Minister for Health has introduced a system of categorisation on the Federal level of all private hospitals in Australia into categories 1, 2 and 3. This is a very arbitrary categorisation and determines the level of public taxpayer subsidy as well as the level of private health insurance rebate for patients attending those private hospitals. Because of the arbitrary and bureaucratic nature of those controls, some hospitals no doubt will get a bit of a windfall in terms of reimbursement, but other hospitals most definitely have been put in a very disadvantageous position. I refer particularly to private psychiatric hospitals with chronic psychiatric patients who have been obliged under this categorisation, in most cases, to pay an extra $38 a day out of their private resources. Given the nature of these patients and the problems their families are having with them, over many years in many cases, this is a very cruel imposition by this Government. I might add in passing that these categorisation proposals were invalid in law. When the Minister set these categorisations in December he had not consulted fully with his State ministerial colleagues as is required under his legislation . Also, he had not fulfilled the provisions of his own Act which called for gazettal of these guidelines. Therefore, the guidelines have been found to be invalid and every single private hospital in Australia has been asked last week and this week by the Federal Government to re-apply for categorisation. But that is a minor matter when compared with the attack on the private hospitals and on their independence. The purpose of this whole exercise has been made clear by Dr John Deeble in an interview recorded in the Sun-Herald newspaper on 29 January 1984. In this interview Dr Deeble said: Putting private hospitals into three classes is the very first step towards putting private hospitals into the public system. This is a very big step, but it is a long term aim. Clearly these areas of health insurance, the $1.7 billion worth of premiums being nationalised, the attempt to get doctors to bulk bill for all patients and to make them totally dependent on taxpayers' money for all surgical consultations, the attempt to have specialists' contracts come directly under the control of the Federal Minister without arbitration or appeal, and the total categorisation and control of the private hospitals in line with Dr Deeble's and Dr Blewett's objectives of bringing them eventually into the public system, are part of the Labor Government's attempt to bring about an almost total control of health care financing and delivery and an almost total control of the whole shooting match. Mr Reeves —And to control costs. Mr CARLTON —One honourable member has interjected and said that it will control costs. Mr Reeves —And could stop rip-offs. Mr CARLTON —The honourable member says it would stop rip-offs. There are two ways of going about this problem. It is a genuine problem in health schemes around the world and I think it has been described very well by Jack A. Meyer in the introduction to a recent publication of the American Enterprise Institute in which he says: The principal problem in health care today is the need for a workable mechanism to achieve a proper balance between acceptable cost and an ensured level of quality . . . Too often, the Government defines the problem through the narrow prism of its own frantic search for ways to bring rising Government outlays in line with a shrinking fiscal resource base. The only way out of that box is to ensure that the Government is not the only source of funds for health care and that greater reliance is placed on market oriented incentives to encourage health care providers to delivery services of acceptable quality at lower cost. What the Minister for Health does not realise is that these market mechanisms have not been satisfactorily tried. In my view they were not satisfactorily tried under the old system and they have not been satisfactorily tried now. Around the world, in every health system that is concerned about costs and quality, people are realising that the way to solve those concerns is not to put all the health care dollars into the taxpayer dollar pot. If that happens, all the responsibility for quality and cost control comes back onto the administrators and Ministers. They have to exercise a big valve control at the very top. The real controls, if they are to be sensitive and related to patient needs, must be exercised at the bottom end of the scale, at the work face, where the provider meets the actual customer, the patient. Around the world, where people are looking sensibly at those problems and at the solutions to them, they are looking for mechanisms that will introduce incentive down the line as far as possible and keep a number of private dollars in the pot. In that way we do not have a continual clamping-down, a restriction on hospital systems, doctors, providers and patients. We do not have the queuing , the shortages and the difficulties we have seen under Roper in Victoria and Brereton in New South Wales, and now under Blewett in Canberra. The second aspect of the Government's policy on which I want to touch briefly is the issue of the prices and incomes accord. Under the accord between the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Australian Labor Party, signed before the last election-a deal between the trade union movement and the Labor Party which was foisted onto the other participants at the National Economic Summit Conference-there appeared this item under the heading 'Non-wage incomes': Non-wage incomes include dividends, capital gains, rent, interest, director's fees and incomes of unincorporated enterprises (doctors, lawyers, shopkeepers, self-employed builders and tradesmen, etc.) Part of the accord, in the same paragraph, states: The establishment of a health insurance scheme incorporating measures to remove the ability of doctors to exploit patients through overservicing, use of unduly costly procedures and non-adherence to scheduled fees. It also includes this clause about seeking the co-operation of State governments : The States have unlimited constitutional power to control prices (except where they are controlled by the Federal Government), and their assistance will be sought in regulating prices charged by important sections of the non-corporate area. We see in this health policy an application of the provisions of the accord by the bringing in of price control by the Federal Minister, in effect, over schedule fees and over contracts, by agreements with his State counterparts to bring in price control regulations in the States, and thereby to bring about price control of what are essentially small businesses. We are not talking about income control in this case; we are talking about a control of price at the turnover level, a gross income from which expenses have to be deducted. It is the same as controlling the prices in a shop without having any real understanding of the component costs. This is the direction in which this Government is heading. It is the new corporate state in Australia. It has begun in other areas and it is now being extended to health. In two principal respects, in the quality of health care-- Mr Blanchard —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. It was my understanding that only 15 minutes was being given to speakers in the debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —The matter is not within the province of the Chair. There is no point of order. Mr CARLTON —If the honourable member had not raised the point of order I would have been able to conclude the sentence and keep within my time limit. The Government in two principal respects-in attacking the long term quality of Australian health care by, in effect, nationalising health care delivery and in making a major attack on what are essentially small businesses-is taking Australia in a totally unsatisfactory direction as a result of its general health care policy. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Hunter)(10.24) —The purpose of these three Bills-the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1983-84, the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1983-84, and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1983-84-is to appropriate supplementary funds for the purposes of government expenditure between now and the end of the current financial year. It is usual at this time of the year for these Bills to be introduced in order to make those appropriations possible. Before I deal with some specific matters, I draw the attention of the House to the fact that on this occasion the additional appropriation represents only 0.59 per cent of the total net appropriations at this time of the year. This reflects very well on the budgetary and financial management capacity of the Government. That percentage is the lowest for a considerable number of years. In fact, I think it is the lowest figure for at least 10 years. It has been reduced, for example, from 1.1 per cent in 1981-82 and from 2.3 per cent in 1982-83. In terms of gross expenditure, the percentage this year of 1.11 per cent is the lowest for the last 10 years, with the exception of 1978-79. I know that the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) in his second reading speech drew attention to the fact that this is testimony to the Government's more thorough and rational management of the budgetary process as a result of its more careful management this year. That the budgetary position is as sound as it is at present is also testimony to the very effective continuing economic management this Government has undertaken since 5 March last year. I do not have time to deal in very much detail with the Government's initiatives, but I think it is important that they be at least referred to. If I have time, I will draw attention to the impact this series of economic measures has had on Australia's economic position. The first point to which I make brief reference is the fundamental approach of this Government in connection with the prices and incomes accord. This was completed, of course, before 5 March last year between the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. It is necessary to have that agreement because of the attempt by the Labor Party in government to ensure that it could make a simultaneous attack on the twin problems of unemployment and inflation. In terms of our fiscal policy, we determined that we would provide maximum fiscal stimulus to the economy which at the same time was consistent with our anti-inflationary objectives. It is very difficult to do that starting from a very high inflation floor. If expansionary, stimulatory policies are to be adopted, it is quite clearly necessary to put into place at the same time policies that will have an anti-inflationary component. It was also necessary to balance our monetary policy because, unlike the previous Government, we determined that we would allow sufficient monetary growth to accommodate the growth in nominal output. The previous Government had allowed money to grow by an amount which was sufficient to accommodate inflation , but not sufficient to accommodate any real growth. The result of that type of approach, that policy, was that the previous Government squeezed out of the Australian economy any potential for real growth. The approach the Hawke Government has adopted has been more realistic. It has been more understanding of the type of economic circumstances that exist, and it has undoubtedly been vastly more successful. The first major step this Government took after its election to office on 5 March last year occurred three days after that election. On 8 March it became necessary for the Government to devalue the Australian currency and at the same time to serve notice on speculators that their speculative activities in relation to capital movements, capital inflow and outflow, would not be tolerated by a Labor government. I think notice was very effectively served on that occasion. About $3,000m had flowed out of Australia in the three weeks prior to the election. Of course, that was fuelled by the extremely irresponsible statements made by spokesmen for the now Oppostion, including the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), who said: . . . election of a Labor Government would inevitably mean a major devaluation of the dollar. He continued: Many experts believe that an ALP Government would probably devalue the dollar by at least 15 per cent in its first days in office. Debate interrupted. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Barry Jones-I require the question to be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. [COGNATE BILLS: APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 4) 1983-84 APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS) BILL (No. 2) 1983-84] Debate resumed. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Hunter)(10.30) —The next major initiative of the Government, of course, was the realisation of the ambition of the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) over a long period to bring together all the interests in the Australian economy by way of the Economic Summit Conference. We did that within almost one month of the election of the Government. It occurred in April 1983 and, of course, it occurred in this chamber. The next major initiative was the May economic statement. Because of a number of different undertakings which the Government had given prior to the election, it was necessary for us to shave off from the previous Government's expenditure undertakings and programs something like $1,000m. We took advantage of the opportunity then to replace them with about $500m worth of initiatives of this Government. They included initiatives in public housing, the home ownership assistance scheme, the community employment program and manpower and training programs. The next initiative was the Premiers Conference which took place on 30 June 1983. This Government, realising the very serious financial circumstances that the States were facing in connection with their budgeting, made available to them an extra $270m in cash grants and loan approvals. That included a total of $155m in a one-off grant to relieve the States of those budgetary problems. That was provided by way of a special revenue assistance grant. The next initiative was the establishment of the Economic Planning Advisory Council. It first met in July 1983. The purpose of establishing EPAC was to ensure that the process of consultation, negotiation and discussion which had been initiated with the Economic Summit Conference would be continued. Everyone in the Australian community now applauds the fact that EPAC was put into place. It is operating. It is a means of continuing consultation and discussions between the Government and important sectors of the Australian economy. The next initiative, of course, was the Budget which was introduced on 23 August 1983. It is the single most important financial document which any government introduces during any year. Faced with the daunting Budget deficit of something like $9.6 billion which it became apparent would be the inheritance of the Hawke Government from the previous Government, it was necessary for us not only to maintain some type of significant stimulation of the Australian economy but also to take advantage of that opportunity to rein back on the type of deficit we were inheriting. So we budgeted for a deficit of about $8.5 billion, and those general Budget objectives were applauded again by all responsible elements of the Australian community. The next major initiative was the floating of the Australian dollar on 12 December last year. It was necessary to take that step because it was the only realistic step in the light of the continuation of very speculative activity with respect to capital movements. There had been a major inflow of capital funds that was threatening the Government's objective in relation to the control of the money supply and at the same time was providing speculators, who were almost assured of a significant revaluation of the Australian dollar, with the opportunity to make very large speculative gains. I think that that initiative by the Government has been a resounding success. Some problems persist, but in general terms I think that the Government can take a great deal of credit for showing much greater courage in that connection than was shown by our conservative opponents when they were in government. Then the Martin report on the Australian financial system was brought down in December 1983. The chief issues of the Martin report will continue to be matters of concern, interest and discussion as this Government undoubtedly moves, at least to some extent, further down the track towards freeing up financial markets while at the same time ensuring that it retains for itself sufficient capacity to control the financial system and to exercise legitimate, necessary and sensible forms of control over the money system generally. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(10.35) —I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bills as they give us an opportunity to canvass quite a few matters which might concern not only the Opposition but also the people of Australia. I start by saying that the Budget, when it was introduced, provided for an $8.6 billion deficit which was at that time and still is a record deficit for Australia. But it was sold to the Australian people. Since then the estimates on which it was based, I believe , have improved due to the breaking of the drought. As one honourable member said, it seems to be a weather-led recovery, but the figures in the Budget have improved because of a real increase in productivity. I have looked at the figures released by the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) to indicate that there has been no blow-out in the Budget figures themselves. But when one takes into account the improvement in the economy, one would expect that the deficit would naturally reduce. I have heard that for every one per cent improvement in the gross domestic product, there is a potential reduction in the deficit of $500m. This is probably brought about by the fact that people are being taken off the unemployment list, are becoming productive and contributing to the revenue. So, that one per cent increase should mean a saving of $500m. On those figures, as the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has indicated, if productivity has increased by 3 per cent over Budget Estimates, we should be looking at a deficit at the moment not of the order of $8.6 billion but of $7 billion-$1.5 billion less. So if we look at it realistically we see that there has been a blow-out in the Budget of the proportion of $1.5 billion. The Treasurer might explain that to us in more detail. The Budget figures indicating the potential to employ 70,000 people throughout Australia under the community employment program have been revised to the extent that it is now said by the responsible Minister that only 40,000 people can be employed under that program. This is a massive reduction from the original estimate; it is almost half. Again I believe that the Australian people should be advised as to how this discrepancy has come about, how the 70,000 has slipped to 40,000. There has been no proper explanation in this regard. It worries me when I hear about a deficit displayed with such gay abandon in this House without realising its implications. I know that people will say that I am a square and perhaps a conservative, but I always like to believe or compare the ways- Mr Barry Jones —And you are an accountant too. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I am an accountant. That is probably the basis of my conservatism. I am not apologising for that, but accountants are conservative. I always believe that a person in a household, if he cannot earn sufficient within a particular time to give him the capacity to borrow and to repay a loan, should live within his income and the funds he has. This situation is not peculiar to this Labor Government. It is common to other governments. A deficit occurs when a nation spends beyond its means without the equivalent of the deficit being put into hard assets for the use of future generations. I noticed in the last Budget that the cost of funding accumulated deficits over the period was 7c for every dollar spent by the Commonwealth. That means an amount must be built into the expenditure factor and cannot be used on other things. The taxpayers and the youth of the future will have to bear that continuing expense because of today's extravagances. I hope that the Government will heed the advice of the Business Council of Australia, which has called for a concerted effort to bring that deficit back by an appreciable amount. By saying that, I do not mean that it expects tax increases to occur so that that can be accomplished. The effect on the inflation rate must also be taken into account. The honourable member for Hunter (Mr Robert Brown) mentioned that the Government has been successful in reducing the inflation rate. I remind the House and the people of Australia that that inflation rate has been artificially reduced, because of the effects of the health insurance proposals, by some 2.3 per cent for the current year. So, in looking at the attack on inflation, perhaps the result is not quite as good as might have been expected. Mr Robert Brown —I said that the claim that you people are making cannot be substantiated. Mr BRAITHWAITE —The honourable member might not have said that. What I am saying is that the attack on inflation has not taken into account the artificial reduction because of the Medicare insurance factor. We should be aware that, because of this artificial reduction, the areas that are normally indexed, such as local government, a sphere of government within our society, will not be getting exactly what they wanted. In local government finances there is an automatic expectation of indexation. When the establishment of the Economic Planning Advisory Council was initially mentioned at the conference last April, I for one applauded it, because if the people of Australia-the business people, the unions, and all interested people- can get together and make a decision in regard to the future and the Government is prepared to listen to them, well and good. But I do not believe that consensus has ever spread over 100 people trying to give their advice on what Australia wanted. The conference ended with an agreement on everything but, basically, what the wage structure was to be, and that was to fall into the prices and incomes accord. I understand that already there has been an increase of some 5 per cent because of the indexation of the last 6 months. I understand that there is to be a 4.1 per cent increase at this stage. This makes me believe that perhaps the basic structure of wages will go beyond the Budget expectations . That highlights the difficulties of holding a conference of that nature without tying up all the ends. The income end was stitched up, but the wage end was not. So consensus depends very much on the outcome of the wage increases up to the end of June. As I said, it is all very well to get a lot of people together to say that EPAC has recommended this or that, but it must also be appreciated that much of the advice that is being given through EPAC is not necessarily the advice that might be offered by people outside. The honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) made particular reference to national disasters. I support his call for the Government to look very carefully at the disaster that has occurred because of the abnormally wet season in north Queensland and the fact that the major trade and export route of the rail link between Mount Isa and Townsville has been severely disrupted. It does not require just maintenance; it requires work of a more immediate nature. When I saw that item on national disasters in the papers, I immediately thought of the Labor Government -but then I realised that other things were being talked about. I just thought I would add that too. On the aspect of Medicare, I have already mentioned the artificial reduction in the CPI, but the current dispute between the Government and doctors, in which the Government wants to try to reduce the medical fees to its own artificial schedule fees, is nothing short of ridiculous and nothing short of an attempt to nationalise and to regulate the medical profession. Perhaps that is just the thin end of the wedge which has been revealed by many of this Government's actions over the last 12 months. In that respect, I just mention the resource rent tax. I am not sure where it stands with the Government at present, but it is just another attempt to take over the resources of Australia, just as Mr Connor, a Minister in the Whitlam Government, tried to do many years ago. I believe that the resource rent tax will have a greatly damaging effect on the potential for development of our resources. It has already shown that in connection with oil, and I am very sure that it will show it in respect of many of our other resources. EPAC apparently, in its own way, is now said to have endorsed a capital gains tax, a wealth tax, a purchase tax and quite a few other taxes. But I suggest that the Government look very carefully at all these aspects just to see where the net benefit will be and whether more will be gained from the collection of those taxes than will be expended in the cost of their collection. That is a vital point. When talking about political philosophy, one should get down to the realism of ascertaining where the net gain is. I have been asked to cut the length of my speech to 10 minutes. I would have been more than happy to make other comments, but those will suffice for the time being. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur)(10.46) —At the outset, I congratulate those honourable members who have made their maiden speeches this evening-my colleague and friend the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) and the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt)-and I wish them well in the House. In speaking to these Appropriation Bills I should like to devote my brief comments to a subject dear to the hearts of all honourable members-education. Perhaps nothing distinguishes the parties of this chamber more than education. There are no blurrings of the edges and there is no consensus. There is a clear cut distinction. Honourable members on the Government side of the House are committed to a fairer, more balanced, more equitable education system, a system whereby all, regardless of wealth, position or sex, have the opportunity to realise their full potential, an education system that is both rewarding and enriching. Contrast this with the views of our conservative opponents who, through education, want division in society, who want to support elitism with all its inherent consequences. It is interesting that all leading educationists, not only in Australia but also throughout the world, reject elitism. But honourable members opposite, who, between them, I doubt hold one educational qualification, these great educationists, want elitism. Their education policy, like their other policies, is bankrupt. We have heard a lot from our conservative opponents about the 41 schools on the so-called hit list. Two of these schools are in my electorate of Macarthur- Frensham and Tudor House. I have received letters from many parents whose children attend these schools. Most make the same argument. The schools are not elitist, they tell me, and they, the parents, are not wealthy. They are just ordinary working folk who have saved and made sacrifices to send their children to these schools. On the surface this appears to be a very good argument, but it falls down when I look at the notepaper on which these letters are written. It is always personalised notepaper, with an embossed name at the top of it. I doubt whether any parents of children at Koonawarra School, Dapto High School, Kiama High School, Nowra High School or Bomaderry High School-also in my electorate-have their own personalised notepaper. This Government's policy in no way interferes with the right of any parent to choose a private school. It is the democratic right of all parents to choose the education for their children, and that has never been questioned by the Labor Government. However, freedom of choice is not the same as being allowed an automatic subsidy from public funds. Too many confuse this freedom of choice with a so- called right to a guaranteed portion of public funds. Taxation provides resources which a government uses to implement its decisions. A taxpayer who chooses to employ private security guards does not have the right to have such a choice subsidised, even though part of the tax dollar goes towards providing public security forces. The Government provides a postal service so that all Australians, regardless of where they live, will have the same standard of service for the same cost. I am sure that honourable members will agree that any person who chooses to use a private courier service should not expect the Government to pay for it, or would any honourable member suggest that a taxpayer who chooses not to use public transport may legitimately claim subsidisation for his or her private transport from that portion of his or her tax dollar which now subsidises public transport? By choosing a private school for their children parents sending their children to elite private schools are choosing to exclude themselves from a government service. It is their right to do that, but they should not expect a private choice to be paid for from public funds. We hear a lot about parental choice in education. I sometimes wonder when we will hear about the children's freedom to choose. Because this Government believes that no child should be educationally disadvantaged by a parental choice, it provides funds to private schools when it is necessary to maintain standards roughly on a par with government system standards. However, some private schools are already operating at a resource level many times above the level of the average government school. There is no reason for public funds to be allocated to those schools. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 30 March, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 30 March, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. Motion (by Mr Barry Jones) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr FISHER(Mallee)(10.55) —I wish to raise tonight an apparent anomaly in our existing taxation regulations. It has come to my attention via contact with a number of unemployed young people in my electorate that de facto couples are taxed at a different rate from the rate at which married couples are taxed. I give the House an example of this. At present a married man receiving the unemployment benefit receives $143.20 a week. He is able to claim his wife as a dependant spouse, with the result that his weekly tax, according to the latest weekly rates of income tax instalments which incorporate the Medicare levy, is $ 3.70. Presumably that weekly deduction is less if a Medicare levy variation declaration form has been completed. If, however, that same man is not married but is living in a de facto relationship, he has to pay a weekly tax of $19.45, the amount he would pay if he were single and earning the same amount of $143.20 a week. A de facto wife, in fact, is not recognised as a dependant as the married wife is. A de facto wife becomes an allowable dependant only if she is caring for a child. Income from the unemployment benefit for a person with one child is $155. 20 a week and the corresponding weekly tax is $8.45. The weekly tax for a married man with one child is only $3.70. Although the de facto wife is not recognised as a dependant for taxation purposes in that instance, she is recognised as the basis for varying the amount of taxation paid when completing the new Medicare levy variation declaration form. For example, the form reads: ' Do complete the attached declaration if the combined income of you and your spouse, including a de facto spouse, is less than . . .'. Obviously the Department of Social Security affords a de facto relationship the same status as it affords a marriage. I understand also that a spouse, married or de facto, loses her entitlement to a travel voucher. In all senses then, the de facto wife is treated as a legal wife in those circumstances. I raise this issue tonight not to make any comment on the legal position of a de facto relationship and its treatement in the assessment of benefit within the social security system or within the taxation system. From time to time a number of people in this place, including me, have espoused principles based on their own assessments of life styles or the structure that is necessary for a satisfactory society, but tonight I only argue that the policies within the social security system and the taxation system should be consistent and should ensure that the treatment of people is uniform. I could well raise other issues in relation to the payment of benefit to de factos or other people within the social welfare system. For example, I could raise another situation that was brought to my attention today, that of a constituent of mine who advertised for a position. From a number of applicants he selected and appointed a young woman as an accounts clerk-computer operator for his business. After due consideration of the salary that he offered, which was some $280 gross a week, she determined not to accept the position because she considered that as an unmarried mother she was better off on the supporting parent benefit. I point out only that that issue raises a number of questions that relate to moral principles, ones which I do not wish to raise here tonight. However, I have written to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on the issue. I have detailed a particular case. I have not called on the Treasurer tonight because I was not aware that I would have the opportunity to speak, but I do ask him to correct what is an obvious anomaly within our taxation system. I believe it should be corrected. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 10.59 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 3 April 1984: Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General fixing the dates on which the following Acts and sections of Acts shall come into operation- Migration Amendment Act 1983-2 April 1984. Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Amendment Act 1983-Provisions other than provisions specified in sub-sections 2 (1), (2) and (3)-31 March 1984. The following notices were given: Mr Hurford to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of facilities for a tactical fighter squadron, RAAF Base, Darwin, N.T.-engine run-up facility. Mr John Brown to present a Bill for an Act to provide for the payment of bounty on the production of certain two-stroke engines. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 836) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 29 November 1983: (1) What inter-departmental committees (a) does the Minister's Department and ( b) do instrumentalities under the Minister's control (i) participate in and (ii) chair. (2) What is the subject matter of these committees' inquiries. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) (i) The Department of Social Security participates in the following inter-departmental committees: Inter-Departmental Committee on Courses of Action available to the Government to deal with Atomic Test Veterans' and Aboriginals' Claims. Standing Inter-Departmental Committee on Youth Policies. Inter-Departmental Committee on Retirement Incomes. Working Party on Aged Care Policies. Committee on Post Arrival Programs and Services for Migrants. Advisory Committee on Australian Capital Territory Adult Migrant Education. Inter-Departmental Committee on Renegotiation of the Commonwealth/State Housing Agreement. Task Force of Permanent Heads on the Status of Women. Permanent Heads Committee on Aboriginal Affairs (Inter-Departmental Committee on Co-ordination in Aboriginal Affairs) Inter-Departmental Committee on Fees and Allowances. (1) (a) (ii) The Department of Social Security chairs the following inter- departmental committees; the subject matter of these committees is set out in respect of each: Inter-Departmental Working Group on Ethnic Aged: Examines the needs of aged migrants; the extent to which these are being met by existing programs; possible changes to programs to improve their suitability and accessibility for the migrant aged; the scope for improvements in liaison among Commonwealth agencies to ensure a co-ordinated approach to the delivery of Commonwealth welfare programs to aged migrants. Standing Inter-Departmental Committee on Rehabilitation (SIDCOR): Consists of Commonwealth departments and agencies which have a continuing interest in aspects of disability; acts as a means for information sharing on problems, developments and initiatives; as a forum for discussion of disability matters and as a co-operative planning and review mechanism. (1) (b) (i) Instrumentalities under the control of the Minister for Social Security participate in the following inter-departmental committees: Inter- Departmental Committee on Courses of Action available to the Government to deal with Atomic Test Veterans' and Aborginals' claims: The Office of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation participates in this committee. Standing Inter-Departmental Committee on Youth Policies: The Social Welfare Policy Secretariat participates in this committee. Inter-Departmental Committee on Retirement Incomes: The Social Welfare Policy Secretariat participates in this committee. (1) (b) (ii) The Social Welfare Policy Secretariat chairs the Working Party on Aged Care Policies which was established to assist in the preparation of co- ordinated budget options for aged care programs in respect of the 1983-84 and 1984-85 Budgets and to assist in the preparation of the Government's response to the Report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure entitled 'In a Home or At Home: Accommodation and Home Care for the Aged'. (Question No. 853) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 29 November 1983: (1) What inter-departmental committees (a) does the Minister's Department and ( b) do instrumentalities under the Minister's control (i) participate in and (ii) chair. (2) What is the subject matter of these committees' inquiries. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The following list has been compiled on the basis of the definition accepted by governments of an inter-departmental committee as an ongoing committee involving two or more departments established at the specific direction of the Government and for which authority for its establishment is either a Cabinet decision or the approval in writing of the Prime Minister. (1) (a) (i) and (b) (i) The following are inter-departmental committees in which my Department and instrumentalities under my control participate: 1. Inter-Departmental Co-ordinating Committee on Law Reform in the Australian Capital Territory. 2. Working Party on Aged Care Policies 3. Permanent Heads Committee on Aboriginal Affairs (Inter-Departmental Committee on Co-ordination in Aboriginal Affairs) 4. Inter-Departmental Committee on Torres Strait Treaty 5. Australian Capital Territory Occupational Health and Safety Committee 6. Inter-Departmental Standing Committee on Civil Coastal Surveillance 7. Commonwealth Counter Disaster Task Force 8. Inter-Departmental Committee on Annual Review of Penicillin Bounty 9. Inter-Departmental Committee on Wine and Spirits Legislation 10. Inter-Departmental Committee on the OECD Chemical Program 11. Inter-Departmental Furniture Committee 12. Inter-Departmental Committee to Monitor Re-entry of Satellite Debris 13. Inter-Departmental Committee on Government Response to French Invitation to Visit Mururoa Atoll 14. Inter-Departmental Committee on Government Response to US Request to Install Air Filter Monitoring Stations in Australia 15. Inter-Departmental Committee on Visiting Ships Panel (Nuclear) 16. Inter-Departmental Committee on Nuclear Codes of Practice 17. Inter-Departmental Committee on Radionuclide Waste Management 18. Standing Inter-Departmental Committee on Rehabilitation (SIDCOR) 19. Inter-Departmental Working Group on Ethnic Aged. The subject matter of the inquiries of these Committees will be set out in the replies to the honourable member's questions from those Ministers whose departments chair them. (1) (a) (ii), (b) (ii) and (2) The following inter-departmental committees are chaired by my Department or instrumentalities under my control: Committee Subject matter 1. Inter-Departmental Committee on Medical Fees Concerned with levels of medical benefits schedule fees. 2. Inter-Departmental Committee on Fees and Allowances The level of fees paid to private medical and paramedical practitioners for services rendered on behalf of Government departments and authorities. 3. National Disaster Relief (Health) Committee Planning and co-ordination of the provision of Commonwealth health resources and assistance in a disaster situation. The Committee also maintains liaison on all health matters with local authorities and the Disaster Service Liaison Officers Medical and Health Committee when manned at the Natural Disasters Organisation in Canberra. 4. Sanitation of Aerodromes Committee Resolve outstanding difficulties arising from the airport or airfield inspection program. 5. Co-ordinating Committee on Drug Strategy Co-ordinate Commonwealth policy in regard to various drug enquiries. 6. Inter-Departmental Committee on Pharmaceutical Benefits Remuneration Tribunal Prepares Commonwealth Government submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Remuneration Tribunal, and prepares response to submissions by other parties. (Question No. 882) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 30 November 1983: Will subscribers to the exchanges of (a) Thackaringa, (b) Stephens Creek (c) Cockburn, (d) Silverton, (e) Mingary, (f) Olary, (g) Kinalung, (h) Neilia Gari, (j) McCulloch's Range, (k) Slamannon, (l) The Avenue, (m) Purnanga, (n) Mount Wood, (o) Olive Downs, (p) Milparinka, (q) Packsaddle, (r) The Selection, (s) Fowler's Gap, (t) Bierjerkerno, and (u) Corona, lose their access to a local untimed call with the introduction of countrywide calling; if so, is the countrywide calling arrangement being reviewed to overcome this problem. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: With the introduction of countrywide calling some local call access was lost by all of the subscribers served by the exchanges referred to. Following a review of the area, Telecom found it practicable to introduce the following changes from 1 December 1983: Untimed local call fee restored on calls to Broken Hill from Stephens Creek, Cockburn, Silverton, Kinalung. Untimed local call fee restored on calls to Wilcannia from Slamannon, The Avenue. No further changes are planned. (Question No. 1009) Mr Lusher asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 28 February 1984: (1) Further to his predecessor's answer to question No. 5747 in December 1982, what progress has been made in respect of the coastal shipping review. (2) If this review has not been completed, what is the expected completion date . (3) Will he ensure that the report of this study is presented to the House as soon as possible. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Bureau of Transport Economic's coastal shipping review has been terminated. (2) Not applicable. (3) Not applicable. (Question No. 1056) Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 1 March 1984: (1) Did a senior officer of this Department state at a public meeting at Bungaree, Victoria, on 23 February 1984, that fresh potatoes in significant tonnages had been imported into Australia from New Zealand in 1973 and 1983 which could have been carrying the diseases golden nematode and black wart which are present in New Zealand soils but not present in Australian soils; if so, why were the proper quarantine precautions not taken to ensure that if potatoes are to be imported into Australia, they come from areas in New Zealand where the above diseases are guaranteed not to exist. (2) Will he ensure that the Australian industry is not jeopardised by insufficient attention to quarantine regulations. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) An officer of the Plant Quarantine Branch of my Department did address a meeting of the potato section of the Victorian Farmers and Graziers Association at Bungaree on 23 February 1984 to explain Australian quarantine restrictions on the importation of fresh potatoes. In his address he referred to the diseases, potato cyst nematodes and black wart which are recorded from New Zealand and explained that the present restrictions were developed in 1973 to specifically guard against their introduction into Australia. He did not state or in any way imply that the diseases could have been carried on potatoes imported to Australia from New Zealand between 1973 and 1983. (2) Quarantine restrictions limit potato imports to those grown in areas of New Zealand free from potato cyst nematodes and black wart disease. The potatoes must also be processed under quarantine control at approved premises to ensure that all packaging materials, peelings and wastes are disinfected or destroyed. It is not proposed to relax the foregoing procedures which Australian plant quarantine authorities consider adequate to cope with any disease risk associated with imported potatoes. (Question No. 1087) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Defence Support, upon notice, on 2 March 1984 : How many (a) males and (b) females have been engaged in (i) the Minister's Department and (ii) any statutory authorities reporting to the Minister, as temporary employees under the community employment program, in each of the months December 1983 and January and February 1984. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: In December 1983, there were no persons engaged in my Department under the community employment program. In January 1984, five males and thirteen females were engaged in my Department under the community employment program. In February 1984, thirteen males and fifty-five females were engaged in my Department under the community employment program. There are no statutory authorities reporting to me.