Friday, 4 May 1984 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: Australian Capital Territory: Self-Government 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 Cadman,Mr Coleman,Mr Fife and Mr Ruddock. 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 Cohen,Mr Dobie,Mr Fife and Mr Gorman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows : That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the high cost of health care in Australia. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Mr Drummond and Mr Rocher. 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 Connolly,Mr Fife and Mr Tickner. 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 Blanchard and Mr Carlton. To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth; that Regulations and an Ordinance now before the Parliament amend the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs ( Cinematographic Films) Regulations and supersede the A.C.T. Objectionable Publications Ordinance in such a manner as to be harmful to society by removing from existing Commonwealth law The power to prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography (e.g. X- rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs; The power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications, including those associated with blasphemy; The power to require imported video tapes/discos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should disallow the new Regulations and Ordinance and ensure that the Attorney-General enforce existing laws; that censors more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes; that further measures be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; and that, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burr and Mr Goodluck. 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- 1. Certain sexual crimes including rape and murder have been linked by the courts to the viewing of 'pornographic' Printed Material, Films and Video Tapes. 2. It cannot be guaranteed that these types of material will not be viewed by children. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives should: Not adopt the 'X' Classification for Films and Video Tapes, nor Category 2 for Printed Material. Further, that tighter restrictions be applied to 'R' rated Films and Video Tapes and Category 1 Printed Material. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Goodluck and Mr Hodgman. 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 because television and radio (a) affect our social and moral environment, (b) are family media watched and heard by many children at all times, and (c) present too much explicit violence and sex, they therefore need stronger control than other media and the existing standards need stricter enforcement in both national A.B.C., and commercial sectors. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Australian Government will amend the Broadcasting and Television Act, in relation to both national and commercial broadcasters, to legislate (a) for adequate and comprehensive programs in the best interests of the general public, (b) for a ''Dual System of Regulation'' enforced by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal by internal regulation and external control, (c) for an independent consumer body to represent the best interests of the general public, and (d) for immediate and effective penalties to be imposed for breaches of program and advertising standards. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr John Brown. 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 undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully show: That the potential noise hazard to residents of Sandgate, Shorncliffe, Brighton and Nudgee Beach (including 4,000 aged people), will become intolerable when the new Brisbane Airport is operative in 1987, if protective action is not taken. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Federal Government will, when the redevelopment of the Brisbane Airport becomes operative, ensure that: (1) No jet aircraft use the 32 '14' crosswind runway; (2) The Department maintain the curfew on the runway from 10.00 p.m. to 6.00 a. m. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows-that at present, certain infertility treatments including; Hormonal Drugs, Procedures and Laboratory Services, are not covered by any Health Insurance due to Non-Itemisation on the Commonwealth Rebate List. The psychological and emotional stress of infertility is therefore increased by the added financial stress. Your petitioners therefore pray, that the Parliament will view our plight to create life with sympathy, by recognising our needs, and taking action to include the abovementioned items on the Commonwealth Rebate List. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ronald Edwards. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, we the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government. 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognize that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection , storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognize that any system giving ' property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognize that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: i. a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, ii. subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, iii. farmer unrest at seed prices, iv. monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, v. increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Free. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully believing that: There is demonstrated evidence of a need for child care facilities by staff, users, and potential users of the National Library of Australia and surrounding buildings in Parkes, ACT; There are at present no such existing facilities; Provision has already been made for inclusion of the facilities in planned extensions to the Library, Humbly petition that your Honourable House reverse the decision by the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment disallowing provision for child care facilities in the extensions to the National Library of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Kelly. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. the Hawke Labor Government's retirement income policies are piecemeal, inconsistent and make no provision to encourage people to save towards their retirements, and; 2. the Government's proposed assets test legislation, presently under re- examination, is iniquitous and if enacted, its effects would be discriminatory. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled urge the Government to: 1. totally abandon its proposed assets test legislation; 2. either institute a broad enquiry into Australia's retirement income and taxation systems or await the outcome of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare's work on this matter, and; 3. following the report of such a wide enquiry, institute a retirement income policy which is fair and equitable, that encourages self-provision and which will be non-discriminatory. 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 we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That the introduction of Medicare has not resulted in a cheaper, fairer system of health care as promised by the Federal Government. Rather, it is an expensive, bureaucratic scheme, depersonalising medical services and conducive to medical mediocrity. While recognising the responsibility which exists to assist those in need, we humbly request the Government to review this system which moves towards the nationalisation of Australian medicine. 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 the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the members of the Women's Services of the 1939-45 War not at present considered eligible for Defence Service Home Loans should qualify as '' Australian Soldiers'' under the Defence Service Homes Act. They volunteered for service with the Naval, Military and Air Forces, serving wherever they were sent in whatever capacity they were required and yet are refused Defence Service Home Loans. They took the oath to resist His Majesty's enemies which meant to fight His Majesty's enemies, and although not used in actual combat in war zones, they were available for that use and had a sufficiently grave need arisen would have been used, to serve with distinction as have women of other lands. In accordance with the Acts and Regulations of the period, the women of the Military Forces had enlisted for service anywhere, some of the Naval women to sail in any waters, others with service on warships optional, while the women of the Airforce could have been sent to Papua New Guinea or other territories under the control or care of Australia. Ex-servicemen of the Royal Australian Navy, the Australian Imperial Force and the Royal Australian Air Force who volunteered in the 1939-45 War but were not sent to War Zones are granted home loans. Not to grant eligibility to all Ex- servicewomen of 1939-45 War is unjust and unfair. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you favourably consider amending the Defence Service Homes Act by repealing Sub-section 4 (2A) (b) (c) (d) of the Principal Act as amended by No. 137 of 1978, and grant eligibility to all members of the Women's Royal Australian Naval Service, the Australian Women's Army Service, the Women's Auxiliary Australian Air Force, the Australian Army Medical Women's Service, and the Voluntary Aid Detachment of 1939-45 War. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Saunderson. To the Speaker, House of Representatives, Parliament House, Canberra. We call on The Australian Government to reverse the decision to proceed with the development of uranium mining at Roxby Downs-because of the destruction of Aboriginal sites; the irreparable damage to the environment; the threat to the health and safety of Australian citizens especially aboriginals and mining workers and the undeniable link between uranium mining and nuclear weapons production and proliferation. We ask that all uranium mining and export cease. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of concerned people of the Electorate of Indi respectfully show their desire to stop the spread of Patersons Curse. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House (the Government) act to implement the biological control of Patersons Curse. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron and Mr Lusher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of the citizens of Queensland respectfully show: last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; alcohol is a factor in 50 per cent of road deaths; alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ban the advertising of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain electors of the Division of Forrest respectfully showeth that the Australian Citizenship Act contains provision for the Oath of Allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth II Queen of Australia, her heirs and successors, and an Affirmation of Allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth II Queen of Australia, her heirs and successors: That the said Oath and Affirmation of Allegiance are supported by the overwhelming majority of Australians. Your petitioners humbly pray that members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will ensure that the present Oath and Affirmation of Allegiance are retained; and would strongly oppose any attempt to remove all reference to God and the Queen from the Oath of Allegiance, and any attempt to remove all reference to the Queen from the Affirmation of Allegiance. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of 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 Moore. Petitions received. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with grave concern the actions of the Government in attempting to remove the Queen from the Oath of Allegiance, decreeing, without mandate, a new national anthem and threatening to tear up the Australian flag, and (2) calls upon the Prime Minister to categorically deny that his Government intends to remove the prefix 'Royal' from the Royal Australian Navy, the Royal Australian Air Force and wherever else it presently occurs. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) commends the WA Government for its willingness to purchase the Whitford Nodes situated in the Shire of Wanneroo which will allow public access to the beach; (2) commends the Shire of Wanneroo for its willingness to contribute $2m towards the cost of the purchase and (3) notes that the action of the State Government and the Shire of Wanneroo is supported by the overwhelming majority of the electors of the Electoral Division of Moore. 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 abolishing the fleet air arm based its decision largely on a claimed saving of $20m, and (b) the actual financial result of the axing will mean additional costs estimated to range from at least $10m up to a possible $84m, and (2) condemns the Government for its wasteful management of Australia's precious defence dollars. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) will second: That this House- (1) expresses its deep concern that the Australian coal producers have again failed to maintain Australian coal export prices; (2) expresses its concern at the impact of this inability on jobs in the coal industry and on Australia's export earnings; (3) calls on the coal producers to adopt a united front in coal negotiations; (4) believes action should be taken towards preventing such disasters from continuing; (5) is of the opinion that a coal marketing authority should be established, and (6) expresses its condemnation of the Opposition for their contemptible political opportunism regarding the recent breakdown in Japanese coal negotiations caused by their years of vandalising the coal industry. Mr SPEAKER —I remind the honourable member for Macarthur that the Speaker has discretion to examine notices of motion and adjust any that are not in conformity with the Standing Orders. Mr HICKS(Riverina) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with alarm moves by the NSW Education Department to remove the one demountable classroom from the school at the opal mining town of White Cliffs; (2) questions the action of the NSW Government in its attitude to country schoolchildren, particularly in isolated areas, and (3) calls on the Federal Government to ensure that children in isolated areas of NSW are given equal opportunity in regard to facilites before allocating funds for education to that State. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) commends the Western Australian Government for its appointment of Miss Liza Newby as Director of Women's Interests in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, and (2) notes that Miss Newby is a distinguished academic who, as a lawyer, has been specially interested in the role of women in the criminal justice system and women's interests generally. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses its grave concern for the future of the Australian meat industry and calls on the Government to take immediate, aggressive action to- (a) convey its disapproval to the United States of America for- (i) actions taken against the export of Australian beef to America, and (ii) its sleight-of-hand usurping of Australia's Japanese market; (b) settle the chaos created by the Prime Minister in his gross exaggeration of trade agreements reached with Japan; (c) end the abuse of the Closer Economic Relations with New Zealand which has led to the import of highly subsidised New Zealand meats, and (d) prevent the further retrenchment of meat industry workers of whom there are 7000 without jobs, and (2) calls on the Government to send a ministerial team, comprising the Minister for Trade, the Minister for Primary Industry and the Minister for Industry and Commerce to Japan to resolve this disastrous situation. Mr Andrew having given notice of a motion, it was later ruled out of order. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Advisory Committee on Prices and Incomes and seek leave to make a statement. Leave granted. Mr WILLIS —The Advisory Committee on Prices and Incomes is a tripartite committee set up to monitor the implementation of the Government's prices and incomes policy. The terms of reference of the Committee are set out in the preface to the report. The report provides a comprehensive review of the Government's initiatives since it came to office. The tabling of this report is an appropriate time to review both the practical operation of the policy and the philosophy underlying the prices and incomes accord. I turn first to the economic environment which led to the development of the accord. Over the last two decades the economic constraints and circumstances in which government policy has operated have changed dramatically. In the early 1960s, political and economic debate, in most Western countries, was largely about the distribution of the benefits of growth-we did not think in terms of non-growth, let alone negative growth! Consequently, governments were confident of their ability to handle the economy. By varying the application of the traditional tools of economic management, such as fiscal and monetary policy, they were, in general, able to keep unemployment to relatively low levels, and to do so without paying a high price through inflation. However, that changed dramatically during the 1970s. The relationship between unemployment and inflation deteriorated, with increasingly higher levels of unemployment being required to influence the rate of inflation. The result was the co-existence of abnormally high rates of both unemployment and inflation. Therefore, the process of economic management became much more difficult. Throughout its period of office, however, the previous Government relied exclusively on the use of monetary and fiscal economic instruments and the emasculation of the wage indexation system which it inherited. From the moment it took office, the Fraser Government set about a process of undermining support for the indexation system. On numerous occasions it argued for little or no increase in wages or salaries. This approach was based on the view that wage and salary earners should bear the major burden under that Government's now discredited fight inflation first policies. The 'supporting mechanisms' which are essential to such a system were gradually dismantled. Ironically, having contributed substantially to the collapse of the system, it exposed the fact that it had not developed an alternative. The present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) in fact acknowledged that the then Government did not have a clear and consistent approach to wage determination when he resigned as Minister for Industrial Relations in April 1981. The next Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Viner, then attempted to pursue an ill-defined and poorly thought-out strategy to fragment our industrial relations system and processes in the belief that direct confrontation at the industry and enterprise level would produce industrial harmony and wage moderation. This divide and conquer industrial relations strategy was under- pinned by highly restrictive monetary and fiscal policies and associated high levels of unemployment which were designed to bring the unions and over-generous employers to heel. The disastrous ineptitude of these policies soon became apparent. With wages being determined by the market rather than the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, a wages blow-out built on the expectation of a resources boom soon engulfed the country. Although tight budgetary and monetary policies failed to control income claims and inflation, they ensured that output and employment were considerably reduced. The outcome of this policy approach was the worst recession for 50 years, soaring inflation, and the highest level of industrial unrest in the post war period, all of which led directly to the fall of the Government which had engineered these developments. This experience clearly showed that policies of inflation control, based on the use of the traditional macroeconomic policies to control income claims, did not achieve their anti-inflation objectives. But the cost was great in terms of lost production, lower living standards and high unemployment. Such policies are therefore increasingly ineffective, and hence do not hold out any prospect of a return to unemployment levels that could be said to be remotely within the range of acceptability. It was such basic considerations that led to the development of the prices and incomes accord between the Australian trade union movement and the Australian Labor Party. As we saw it in those days of opposition, the mere adoption by a Labor government of more stimulatory budgetary and monetary policies than those of the Fraser Government would not, of itself, achieve a sustained economic recovery. In the absence of other policies, inflation would be likely to increase as the economy recovered thereby ensuring that the recovery was short- lived. To achieve the sustained economic recovery necessary to reduce unemployment substantially, a policy had to be developed which involved a direct means of limiting income claims. This requirement stemmed from the determination of all groups-unions, employers and the self-employed-to pursue their income claims despite the onset of recession. Moreover, such a policy could provide a framework for moderating competing income claims during a period of economic recovery, thereby sustaining rather than curtailing economic growth. We therefore considered the use of some form of prices and incomes policy. We were encouraged in our view that this was the right way to go by the relatively better economic performance of nations which had some such policy in operation, such as Austria, Norway and Japan. We were, of course, aware of the fact that such policies had failed in some countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States of America, and had developed a bad name in trade union circles in those countries as a consequence. Rather than rejecting the idea because of those experiences, we sought to learn from their mistakes. Analysis of experience elsewhere and consideration of our own circumstances led us to the conclusion that to be a success for anything but a short period of time, such a policy needed three key elements. First, it would have to be voluntary. Statutorily-imposed policies had little chance of acceptance and less of being durable. Second, it would have to be comprehensive. A policy which aimed simply to limit wage claims and did little or nothing about prices and non -wage incomes was unfair and would not be accepted by trade unions. Third, it would need to be equitable. Whilst imposing limits on all income claims, those limits would have to be seen as fair and reasonable to be acceptable to the community as a whole. The accord also embodies a much broader concept of how living standards can be improved. It involves a shift away from the traditional focus on wage increases towards an appreciation of the wide range of factors which determine living standards and which can be influenced by government policy. The level and structure of taxation have an important impact on the take-home pay of wage and salary earners, and important services in such areas as health, education and housing are essential components of the social wage. Improvements in working conditions and employment and training opportunities are also integral to the overall well-being of wage and salary earners. This comprehensive concept of living standards formed the basis for agreement between the ALP and the union movement on an acceptable wages system and a range of relevant policy areas including fiscal and monetary policy, industrial relations, industry development, taxation, and the elements of the social wage. Negotiations on these issues spanned a period of four years. The result was a very comprehensive document, and certainly the most detailed agreement ever reached in this country between government and the trade union movement. As is evident from the Second Progress Report, which I have now tabled, the Government in just over 12 months has gone a long way towards implementing this broad range of agreed policies. Of course the central peg of the accord is its wages policy based on the maintenance of real wages over time. The decision of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, after considering the submissions of the parties and the Commonwealth, to adopt the new wage fixing principles, was crucial to the implementation of the accord. The fact that the Commission saw fit to bring in such a system, only a little over two years after ending the wage indexation system in 1981 was, as acknowledged in its decision, in large part due to the existence of the accord and the fact that the Government was a party to the accord. The continued successful implementation of this wage system is vital to continuing economic recovery. Obviously employers would prefer not to pay higher wages at any time. However, by implementing a rational long term wages policy which is accepted and adhered to by the union movement, we are assured of the continued restraint in the growth of wage costs which is so essential to economic recovery. It is to the credit of the trade union movement that the overwhelming majority of unions have accepted their responsibilities under the system. Recently, however, statements by some union officials concerning the need to achieve catch-up for the real wage decline that occurred in the period of the wage pause have created concern that unions may seek to obtain wage increases outside the indexation system. The Government is confident that this will not occur. The Australian Council of Trade Unions has made it quite clear that it is prepared to contemplate the resolution of its catch-up claim in the context of tax cuts. For its part the Government is concerned to implement significant tax cuts in the forthcoming Budget and will be discussing the scope for such action with the ACTU in the near future. It should be clearly understood however, that if widespread wage increases were to occur outside indexation, the Government's scope for tax cuts would be substantially reduced. The Government will be seeking assurances from the ACTU that such claims will not occur before finalising its Budget. Largely as a result of union acceptance and adherence to the new wage system, industrial conflict has declined dramatically. The level of industrial disputes in 1983 was 25 per cent lower than in 1982, while the figures to January this year indicate that time lost through industrial disputes per thousand employees has fallen to the lowest level for sixteen years. Another important factor in achieving this outstanding result has been the reforms implemented by the Government in the industrial relations arena. The confrontationalist approach of the previous Government has been abandoned; repressive and provocative legislation has been repealed; long overdue reforms to the industrial relations structure have been implemented mostly with the support of all parties; progressive reforms to improve the working environment are in train; and a detailed process of consultation with, and involvement of, the parties on all important industrial relations matters has been instituted. In other areas the Government has made considerable progress in implementing the prices and incomes accord. These are set out in detail in the report I have tabled today. The consultative mechanisms for assisting the implementation of the prices and incomes policy have been established with the setting up of the Economic Planning Advisory Council-EPAC-and the Advisory Committee on Prices and Incomes-ACPI. EPAC continues the process of consultation and information exchange which we initiated at the National Economic Summit Conference and focuses on proposals to enhance growth in the medium to longer term. Its future meetings will focus on, amongst other matters, reform of the tax system and industry restructuring. ACPI is oriented to current developments in the Government's prices and incomes policy. The membership of the Committee comprises myself, the Treasurer (Mr Keating), Ministers from the three States not represented on EPAC and the Northern Territory, senior representatives from the ACTU, the Confederation of Australian Industry and the Business Council of Australia-BCA-and one representative from the Australian Council of Professions. In recent times the Committee has considered reports on the establishment of the Prices Surveillance Authority, industry policy, Medicare, Executive and parliamentary remuneration and professional income determination. The Committee has met three times and has already played a valuable role in clarifying a number of issues associated with the implementation of the prices and incomes policy. Turning to the other basic elements of the accord, the planning mechanisms for our industry policy are now in place with the revamped Australian Manufacturing Council and more task-oriented industry advisory councils. The Prices Surveillance Authority has been established and will soon begin an inquiry into petroleum product prices. Telecom Australia and Australia Post charges have also been brought under the jurisdiction of the Authority. Medicare was introduced in February and has the advantage of providing health coverage to all Australians, while substantially reducing inflation and improving the distribution of income for lower and middle income earners. I shall be returning in a moment to the implications of the medicare effect on the consumer price index for wages policy and our economic performance in the period ahead. As was agreed at both the National Economic Summit and in the accord, the burden of restraint must be shared equitably. To this end progress has been made in encouraging professional groups to involve members of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in their fee setting arrangements. In the area of social security the Government has fulfilled a number of the objectives set out in the accord, including: The automatic indexation of benefits; increases in unemployment benefits for single adults, which the previous Government so callously left unchanged since 1978; a 20 per cent increase in family income supplements; an additional $21m for children's services, including $10m for new child care projects; and a number of other measures in the areas of homeless persons assistance, aged persons accommodation and supporting parents benefit have also been taken, underlying this Government's commitment to assist those in need. The accord recognises the centrality of the housing industry to economic recovery and job creation. As a result, the Government has increased funds for public housing by 50 per cent to $500m in 1983-84 and has introduced the first home owners scheme, which is making a major contribution to providing low and middle income earners with more accessible housing. As a result of these initiatives the housing industry has been central to Australia's economic recovery, and the most recent estimates from the Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry are that commencements will increase by almost 30 per cent to be in the order of 135,000 in 1983-84, with continued strong growth next financial year. Important initiatives have also been taken to assist the unemployed and to improve the level of skills training in the economy. The Budget allocation for labour force programs was boosted by a massive 110 per cent for 1983-84. Through the community employment program, around 40,000 jobs on worthwhile community projects are being created during this financial year for the long term unemployed and other disadvantaged groups of job-seekers, such as Aborigines, migrants with language difficulties, and the disabled. Support for pre-apprenticeship training has been increased, and substantial incentives to improve the level of apprenticeship training were announced earlier this year. A major independent review of the ad hoc range of labour market programs inherited from the previous Government has been initiated, with a view to achieving a more comprehensive and integrated set of labour market policies. After years of neglect by the Opposition we are, through the accord and in consultation with unions, employers and State governments, developing a national program for occupational health and safety. In two weeks time I will receive a report from the Interim National Occupational Safety and Health Commission, on the basis of which the Government will prepare legislation establishing permanent institutional arrangements for passage during the Budget session. The Government's commitment to equity, which is central to the prices and incomes accord, is also highlighted by measures we took in the education area to improve access and participation in higher education and increased retention ratios through the participation and equity program in secondary schools and in the area of technical and further education. Finally, the Government has taken a number of steps to encourage equality of opportunity for women, migrants and Aborigines. Mr Speaker, it has been a source of great satisfaction to the Government that in the period since it was elected to office, and since implementation of these policies, the deterioration of the Australian economy has been quickly arrested and we have been able to facilitate a spectacular economic recovery. The dramatic change in the nation's path is shown most comprehensively by the movement of our gross domestic product. During financial year 1982-83, real gross domestic product fell by 2.7 per cent. Latest forecasts for 1983-84 are, however, that it will increase, during this year by about 10 per cent! Australia 's rate of economic growth in 1984 is forecast by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to be the highest of any Western country. The employment situation has turned around dramatically. Employment, which fell by 176,000 in seasonally adjusted terms in the 12 months previous to April 1983, has increased by 210,000 in the 11 months to March this year. Reflecting this improvement in the demand for labour, unemployment, which rose in seasonally adjusted terms by 257,000 in the year to March 1983, has since fallen by 33,000, and by 68,000 since its high point in September last year. In spite of this pick -up in product and labour markets inflationary pressures have been significantly reduced as the latest consumer price index figures confirm. From an annual rate of 11. 5 per cent in March 1983 inflation has been reduced to 5.9 per cent during our first year in office. This compares to the OECD average of 5.8 per cent over the year to February 1984. The integrated approach to wages policy and economic management that the Government has adopted in the form of the prices and incomes accord allows full advantage to be taken of the sharp reduction in inflation that has been achieved through the introduction of Medicare. This has resulted in the consumer price index for the March quarter being about 1.8 percentage points lower than it would otherwise have been. The overall result was, of course, a 0.4 per cent reduction in the consumer price index for the quarter. Even without the Medicare effect consumer prices would have increased by only 1.2 per cent. Because Medicare only became operational in February, its full impact on the CPI has not yet been felt. A further reduction in the CPI because of Medicare will be evident in the June quarter, in the order of about 0.8 per cent. Consequently, the increase in award wages over the course of 1984 is likely to be about 5 per cent. This is comparable to the outcome during calendar year 1983 and is a significant improvement on the increase of 11 per cent over the course of 1982. Real unit labour costs are accordingly being significantly reduced. Since the peak associated with the wages explosion under the previous Government , the real unit labour cost index has declined from 109 in September 1982 to 101 in December 1983, and by the end of this year should be back to the level of the late 1960s and early 1970s. This continuing reduction in real unit labour costs will contribute to further winding down the rate of inflation and improving our level of international competitiveness. Company profitability will also continue to increase, thereby consolidating the recovery in private sector profitability that has already occurred and providing an environment that is highly conducive to increased private investment. Such an increase in private investment is, of course, essential if the recovery is to be sustained. By any standard, the recovery of the Australian economy during the present Government's period of office has been remarkable and the accord has been a key factor in that recovery. Although a return to indexation has resulted in wage increases of 8.6 per cent over the past six months, this has taken place within a framework which provides for stability and equity in the wage fixing process. This means that workers can feel secure about their future living standards and that employers can have more confidence in making their production, employment and investment plans. A continuation of the previous government's wages pause, while restraining wage growth in the short term, would not have been a viable long term policy. Experience in other countries clearly demonstrates that such a policy inevitably breaks down and gives way to massive wage claims, which lead to industrial unrest and higher wage increases than would have occurred under a more orderly and equitable system of wage-setting. Such an outcome would certainly have occurred if the Opposition's recently announced wages policy had been implemented following the wages pause. This long awaited alternative wages policy remains preoccupied with recession rather than recovery, would perpetuate unemployment, retard economic growth, and would inevitably lead to greater industrial conflict. The Opposition's policy would greatly reduce the role of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and make it impossible to utilise the conciliation and arbitration system to implement an incomes policy. Its system makes no provision for preventing an unsustainable blowout of wage and labour cost increases. Far from seeking to prevent sweetheart deals, the policy actually encourages them. If such a policy were implemented the means of preventing inflationary wage increases at a time of economic recovery-when it is needed most-would be lost. Such a policy would reduce the Commission's ability to prevent or settle disputes, by greatly increasing the scope for over award payments outside the Commission's jurisdiction. Furthermore, as increases are achieved in the field by those groups with industrial muscle, they would provide a powerful incentive for the same increases to occur in other areas. The predictable and disastrous outcome would be an increase in the number, severity and length of industrial disputes. As honourable members will recall, the metal industry standard which was set by agreement between the parties, and was later described by a national wage bench as being 'uncomfortably high in the present economic circumstances', flowed widely and quickly throughout the economy. The prospects of controlling a similar wages blowout under the Opposition's wages policy would be minimal. That is exactly the situation the accord is designed to avoid, has in practice so far avoided, and in my view will continue to avoid. Our present wage fixing system offers the best chance of restraining unit labour costs while meeting the requirements of an effective and practical industrial relations system. The consistent application of agreed guidelines for the determination of fundamental industrial issues, wages and standard working conditions, also offers the best chance of avoiding the inflationary bias inherent in a less centralised system. By comparison, under a decentralised system, there is no incentive for the individuals involved in negotiating a wages settlement to exercise restraint because there is no assurance that others will do likewise. Therefore no one is prepared to take responsibility for the wider industrial relations and economic implications of any particular deal. Underlying the arguments for a less centralised wage fixing system is the heroic, and I would suggest inappropriate, assumption that in such a system market forces will ensure that wage rates are flexible and adjust rapidly to changed circumstances in an enterprise or industry. However in the medium to longer term wages cannot deviate markedly from the relevant going rate. Even a firm or industry in a declining market will find it necessary to maintain broad comparability in its wage rates if it is to retain a viable labour force and survive to take advantage of better prospects in the future. The Opposition's wages policy document argues that one of the failings of the present system is the 'institutionalisation of comparative wage justice' but all its alternative policy seeks is to assume it away. It is only through restraining economic activity with associated unacceptable costs in terms of prolonged high unemployment that the force of comparative wages justice can be weakened. These costs are simply ignored by the Opposition parties. Moreover, it should be emphasised that comparative wage justice as an influence in wage determination is a concept common to every country. Comparisons of pay between broadly similar work, and the establishment of general standards of wage increase which are influential over an industry or a community, are commonplace in wage fixing systems world-wide. The wage structure under any system reflects, amongst other things, the strength of long established social norms like fairness and equity. To summarise, the benefits of the prices and incomes accord are now clear for all to see. Australia's rate of inflation as measured by the CPI has been almost halved in the first year of the Labor Government. It is in line with the OECD average and will decline further. Over 200,000 jobs have been created in the last year. Unemployment has begun to fall. Business and consumer confidence is now much stronger than for several years. Industrial disputation is at the lowest level for 16 years. There is undoubtedly an enormous challenge to be faced in continuing to wind down unemployment to acceptable levels, but the task has begun is earnest. The Government is determined to continue its fight against unemployment and inflation. The support for the Government's approach to economic management and to wages policy expressed at the Summit has been thoroughly vindicated by the tangible progress I have been able to report to the House today. Australia can now be said to be at the forefront of economic policy development with an economic policy which is performing the essential dual function of promoting short term recovery and providing the basis for sustained long term growth. I present the following papers: Prices and Incomes Accord-Report and Ministerial Statement, 4 May 1984. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Motion (by Mr Beazley)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Balaclava speaking for a period not exceeding 30 minutes. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava)(10.34) —I begin by dealing with two specific matters which the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) raised at the end of his speech. I will then deal more generally with the other matters which he raised. The Minister can give his answer at an appropriate stage, perhaps by correspondence with me. The report which he has just tabled refers, on pages 47 and 48, to the community employment program. The report points out that over 20,000 jobs were created under the wage pause program in 1983 at a cost of $223m; whereas under the community employment program almost 23,000 jobs have been created at a cost of $379m. Given that the average duration of jobs under both programs is six months, I wonder whether the Minister can explain why the jobs created under his Government's community employment program are costing 143 per cent of the jobs created under the previous Government's wage pause program. How does the Minister justify the additional expenditure of that $156m to create only an extra 2,600 jobs? That is an expenditure which works out at something like $60,000 for every additional six-month job created. That is important, because, at the end of the six months the experience seems to be that people have gained work experience but not any level of skill which makes them any more employable at the end of that time. I wish to raise a couple of points of rejoinder to the Minister's intrepretation of the Opposition's wages policy. First of all, far from reducing the role of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitratin Commission, we would be making it more effective. We would enable it to enforce, by way of contract, the actual contracts of service which exist between employers and employees. We believe the body which makes industrial law should have the capacity to enforce it, but not by way of penal sanctions. We would not give the Commission the power to gaol union officials or anyone else for contempt of court. We believe that one of the by-products will be that in the over-award payment area employers and employees will have a better understanding of the economics of their company and industry and they will give more attention to employees participation programs which we have advocated for a great many years. We believe this will be a more flexible system than one in which 95 per cent or more of the total remuneration of employees in a perticular industry is governed by the award wage. We think that it will be more flexible and responsive to have a greater component which is, in fact, over the award in prosperous times and reducing in less prosperous times. Undoubtedly, the overwhelming principal component of the remuneration of most award wage earners will still be the award . We believe that in times of prosperity the gap between the award wage and the over-award wage could be greater and in times of recession narrower. Therefore, it is not a policy for recession, as the Minister claimed. It is very much a policy for all economic circumstances. The Minister claimed that sweetheart deals would be aggravated by this policy. On the contrary, the sweetheart deals which have been agreed in the past and condemned by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission-the Minister referred to the metal industry-are those in which it suited the employees, for indexation purposes, to have over-awards absorbed into the award and it suited the employers to pass their costs on through rise and fall clauses to their clients, especially government clients. The deals were done because it was known they would not be paid for by the employer. That is something which we would prohibit under our policy. That would really put the test on employers about whether they could afford to pay. Through the breach of contract provisions there would be a capacity for them to get protection if they could not. We are not seeking to assume away comparative wage justice, as the Minister asserted. I acknowledge that in every industralised democracy comparative wage justice exists under one label or another. It is the rate of flow on about which we are concerned. There was an immediacy of flow on in what was called the community wage round begun by the sweetheart deal in the metal industry. It was not an arbitrated decision. It was a deal between the employers and the employees. The costs were passed on through rise and fall clauses, and of course the deal flowed on to every other award because of the institutionalised nature of our comparative wage justice. We believe that it is better for the economy for the flow on to be slower, and that would be achieved, we believe, under our policy. So it is very much a policy to encourage rationality and not to perpetuate the emotion which is exemplified in the idea that whenever there is a price increase there must be a corresponding wage increase. That does not make economic sense and we believe it is time that the participants in the industrial relations field realised what does make economic sense. I now turn my attention to the important points that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations raised by way of generality and what he claimed for the accord. Most people who have been students of prices and incomes accords know that they have been notably unsuccessful. Although Austria is still quoted as an example, Austria does not have the extremely difficult Federal structure we have. I recently had occasion to remind the Minister that the accord is in very grave danger at the moment because the Government is unable, so it seems, to do more than a little bit of mild jawboning, such as the Minister has again done today, to try to control the building industry unions which are currently blatantly breaching the accord. Also, the Minister knows that there are at least 85 industrial disputes at the moment which are serious enough to have been drawn to the attention of his Department. Twenty-one of them , as I read them, are in breach of the accord. I want to deal particularly with the building and construction industries dispute, which has been going on for a long time and on which the Government has been conspicuously silent and inactive. The Full Bench of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission rejected a proposal which would have given the employees approximately $9 a week above the 4.3 per cent consumer price indexation increase granted by the Commission in response to the accord. To the credit of the Minister and the Government, they urged the Commission to do precisely that. They condemned the unions for seeking more. Since then, the unions which signed undertakings for two years that they would not claim more than the consumer price index increase set about getting that $9 by way of over award payment. The upshot of protracted negotiations has been that the $9 has become $11 and is being proposed now as so-called superannuation . It would be, of course, without any employee contribution. Company by company industrial action has been taken in order to extort the increase and the major building and construction companies are now paying it over the award. It is a breach of the accord no matter how it is portrayed. The Australian Council of Trade Unions, in co-ordinating discussions, has not sought, as far as one can see, to restrain the claim; on the contrary it appears to have promoted it. It has condemned the employers for not meeting what is really an extra wage claim. Mr Gallagher is on record as saying that that is what it is. We know it has been dressed up as superannuation or a severance payment but it is in fact a wage claim. The accord mentions the possibility of a national superannuation scheme in which there could be contributions by workers for their own personal and family security, but there is no way the building industry unions are contemplating any contribution by their members. I repeat that it is undoubtedly in breach of the accord. If the increase is granted by other employers in the building industry, it will flow on to all employers under the comparative wage justice principle; it is only a matter of time. What is important is that it will be in breach of the accord, in breach of the Commission's wage fixation principles, and in breach of the no extra claims undertakings given to the Commission by the building unions and by the other unions who will then claim it. It will be a breach of the commitment to restraint made at the National Economic Summit Conference and it will be a threat to our prospects of economic recovery. If it is granted by the employers, the claim will then be made on all employers who have employees on building and construction sites. From there the demands will go on to all other employers. The Government must act to stop that happening. It must confine the payment to the few companies which are paying it now. I ask the Minister to make a public statement about the action the Government has taken to use its influence with the trade unions to ensure that the accord is upheld. The pattern which has already been established relating to long service leave for the building industry would be followed regarding this bogus superannuation claim. Maintenance fitters and electricians, window framers and other tradesmen and their assistants would expect to get such benefits when they are on a building or construction site. Of course, once they have that, it is a very simple matter to extend the claim to all other employees of the same employer, even though they never go near a building site. Currently the claim for this so- called superannuation is being opposed by all the sub-contractors in the building and construction industries; that is, by the companies which employ 75 per cent of the work force in those industries. It is also strongly opposed by most companies of medium size in the construction industry. If the Government does not protect those companies from being forced to follow the large companies in bowing to union pressure the accord will be a dead letter. Extra claims will have been granted by employers, with the active support of the ACTU and the acquiescence of the Government. All the employers from whom these extra claims have been extorted will then have had their wages bill and related costs increased still further beyond their capacity to afford them. As a consequence, job creating investment will not take place. That will make a mockery of the document which has just been tabled and to which the Minister has just spoken, and a mockery of the entire Budget strategy which is based on the accord. The magnitude of the problem may be seen from the following figures on building industry wage costs. The figures are based on an analysis by the New South Wales and Victorian employers federations, but I have verified them with other organisations throughout Australia. In the 10-year period since 1 January 1974 the wage costs of the carpenter and labourer have risen by 250 per cent, and of the fitter by 213 per cent. The on-costs of employing them have risen by nearly 690 per cent for carpenters, 650 per cent for labourers, and over 500 per cent for fitters. The on-costs include annual leave, leave loadings, long service leave, sick leave, payroll tax, workers compensation, and public holidays. Over the same 10-year period the consumer price index rose by 183.54 per cent, average weekly earnings by 217.5 per cent, and average award earnings by 93.2 per cent. Yet the Government is prepared to stand by and watch another $11 a week be added to the on-costs of all employers. I repeat that that will be the consequence. The accord shows no understanding whatever of the adverse effect which the outlandish rise in on-costs has had on profitability, on investment or on employment. In fact, labour on-costs add more then 43 per cent to direct wage costs, but the accord is silent on the question of wage related on-costs. It talks piously about generating new jobs but it portrays a total lack of understanding of the role of profits in so doing. This document which has just been tabled mentions growth; yet the very matter lauded in it, the indexation of wages and the on-costs on which it is silent, impact so adversely that there will be no growth or investment. This has been pointed out to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission by the Confederation of Australian Industry. It observed in the last national wage case that 18.5 per cent of the wages bill consists of on-costs which go direct to employees and 16.7 per cent of the wages bill is represented by on-costs not received by employees directly. The principal items in this group are payroll tax paid to State governments, workers compensation, again under State laws, and superannuation. The same CAI submission showed that annual leave, payroll tax, workers compensation and other insurance premiums together amount to well over half the total contribution to on-costs. The significant thing is that all these payments are made for non- production of goods and services. Thus employers are paying people to be on leave, paying the insurance companies to cover possible contingencies relating to employees, and paying governments a tax on employment. In fact, payroll tax has increased at five times the rate of growth in jobs since 1979-80. The Victorian Government, a couple of weeks ago, published a report called 'Victoria , the Next Step'. That reveals that over the last three years the cost of payroll tax per employee has grown by 27 per cent a year, workers compensation insurance by nearly 50 per cent a year and wages by 13 per cent. The Government should be looking at, in conjunction with the State governments, four of which are of the same political persuasion, how to reduce the on-costs. Until governments come to terms with these costs not only will they be breaching their own pious words at the National Economic Summit Conference but also they will be compounding the difficulties facing employers in making profits, investing and creating jobs and turning a blind eye to the impact that wage increases have in adding to wage related on-costs. I repeat that 43 per cent of the cost of employing someone is now due to these on-costs. The same Victorian report showed that labour on-costs as a share of total hourly labour costs rose from 22 per cent in 1974 to 34 per cent in 1983. But the accord, I repeat, is silent on the impact that these costs have on investment employment and a capacity to pay wages. The entire thrust of the Opposition's policy is the capacity to pay wages without aggravating inflation and unemployment. The accord seems oblivious to the fact that when wages rise so do non-productive on-costs. It is impervious to what that does to the viability of industry. It is obsessed with maintaining the living standards of those with jobs heedless of the fact that without profits there can be no investment and no new jobs-hence no joy for those who are looking for jobs. As I pointed out the day before yesterday or the day before, in the 12 months of office of this Government unemployment has fallen by only 0.7 per cent so there is no joy for those who now face increasingly long term unemployment. In addition, the accord is doing a major disservice because it is entrenching in the minds of the Australian wage and salary earners the notion that any price rise should be automatically followed, as a matter of fairness, by a compensatory wage rise. At the National Economic Summit the Government had a very real opportunity to build on the goodwill it enjoyed in the community, to bring the trade unions to the understanding that a price increase itself bears no relationship to the ability of an employer to pay higher wages. But, regrettably, the Government did not even try to make the most of that opportunity. It did not try to make progress with the State governments or the trade union movement by looking at wages in a realistic climate. I think it is time to restate exactly what was agreed at the National Economic Summit, especially as some people who ought to know better believe that the employers' representatives sold out industry. They did nothing of the kind. In the communique that was issued from the Summit the employers agreed to a wages system based on the existing tribunals and on regular national wage cases; in other words centralised wage fixation. They did so because no credible alternative was advanced and that remains the case. In fact they supported the system of fixing awards, as indeed the Opposition does, but it does not support the criterion of full consumer price index which was stipulated in the accord. That is the important thing. Centralised wage fixation does not equate with indexation. Indexation is the criterion to be used in accordance with the accord , but in the Opposition's policy the figure of national productivity improvement is the figure to be used in national wage cases and that is the view of the employers. The employers were not party to the accord and at the Summit they made it clear that they disagreed with that fundamental plank of the accord, but nothing was done to try to educate the trade union movement about the reality of what happens. It is worth remembering that there were some key paragraphs in the Summit communique which the Government has been quick to forget. It stated: Business participants have emphasised their concern with overall unit costs of production and their importance in preserving the competitiveness of business and therefore its ability to survive, expand and create jobs. They maintain that to achieve the growth in GDP and employment on which the nation's prosperity will depend, increased profitability is now essential if new investment is to be generated at an effective level. It is significant that the parties to the accord did not embrace the view recorded by the business participants. As I have said before-I will not bore the House with repetition-it is interesting that in its 37 pages the document that the Minister says took four years to write mentions profit only three times and when it does so it is in a very antagonistic and exploitive way. It maintains, extends and perpetuates the traditional misunderstandings and anti-capitalist attitudes of old fashioned trade unionism. The Minister, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and others with trade union backgrounds know the unreality of that in economic terms but they have not used their influence and their undoubted popularity to try to get that message across. Nowhere is there a recognition of the fundamental economic fact that without profitability there can be no investment, and without that there will be no jobs. Mr Willis —That is what I said in my speech. Mr MACPHEE —The Minister in his speech acknowledged that but wage indexation is the converse argument. We know that we cannot increase profits when we are taking wages from people whose costs are rising for reasons other than profitability. They are facing increased import prices, increased labour costs through the accord, increases in Federal and State Government charges in breach of the undertakings for restraint at the Summit, and seasonal factors, such as the drought, add to price rises. Very little of the increase which is reflected by the 8.6 per cent compounded CPI increase in the last 12 months has been due to prices going up because of increased profits. That is the element which can go to employees without aggravating inflation. It is a small element. Mr Willis —Are profits not increasing? Mr MACPHEE —They are increasing at nowhere near the rate of increase in wages. Mr Willis —It was 38 per cent in the last quarter. Mr MACPHEE —The corporate profitability figure is not increasing at anything like the rate at which it ought to be increasing. From a very low base it is, in fact, now showing signs of recovery. It would be a much greater recovery if it were not for an obligation to pay wages simply because costs have risen. I repeat that this is an artificial system. It carries the seeds of its own destruction. The Government, having told people that full wage indexation represents wage restraint, now faces an artificial reduction in the March and June quarters of the CPI. We are told now that a new wages pause might result from adherence to that but to be sure the Government will give tax cuts as well. At the same time we hear calls for catch-up from Mr Clancy and 17 other building industry unions which the Minister has said he hopes will not happen. Mr Willis —Expects will not happen. Mr MACPHEE —He expects and hopes that it will not happen but I can only say that that does not speak very much for the confidence of the Government in the accord and the willingness of the parties to make it work. As well as that, we have extra wage claims under the guise of superannuation. Listening to the Minister's speech, I wonder how much confidence he has in the application of full indexation in the event that the rate of inflation drops and continues to drop. How long will the trade union movement accept index- ation when the rate of inflation is low? There was a report on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation when the consumer price index figure came out the other day quoting the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions as saying: 'It is much lower than we thought this quarter but don't worry, it will be up again in June because the impact of the 4.1 per cent increase will have then started to go through the system'. The way in which that statement was reported suggests that Mr Dolan was quite pleased with the prospect of the consumer price index increasing in the June quarter because that would lead to another round of wage increases. This is the kind of madness we are concerned about. The national wage case bench observed in both cases under this system that the capacity of the economy to sustain these increases was indeed not there but it thought that the cost of industrial disputes might be greater and its obligation under its Act was to do what the parties to the accord wanted. I believe that the Government's whole approach to the question of tax cuts and its failure to curb the militancy of the building industry unions in particular show its lack of confidence in the accord. When the accord does collapse, the Government will have nothing with which to replace it. What is bothering and should be bothering all people who would otherwise be contemplating investing in job creating activities is the fact that they do not know what will happen after the accord breaks. Indeed, it is under pressure now. In the past six or eight months there has been an increase of some $6 billion in the wage bill of employers. It is little wonder that since December the investment figures have been quite static and that in fact industry does not share the confidence of the Government in the capacity of the accord to represent wage restraint. It is interesting to note that 1.8 per cent of the 4.1 per cent increase in the consumer price index figure for the last six months was due to increased government charges and taxes in breach of the commitment for restraint by governments at the Summit. All of this leads me to say not only that it is foolish to advocate wage indexation but also it is clear that the Government is unable or unwilling to curb the extra claims that are now being made on the building industry. I asked the Minister once before, and I ask him again, to condemn the actions of the building unions and to urge them to abide by the no extra claims commitment. I ask him to tell employers that the Government will support them. I also ask him to stipulate that, in the event that any other companies in the building and construction industry capitulate to the claims being made on them, the Government will instruct all its departments and agencies not to accept the passing on of costs as a result. It is well known that the new Parliament House site is being used as a test case. It is well known that the Prime Minister would like to open that building on 26 January 1988. I believe, in the interests of this community, that even if that building cannot be opened till the year 2000 the employers involved in the construction cannot and must not capitulate to what is an extra claim in breach of the accord and in breach of the undertakings to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Government must make it clear that the taxpayers of this country will not accept the passing on of costs that arise out of a capitulation to that union pressure. We, as an Opposition, strongly favour genuine superannuation schemes. They must be entered into company by company on sound actuarial advice. They are not matters for an industry-- Mr Charles —You argued against that earlier. Mr MACPHEE —I did not. What I am arguing against is this bogus superannuation claim which is a wage claim under another name. Mr Willis —It is not. It is a genuine superannuation scheme. Mr MACPHEE —It is not a genuine superannuation scheme. The money is now being paid by the large companies and they are now trying to find a way of dressing it up to make it acceptable. But, in fact-- Mr Willis —It is nonsense. Mr MACPHEE —It is not nonsense. I have been told that by chairmen of building industry companies. It is in fact what is occurring. It is believed and feared in the business community that this is the way in which the accord will be circumvented. I believe that, far from being filled with self-congratulations, the Government knows that it has got a very difficult period ahead of it in respect of this accord. It has made itself the slave to the trade union movement by its commitment to be accommodative and supportive in all these areas in which , sadly for this country, the ACTU's own constitution does not give it a capacity to deliver. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(11.10) —Firstly, I congratulate the Advisory Committee on Prices and Incomes for the report presented to the House today by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). Secondly, I congratulate the Minister on his very comprehensive speech, which covered just about every aspect of the Government's prices and incomes policy and the prices and incomes accord. Of course, over the last three or four years the Minister has done the major slice of the work in bringing together the Government's prices and incomes policy. The Minister has worked with numerous people and organisations, parlticularly the trade union movement, to formulate the prices and incomes accord. Therefore, he deserves much congratulation, particularly when we take into account the fact that the accord is working so well. Before I speak about some of the benefits of the accord, I would like to express surprise at the speech made by the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee). One would have thought, after hearing his speech, that the economy was in a dreadful state. One would have thought that, on walking out of this chamber , we would be met by hordes of employers who are all facing doom and disaster, employers who have gone to the wall or who will go to the wall over the next few months. Of course, that is not the case. Whilst we on this side of the House appreciate that one needs to keep the prices and incomes policy and one's industrial relations policy under continual surveillance-it is a never ending vigil-the factual situation now is that the reverse is true to the picture that the honourable member for Balaclava, maybe unwittingly painted. I think it is worth quoting what the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations had to say in his statement to the House when talking about the reduction in real unit labour costs. He said: This continuing reduction in real unit labour costs will contribute to further winding down the rate of inflation and improving our level of international competitiveness. Company profitability will also continue to increase thereby consolidating the recovery in private sector profitability that has already occurred and providing an environment that is highly conducive to increased private investment. That is a very true statement which I think is worth repeating. In fact, over the year to the December quarter of last year the gross operating surplus of trading enterprises increased by 38 per cent. Let me compare the situation now to the situation when this Government came to office 14 months ago. As the Minister said, when we took office we were faced with the worst economy for 50 years. We found the books in a disgraceful condition-the worst since the Great Depression. Winding my mind back, I can say that 14 months ago there was a feeling of depression on this side of the House that it would take an awfully long time to get our policies in operation and working so that this country could come out of the depression it was in. The growth that we have seen has been absolutely amazing, and I will talk about that in a minute. I believe the Opposition, despite the conflict that occurs every now and again between the honourable member for Balaclava and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), is still purporting to advocate the policies followed by the Fraser Government. What we have heard today is a continuation of those policies. These are policies which in the 1970s and the early 1980s put unemployment and inflation through the roof . We saw the economy fall to the lowest point in 50 years. During this period confidence sank to an all time low. The position was reached where in fact the business sector was turning to the then Opposition and asking what it should do to return the economy to a stable condition so that the private and public sectors could grow. All we heard today was a continuation of the policies that were put forward and in place during the previous seven years of Fraser Government. I really did not hear anything different today. I would like to quote part of the prices and incomes accord which is quite relevant. The accord states: The principles of wage fixation should be such as to provide wage justice to employees whilst seeking to ensure that wage increases do not give added impetus to inflation or unemployment. The maintenance of real wages is agreed to be a key objective. It is recognised that in a period of economic crisis as now applying that this will be an objective over time. We have seen inflation almost halved; employment has grown, unemployment has decreased, investment has grown and profits are up by 38 per cent. The economic growth rate has gone from minus 2.7 per cent to an anticipated 10 per cent this year. The most important aspect, confidence, has grown dramatically. We should just take a few of those things into account. I reiterate what the Minister said about the prices and incomes accord. The accord is about employment creation, the social aspects of which have been quite dramatic. All honourable members, especially those on this side of the House, would have noted those effects in their constituencies. We must have approximately 120,000 new jobs created a year just to maintain employment levels . In the last 12 months of the Fraser Government we saw an actual decrease in employment levels so there was a dramatic increase in unemployment. In the 12 months of this Government we have seen an increase in employment of 210,000. Two hundred and ten thousand jobs have been created. So we have seen a marked increase in employment with a corresponding decrease in unemployment. Again we see people working, paying their taxes as they have always wanted so that they can reap the benefits and at the same time decrease the very harmful social effects of unemployment. As the Minister has already stated, money for public housing has been increased by 50 per cent to $500m. Another aspect of the prices and incomes accord is industry development. Respective Ministers, in particular the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button), are developing that sector very well. In the health area we have seen the introduction of Medicare and in the social security area there have been vast increases in various ways to help people who are in genuine need. The education and taxation policies of this Government are two other elements of the prices and incomes accord. We have also seen the introduction of the Prices Surveillance Authority. That package of elements goes to make up the prices and incomes accord. The important thing is that all those aspects come together. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Balaclava, talked about flow- ons and so forth and about moving away from the centralised wage fixing system. A number of people on this side of the House, including myself, have spoken a number of times about the absolute nonsense of moving away from a centralised wage fixing system. It might sound all right in theory but in practice it is an absolute disaster. We have seen that policy put forward in the past by the Fraser Government. What did it achieve? It achieved a dramatic increase in inflation and unemployment. The economy went downhill while the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission moved away from that system. It is quite important to note that when the Fraser Government was in office the Arbitration Commission moved away from that system but that under this Government it moved back to the centralised wage fixing system. It moved back under the guidelines that were put forward by this Government and the agreements which had been reached with the Government and the unions on a wages and incomes accord. Whilst wages and incomes accords have been a disaster in some countries, most of the disasters have been because the policies had not been thought through enough. There has been either a prices policy or an incomes policy; there has not been both put together. That is why such accords have failed in some countries, notably Great Britain. History shows that wage increases achieved in one sector will flow on. The metal industry standard set by agreement between the parties several years ago in late 1981 was later described by a national wage case Bench as being uncomfortably high in the then current economic circumstances. nevertheless, it did flow on. To move to a decentralised system would once again be a disaster for this country. The honourable member for Balaclava talked about superannuation. I do not think that the previous Government, the now Opposition, should talk about superannuation when one considers that it has basically been in government for the vast majority of time since the Second World War and it did nothing about superannuation. It did nothing about national superannuation or about industry superannuation. The superannuation rorts that went on and go on to this day were and are an absolute scandal. Of course, the Government has passed through this House what is called the cherry picking legislation designed to cut out the superannuation frauds that were perpetrated by many companies, some that I would like to name, but will not at this stage. It is disgraceful that this Opposition has come before this House today and talked about superannuation after spending 30 years doing nothing to encourage employers and employees to sit down and work together to have a sensible system of superannuation. Had previous Governments done something about it this country, having been through the boom of the 1950s and 1960s, now would be in a position to implement a national superannuation scheme. We are paying now in the 1980s for the disastrous administration of the Menzies Government of the 1950s and 1960s when nothing was planned, nothing was done on many fronts. We have heard the Deputy Leader of the Opposition also in this House and other places talking about turning on its head the Justice Higgins 1907 Harvester decision, turning Justice Higgins on his head, so to speak. That course would be a disaster. The Harvester decision of 1907 was a monumental and important decision. It created the basic wage concept, with built-in components for the living standards of that time, that has flowed through to the present. Our centralised system under the Arbitration Commission is unique and should be preserved, unlike the policies of the Opposition. As I have said before, its policy is really the same regurgitation we have heard for the previous seven years; it would destroy all of that. We have seen at this stage the wonderful effects of the prices and incomes accord. It has been probably more successful in time and in achievement than this Government would have hoped. We have seen the great decrease in the level of industrial disputes. In 1983 it was 25 per cent lower than in 1982. As I said before, in 1982-83 the growth rate of the economy fell by 2.7 per cent; in 1983- 84 it will increase by 10 per cent. The increased growth rate, the great increase in employment, the decrease in unemployment and the package of policies put forward by this Government have shown employers and employees how a co- ordinated system can work and will work to the benefit of this country. I congratulate the Government, particularly the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, for the wonderful work he has done. The economy is in a tremendous position in comparison with what it was 14 months ago. That is in no small way due to the work of the prices and incomes accord and the confidence it has built in the economy and in the community. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(11.25) —Madam Deputy Speaker, this statement on the prices and incomes accord is welcome, if only for one reason. It is a change for the Opposition to have a statement put down in this fashion instead of having 90 per cent of our Question Time used up by Ministers who are too scared to come into this place to put down a statement and have it debated by the Opposition. The Government knows very well that there are two reasons for this. First, it will not stand criticism. Secondly, it is usually one of its backburner type policies that it does not want anybody to talk about, on our side, its side or in public. This Government by committee-now it has become a government of chicken meat legislation-has everything on the backburner. Superannuation talked about today, is on the backburner. The assets test is on the backburner. Capital gains and death duties taxes are on the backburner but it is burning brightly. The Medicare levy is still in bad shape. Many people gain no benefits from the levy because of the Government's inability to do anything constructive about health insurance. The Government talks about human rights, but it is dodging the issue. Now it is talking about doing something with the prices and incomes accord. One can go on. There is also State aid and other matters. As I said, we have come, day after day, to deal with chicken meat legislation, but at least the Government has now come clean and let us look at its accord and its claimed successes-I repeat, its claimed successes. The facts are, of course, that in every sector of employment in Australia at this moment-I do not say this with any happiness but I must tell honourable members the facts-except financial services and government services, employment is down. If that is what the financial accord has done for Australia, I am sure we could have something better than it. It is interesting to note that we are told all about statistics today which are on a very low base. But the facts of life are that the Australian Financial Review tells us this morning about another statistical error. All of those grand figures that were thrown at the Parliament about a month ago are brought into considerable question. The newspaper stated: Total public investment is now estimated to have increased by 5 per cent in the quarter, rather than having fallen by 6 per cent as initially estimated. That is probably just one example. There are other examples all over of how the Department of the Treasury is saying that it is not the way the Government is telling it. It has fiddled the figures again. I would like to know whether the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) is correct when, in his ministerial statement, he said that industrial disputation is the lowest for six years. I thought he said that it is the lowest for 16 years. Which is correct? Mr Willis —Sixteen. Mr TUCKEY —The lowest for 16 years; the Minister may as well have said 20 because it would have been equally wrong. The Minister does not tell honourable members the true position about statistics. I have told honourable members time and again that there is a statistic that lions have killed more Western Australians than sharks, but I bet that when honourable members go to Western Australia they will take more care when they are swimming than when they are bushwalking. The fact of life is that the Government's statistics do not take any account of work bans and limitations. They deal only with actual strikes. I have talked to major employers just recently who have made it very clear to me that bans and limitations have always had a lot more effect on their profitability and production than strikes. At least strikes are clear cut and they do not necessarily mean that the wages have to be paid. Bans and limitations have all sorts of effects. What are the statistical facts about that which the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations keeps to himself? A report on industrial disputes for the week ending 13 April 1984-these are the disputes that get this high up; these are not the little backyard ones that do not get reported but which are hurting Australian industry-stated that 85 industrial disputes big enough to be notified to the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations existed in that week. Twenty-one of those were in breach of the accord. Now that is the situation in Australia at the moment. What were those disputes all about? They were all about logs of claims. What do we have logs of claims for when we have centralised wage fixing and indexation? They were about award increases, travel allowances-we are getting back to the perks situation-improved retrenchment payments and shorter working hours, which is one of the things that brought Australia to its present parlous state. There are over-award payments, penalty payments, superannuation claims, severance pay, site allowances, wages and conditions disputes, and the Government tells me that we are not having any strikes. No, we are not having any strikes because the unions have found a better way. This Government will condone any trick provided it does not get into the statistics. Of course, in the case of superannuation claims in the building industry, the trick was put to the workers by the Minister. He told them how to make it work. The Minister should not suggest to me that this has nothing to do with the accord. Mr Charles —Of course, things were much better in 1982, weren't they? Mr TUCKEY —Yes. The last year of the Fraser Government was a year of drought. One day the Australian Labor Party will discover the massive contribution that primary industry makes to the Australian economy. In the following year, in the first year of the Hawke Government, it rained and all of a sudden we had massive production in that year. I asked the Parliament the other day why the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) took up the Bible after he took an affirmation in 1980. I can tell honourable members that he is pretty grateful to God. But the increase in production does not have much to do with his personal effort or the effort of this Minister here at the table, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. The Minister took considerable time in his statement to refer to the new, very innovative and workable policy that has been created by the Opposition . Let me say to honourable members that it is a policy. It is not a non-policy, as has become now the practice of this Government. I laughed my head off to hear the Prime Minister call us the Opposition of no policy. The Opposition's principal role is to keep the Government honest. Now we find that we are not only keeping it honest but also having to give it some more policies because it has nearly run out of the ones it inherited and worked through. The Government is in big trouble because everything that it thought was grand has run into the brick wall of public opinion. The Government thinks it should get itself another three-year term. Perhaps the Prime Minister, in picking up the Bible, hopes that he will get a bit more help from up there in that three-year period. In the interests of Australia, I hope he does get that help, but the improvement will not be anything to do with him. What is our policy? Mr O'Neil —Disaster. Mr TUCKEY —The honourable member thinks it is disaster because the union leaders who give his Government instructions do not like it. I have got out amongst the real workers, the people I used to employ. I have talked to them. That is something that the Government is uniquely deficient in. The Government does not have members who have ever had to employ a worker, talk to him, discuss his wages and conditions and find out how he would like to be paid and employed. That is the difference. The Government would not know what it is about. The main thrust of the Opposition's policy is to create a climate wherein all people can prosper-employer and employee together. Our policy is quite capable of producing higher wages and lower production costs. The present indexation policy cannot achieve that in any way other than with consumer price index fiddles. Of course, the work force will not cop that type of blatant fiddle for very long. They are told that the CPI has gone down. Then they go into the grocer's shop and see the prices rising due to the drag of the 8 per cent increase they got last year. This Minister claims some economic training. What does he do? He kids himself. There is nothing worse than a person who believes his own fibs. He kids himself that an 8 per cent wage rise in one year will not show up in the next year. But before the Prime Minister has his election there will still be some benefits in the artificial CPI area, which I reject as a calculation of anything. The CPI will help him in calling the December election that he wants. It will be an opportunistic election, to align the Senate with the House of Representatives, not the House of Representatives with the Senate. If the election were held in May, at least the Government would have that excuse , for what it is worth. But it is no longer doing that, it is aligning the Senate with the House of Representatives because it will be the Government's last chance before the indexation chickens and the accord chickens come home to roost. We say that our policy will rid a lot of the anachronisms. It will create a climate in which the 700,000 small businessmen in this country, who have very little contact with this Government-this Government is a government of big business and big unions-can organise things very well. There is an article in the Australian Financial Review of 30 April in which the Deputy Minister of Trade in the Philippines accused the big ship owners of sooling the unions on to their ships because they actually had the indecency to cut prices to Australian exporters and give our people a chance to make sales. If the Opposition's policy had been followed, it might be that our coal producers would not have the problems they have today. Maybe that $2 or $3 a tonne could have been saved, but no! Of course, Mr Fitzgibbon would be unhappy about that. In the arena of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, which we choose to call a tribunal, our policy will clearly enunciate the roles of privilege and responsibility. Privilege is great; responsibility goes with it. I agree entirely that penal provisions in the arena of industrial relations are totally inappropriate. Smashing a man down with your fist is not industrial relations. That is a crime of one type or another, which can be dealt with in another arena. The basic policies of industrial relations should not, and I will never change my mind on this, attract penal provisions of a nature that take a man to gaol. Clearly, industrial relations is a commercial process and it must be treated as any other commercial process. If loss is caused to a man in a commercial process he is entitled to recover damages, and that is what our proposal says. That entitlement can apply to either side. If irresponsibility on the part of an employer causes loss to his workers, quite clearly he should be up for damages. But let us remember that the reverse applies. If anyone says to me 'That denies us the right to strike', I say: 'It does not; it denies you the right to strike when you are patently and clearly wrong'. That is what our policy says. The Minister suggested today that all Australia should be under one centralised system. It is quite clear that, even within a 100 mile radius, not all employers are equal. I can give examples of that in my electorate. One farmer gets rain and another farmer 50 miles away gets none. The farmer who gets no rain is not as fortunate as the Prime Minister, who has taken up God. The farmer has to sack his work force. There is no way he can say to his workers, as the American car industry was able to say in a year of bad recession: 'I will keep you on under these very reduced conditions. At least you have a home on my property'. He cannot say things like that. He has to sack his workers because there are no provisions in the award for him to keep them on. He cannot do what the American car industry did and say: 'Take your cutbacks this year, but we will build into your working arrangements a share of our future profits'. That is exactly what happened in America. The American workers, by protecting their employer and their industry, by accepting that very hard decision, are now reaping some of the benefits, and we read in the papers that they are getting profits. That is what our policy is about. That is common sense. That is accepting commercial reality. Comparative wage justice is a joke in a nation the size of Australia. It is probably a joke in a city the size of Sydney or even Perth. Quite clearly, for all sorts of reasons different situations occur, and paramount in industrial relations should be job protection and a fair go. Equally clearly, the Opposition's new policy gives us all those things. Let us remember, when we get thrown at us this stupid argument about industrial muscle, that there are 700, 000 small businesses in this country that will choose to benefit from-- Mr John Brown —There would not be many left if you had your way. Mr TUCKEY —The Minister now entering the debate should know that those people can and will outmuscle a few union leaders who only worry about themselves and not the other side. I wish to read from the accord a few of the things it says about protection, which the Minister skated over in his statement. I have here the original blue-covered document. This is the agreement signed, sealed and delivered. Under the heading 'Protection', the accord states: . . . neither current economic conditions, expected future trends, nor balance of payments constraints justify reduction in protection in the foreseeable future. That is the document to which the Prime Minister-elect signed his name. What did he do when he went to Japan? He denied that. There is some suggestion in the Minister's statement today that maybe something will be done about this Government by committee. The accord states: . . . changes to protection in the future will be determined within the planning mechanisms in which unions and business will play key roles. Of course, primary producers are to be excluded. The accord goes on further: The activities and role of the IAC will be reviewed. This will include the need for the IAC to ensure that the social effects of unemployment are included in all terms of reference. What does that mean? It means that as long as we can create a job we can have any level of protection we like. Is that what the Prime Minister said in Japan, when he made his China gaffe and when he raised the expectations of the Kwinana workers, who have a Mickey Mouse steel project exactly contradictory to what the Prime Minister was talking about? What will they do? Do they think they will get their jobs back? The answer is no. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Ms FATIN(Canning)(11.40) —I am pleased to join in this debate on the report of the Advisory Committee on Prices and Incomes. The second progress report provides a comprehensive review of Government initiatives since it came to office almost 12 months ago. The structure of the report follows closely the details of the prices and incomes policy as outlined in the prices and incomes accord. Today, I should like first to make some brief comments on claims made by the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) concerning superannuation in the building industry. Negotiations for superannuation in the building industry are not a disguised wage claim, as the honourable member asserted. For a considerable period there has been agreement between the parties in the industry to implement a superannuation scheme. Negotiations on such a scheme have been brought forward in order to ensure the establishment of a viable and long lasting industrial agreement in the industry. The Government supports these negotiations for genuine superannuation. It must be stressed that the schemes that are proposed represent genuine superannuation and contain all the elements essential to such a scheme. Superannuation has never been an industrial matter capable of being dealt with by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, and to assert that it should go before the Commission at this stage is, I suggest, ridiculous. Almost half the work force from a wide range of industries already has superannuation cover. To deny such a benefit to building employees would be inequitable. Occupational superannuation spread significantly during the time of the previous Government and the previous indexation guidelines. These developments were not opposed by the then Government. In fact, it actively encouraged the spread of superannuation. The Government is concerned to ensure that superannuation in the building industry will not form the basis of widespread claims in other industries. To this end we have received strong assurances from the Australian Council of Trade Unions that it will not endorse such claims and will ensure that the spread of occupational superannuation proceeds in an ordered and gradual manner. I now wish to address the subject of the accord. It is an historic document and agreement, a recognition of the tripartite nature of industrial relations between unions, government and employers. An enthusiastic story by Teresa Mannix in the Canberra Times in February 1983 gave details of the accord. The article stated in part: The agreement is based on policies which are described as 'comprehensive and equitable and based on co-operation and not confrontation'. Four main principles outlined in the accord are: Firstly, policies are agreed between the parties rather than imposed by the Government; secondly, they cover prices, wages, non-wage income, taxation and the social wage; thirdly, they are concerned with the equitable redistribution of income as well as economic objectives; and, fourthly, they provide the best chance to overcome Australia's economic problems. Other points mentioned in the accord were seeking constitutional change, if necessary, to control rents, dividends, doctors fees, and other non-wage incomes; annual tax indexation, which unions may forgo to help fund job creation schemes; restructuring the tax scale to ease the burden on low and middle income earners; abolishing the Industrial Relations Bureau, and reforming the industrial relations framework to reduce confrontation; a national health scheme financed by a one per cent tax levy; the establishment of an Economic Planning Advisory Council, comprising representatives of the Government, unions and employers. The agreement is based on ensuring that living standards are maintained and increased in line with national productivity. Government policies are applied to prices and all incomes, including wages, and are designed to bring about an equitable and clearly discernible redistribution of income. The accord further stated that a Labor government would advocate centralised wage fixing with a full cost of living adjustment and unions would consult the Government before formulating plans for improved wages and conditions. The economic mismanagement of the previous Government led to an unprecedented number of Australians being without work. The social cost of falling living standards amongst both the employed and the unemployed was simply unacceptable. A divide and rule policy led to fear, depression and bitterness, which I might add is still evident, particularly in areas of high unemployment such as those which exist in parts of my electorate of Canning. Apart from the sheer necessity of averting the crisis towards which Australia was heading, the accord is an essential part of the Australian Labor Party's approach to industrial relations and wages. The social wage is a basic tenet of our belief that an advanced or even post-industrial society can still be fair and equitable. Unlike the Opposition, we do not think it is possible to consider people's wages in isolation from the rest of their social requirements. Looking back over more than a year of Labor government, it is obvious that the major part of our legislative program has been aimed at improving the overall situation of Australians, particularly those Australians who were previously caught in the stranglehold of rising costs and falling incomes under the Fraser Government. The Labor Government's commitment to the success of the accord can be seen by its programs and the proposals which are now in the pipeline. I cite just a few: The community employment program, which is creating thousands of jobs in this country; the proposed tax cuts, which will go such a long way towards assisting workers in this country; the first home owners scheme, which has provided thousands of homes and jobs for numerous Australians; the introduction of Medicare, which had been so looked forward to by so many people in Australia and which is now benefiting them; improved working conditions and training opportunities for workers; industrial health and safety proposals; education initiatives, such as the participation and equity program; and increased retention ratios for secondary schools and technical and further education colleges. These measures are having a direct effect on the people of Australia and I suggest it is no coincidence that they are also having an extremely positive effect on the economy. The accord has played a major part in restoring industrial peace to this country. I think the figures bear repeating. The number of working days lost through industrial disputes in January 1984 was 59.8 per cent lower than the number of days lost in the previous month, 68.2 per cent lower than the figure for January 1983 and 67.3 per cent lower than the average time lost for the month of January over the last five years. The figures for January 1984 reveal the lowest level of disputation for that month since 1978, thus continuing the general trend towards lower levels of disputation which has been evident for some months. This trend in reduced industrial disputation is reinforced insofar as the number of working days lost in the 12 months ending January 1984 is the lowest level for a 12-month period since the 12 months ending March 1978. I now wish to address myself to another issue-union bashing. Union bashing has been a pastime of many conservatives for decades but in recent years the credibility of those who have involved themselves in union bashing has plummetted. The old image of unions was no more accurate than any other kind of unthinking stereotype. A unionist, according to the union bashing right wing, was probably uneducated, definitely aggressive and usually male. Many Australians were convinced of the accuracy of this description and it has taken a great deal of dedication and hard work on the part of the union movement and the Labor Party to put the record straight. The Whitlam Government established and funded the Trade Union Training Authority program, which played a significant role in equipping unionists with the sorts of skills needed to arbitrate responsibly and effectively and also to negotiate and explain the industrial facts of life to their colleagues, employers and the general public. The Australian Council of Trade Unions was formed, as I think most of us know, in 1927 and today 156 unions are affiliated with the ACTU. This involves around 2.3 million workers, of whom more than 30 per cent are women. I am proud to say that my union, the Royal Australian Nursing Federation, is an affiliate of the ACTU. Some 83 per cent of all unionists belong to unions affiliated with the ACTU. Taking into account unions affiliated with State trades and labour councils, this figure rises to 86 per cent. I address myself to this aspect today simply because I think one has to recognise the very responsible attitude that the ACTU has taken as far as the accord is concerned. I now briefly mention the Fraser Government's industrial relations record. I suggest that a vicious circle of confrontation and disputation was caused by the conservative parties' complete lack of understanding about the psychology of industrial relations. I suggest that that record is relevant to today's debate. Conservatives, with the possible exception of the honourable member for Balaclava, pay lip service to the idea of co-operating with the unions but they have not been able to accept the fact that the trade union movement is made up of dedicated, articulate people who will not be fobbed off with empty promises or scared off by industrial jungle warfare. In 1975 Mr Fraser promised to work positively in co-operation with trade unions. He then proceeded to undermine the basic principle of unionism and the security of individual unionists with a whole series of provocative and confrontationist legislation. We had the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act, the establishment of the Industrial Relations Bureau and the expansion of the Trade Practices Act. All of these things were intended to curb the power and effectiveness of the unions. The previous Government even introduced legislation intended to bring in industry unions and an end to compulsory membership of unions. The previous Government's record on indexation was even more devious. Mr Fraser promised to support wage indexation and then turned round and opposed the full flow-on of the consumer price index at just about every Conciliation and Arbitration Commission hearing until 1981, when he formally abandoned indexation altogether. During those five years, 12 out of 15 hearings resulted in an award which did not cover the cost of inflation. The Opposition's Dickensian attitude to industrial relations alienated entire sections of this community which have given this Government an overwhelming mandate to implement policies based on co- operation and common interest. Mr Saunderson —Their new policy is a beauty, too! Ms FATIN —Yes, it is! I would like to have addressed myself to that new policy but I do not have time to do so. The Opposition's recently released industrial relations and wages policy has drawn much adverse comment from the media and the public. I am sure my colleagues will refer to that later in the debate. I conclude by saying that the Australian community was being torn apart under the rule of the previous Government. The Labor Party promised to reconcile the various interest groups which made up our society. We promised to reconstruct the outmoded industrial and economic structures which were preventing Australia reaching its true potential and we promised to plant the seeds of recovery and nurture Australia through the difficulties involved in reversing the recession. The accord is one of the central features of the new deal which Australians from all walks of life are now embracing. The accord is the symbol of a new-found sense of involvement and responsibility which is uniting Australia and shedding a new and optimistic light on the future. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(11.55) —It must be recognised from the outset that the prices and incomes accord is a political and not an economic document. It was drafted with the purpose of satisfying the political ambitions of the Australian Labor Party as well as to placate the Labor movement which forms such an integral part of that Party. If there needed to be any confirmation of that then it was certainly the speech of the honourable member for Canning (Ms Fatin) who displayed the sort of sycophantic approach to trade unions that we have come to expect from the members of the Government. In particular, she made no mention whatsoever, nor did speakers before her, of the profit and the importance of the private sector in the growth and creation of employment opportunities in this country. It is interesting that the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) correctly pointed out that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) paid no more than very brief lip service to the very important aspects of profit and growth in the private sector. The Minister did not make much mention of those aspects simply because this Government and this Minister are committed to big government and big unions with the occasional big business thrown in, as was shown by the National Economic Summit Conference. If the accord is a political document then the Summit was part of a political strategy wherein the business community was locked into full wage indexation. That full wage indexation has been the cause of a great deal of economic hardship in this country. The accord was first used as a political instrument, I understand from reading Paul Kelly's book The Hawke Ascendancy, by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) when he urged the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr Cliff Dolan, not to release the policy until he had finished the job of removing the then Leader of the Opposition, the present Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), from that position. So the accord got off to a bad start, if I am permitted to put it in those terms, with the cynical and dishonest use of it by the Prime Minister. The accord locks the business community into full wage indexation. The results of that full wage indexation, I suggest, border upon the catastrophic. For instance, the last national wage increase was 4.1 per cent. It has been estimated-these figures have not been challenged by the Government although I invite the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, who is in the House , to challenge them if he sees fit-that it will cost the business community $6 billion in wages. It is generally accepted that a job costs an employer $30,000. It costs roughly $30,000 to create every job in the private sector. If that $6 billion, which is the cost of the latest hike resulting from the national wage increase, is divided by $30,000 then it is easily determined that 200,000 jobs have not been created. I acknowledge that that is a rough estimate, because if there were not an increase in wages then the employer might not use that saving to create new jobs; he might use it as profit or he might take it to invest in capital or plant. Nonetheless, that is some indication of how many opportunities to create jobs have been lost by full wage indexation. I point out that that is a result only from the last six months national wage rise. The first six months increase, which was in the same order, hit and hurt the opportunities for jobs creation just as severely. I think the Minister ought to address himself to that aspect in reply. Mr Willis —You should address yourself to the fact that there have been 200,000 jobs created in the last 11 months. Mr McGAURAN —The Minister interjects that there has been an increase in employment of that order in the last 11 months. There is no evidence of that. Nothing has been put before this chamber or before the Australian electorate to prove that this Government has anywhere near fulfilled its boast, it promise and its lie that 500,000 jobs would be created in its first three years in office. That was a lie. The Government knew it was a lie when it put it to the Australian electorate. That promise is coming home to haunt it and will haunt it at the next election when the people of Australia will be reminded of that boast and that unfulfilled promise. It is my contention and the contention of my colleagues that the accord is based on the wrong premise. It is on the wrong premise with this central wage fixing-full wage indexation policy because it will retard growth by strangling profit. Of course, profit is anathema to honourable members on the other side of the House. However, it has to be recognised and is recognised throughout Australia that it is profit which creates growth, which in turn provides better opportunities for job creation. It should also be pointed out that the recent wage increase of 4.1 per cent did little but increase income tax for many tens of thousands of workers. Prior to that wage increase average weekly earnings were $19,453. After the 4.1 increase average weekly earnings rose to $20,250. As the 46 per cent tax threshold cuts in at $19,500, tens of thousands of workers have been forced into the higher tax bracket. Therefore, the only real winner from the recent wage hike-it certainly was not business-appears to be the Government. This Government has its deficit running at $8.7 billion at the moment. It is resisting all advice and all attempts to lower that deficit in the next Federal Budget. Full wage indexation has just as important effects on our international trade. It has been a very serious concern to many members of the Opposition that Australia is gradually losing its share of international trade. This can largely be put down to not just declining markets and seasonal problems, but most importantly to our steadily losing our competitive edge. We are unable to compete on world markets with the same prices for goods as we were able to in the past. It is my conclusion that a significant contribution to this loss of the competitive edge is directly attributable to the fact that we are locked into full wage indexation. We are not withstanding the competitiveness or strength of a particular industry if its workers must receive a fixed half- yearly wage increase. We have heard speaker after speaker for the Government spout forth on the strength of the economy and how the sun has suddenly risen on Australia and that we can look forward to an even greater future. That is wrong, in fact, on two premises. First, we are not enjoying such a sustained economic recovery. In fact , it is arguable whether we are enjoying an economic recovery at all. The second premise is wrong in fact in that the future looks even more grim. P. P. McGuinness, the financial journalist of the Australian Financial Review, said on 10 April 1984: The current economic recovery will be short-lived. It is the inheritance of the Labor Government from the Fraser Government and the breaking of the drought, and the inheritance will soon be dissipated. In the same edition of the Australian Financial Review the editorial stated: . . . it is clear enough that the very foundation of the Government's good fortune so far, is the legacy left it by the Fraser Government-the wages pause. It was the wages pause which gave this Government the opportunity to stabilise the declining economic indicators. The effects and benefits of that wages pause are rapidly coming to an end. Concern about an economic downturn in the coming year has come not only from the Australian Financial Review or from politicians on the Opposition benches. Similar views have also been expressed by the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development, the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, the Mining Industry Council, Hill Samuel Australia Ltd, the Confederation of Australian Industry, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and the Business Council of Australia. All those highly respected organisations have expressed concern about our economic prospects for the forthcoming year. The reason for their concern centres primarily on four points: First, Labor support for full wage indexation; secondly, Labor's acceptance of a high Budget deficit; thirdly, the consequences of the Labor Government's prices and incomes accord with the trade unions, and fourthly, other Labor policies that act as a direct disincentive to private sector investment, such as the resources rent tax and changes to the Trade Practices Act, in particular sections 45D and 45E, which are contained within the prices and incomes policy progress report which has been tabled by the Minister this morning. The abolition of those very important boycott provisions of the Trade Practices Act is universally condemned by the business community which has sought the protection and assistance of the law to protect itself against mindless boycotting and ruthless disruptive industrial tactics by unthinking merciless trade unions. The fact that the Government is abolishing those very important and greatly needed provisions is proof enough, if any more proof were required- it certainly is not-that this is a government for big unions. It is certainly not a government which has the interests of the business community at heart. That is to be expected. It cannot be said to be a surprise. What may be a surprise is that the business community would not have expected such betrayals given its participation to some extent in the National Economic Summit Conference. It is very clear, as the Prime Minister takes this country to an early election , that a major issue will be the prices and incomes accord. The Prime Minister has described this accord as the cornerstone of his economic policy. In other words, he will do nothing whatsoever that will threaten or weaken this accord, no matter what its destructive effects are. He is a captive of the accord and of the demands that the unions are putting on it. The Prime Minister's sole objective is to hold this accord together notwithstanding that it is rapidly falling apart, as the honourable member for Balaclava so aptly described, in the building and construction industry. I understand that the Australian Council of Trade Unions is currently revising the accord and is increasing its demands on the Government which is only too happy to accommodate the requirements of the ACTU as we move closer to an early election. For example, Cliff Dolan is on record as saying that tax cuts in the Budget will be crucial to the continued operation of the accord. Clearly, the Prime Minister cannot enter an election period with a fight on his hands with the trade unions. For that reason the accord will stay, despite its deficiencies. The Prime Minister will do nothing to jeopardise this accord which locks the Government and the business community into a destructive never-ending cycle of full wage indexation. Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(12.10) —I am delighted to have the opportunity to congratulate the bulk of Australians who have contributed so significantly to the excellent results achieved by the prices and incomes accord agreed to at last year's National Economic Summit Conference and instigated by the Hawke Labor Government . The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), in his final comments on the second progress report on the prices and incomes accord, said: Australia can now be said to be at the forefront of economic policy development with an economic policy which is performing the essential dual function of promoting short term recovery and providing the basis for sustained long term growth. When one considers the confrontationist policies and attitudes of the previous Fraser Government, when union disputation in 1982 was 25 per cent higher than in 1983, one can see distinctly that the Hawke Labor Government is a true, caring, consensus government. Coming from a heavily industralised area and having a good rapport with all sections of the trade union movement in that area, I know of the attacks and hurt inflicted upon workers and their families by the previous conservative Government. Workers had no alternative but to withdraw their labour -that was the only weapon they had-while waiting for the opportunity for a Federal election to toss out the Fraser union-bashing Government, the confrontationist conservative Government. Let us face it, this conservative Opposition is no different from the former Fraser Government in its approach to industrial relations. The joint Liberal Party-National Party of Australia policy on industrial relations is another document of disaster. Peter Stephens of the Age said: If there has been one striking quality in industrial relations in the past year , it has been the response of the ACTU in its new role as 'partner' in managing the economy, and its obvious efforts to behave responsibly. The relative industrial calm, except in the turgid building industry, and the growing influence of the ACTU cannot be dismissed as coincidental. Any wages policy, from Labor or Liberal, must recognise historical and industrial reality, must be capable of attracting the support of (or at least avoiding outright opposition from) employers and unions, and must not cause more trouble than it solves. In its present, admittedly vague form, the Liberal policy appears to guarantee at least a fair degree of trouble. I hope the Opposition will take that statement which is very constructive, by Mr Stephens, on board. I quote from a report on one area of the coalition's so- called conservative policy. This report states: The conservatives are not happy with the present harmonious manner of deciding wage rises and will dispense with the efficient and satisfactory method and instead, under a new Act, establish a new tribunal which will have to bow to, carry out the wishes of, the conservative coalition. Let me quote but one example of this from this obnoxious policy document: The tribunal will also be required to take into account the economic policies of the Commonwealth. Let us imagine, on the Opposition's past record when in government of assisting to create industrial chaos and inflicting terrible hardship on thousands of Australian families and its performance in this House, what those results would be. It would be like a nightmare. In the highly unlikely event of those opposite controlling the reins of power, it is not hard to conjure up a scenario of the unions with industrial muscle being able to have an opportunity to defend their working conditions. Unfortunately for the rest, the Liberals and the National Party would attempt to place conditions upon them which were comparable with those placed on some workers in Third World countries. Of course, the ordinary Australian would say: 'Enough is enough'. Those in opposition never seem to learn. It is typical of the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), who has left the chamber, and the young silvertail from Gippsland, the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), to carry on the union-bashing of the former Fraser Government. My colleague the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles) said that he was surprised at the statements by the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee). I think disappointment would be the more appropriate word because on this side of the House we realise that the former Minister, now the shadow Minister for Industrial Relations, has had a long experience in the trade union movement. However, we must make some apology for him because we realise that he does not agree with the policies of the coalition. He was defeated in the caucus on some of the more positive things and now has to carry the brunt of the Opposition's pathetic so-called policy. I am sure that in private he would talk to anyone and say how disastrous the policies of the Liberal Party of Australia will be. People in this country were fed up with the past industrial disharmony and have now come to expect the present harmony we have in this great country. Apart from those opposite who wish to turn back the clock, the great mass of Australian people want a united, happy, employer-employee relationship, which is coming to fruition under this Hawke Labor Government. I must commend the Australian Council of Trade Unions for the responsible manner in which it has met its obligations to the accord. While I am saying something about unions, let me clarify something for those opposite who attack trade unions as being ogres from outer space. Trade unions in this country are made up of ordinary Australian men and women whose aspirations are for a peaceful country with a happy, clean environment and reliable, constant employment. They know that these requirements are also the aims of the present Labor Government. On the positive side, the accord, which has worked so well, has been a great boost to the economy, as pointed out by the Acting Treasurer, the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford), earlier this week and again by the Minister today. Because of this, such initiatives as a boost in the housing industry, with a 50 per cent increase to $500m, occurred in 1983-84. Action to assist with aged persons' accommodation has taken place. A 20 per cent increase in family income supplements and an increase in the unemployment benefit for single adults, which had not been altered since 1978, have taken place. The introduction of the very successful Medicare scheme has taken place under which all Australians now have medical coverage. We have seen the establishment of the community employment program, under which 40,000 jobs will be created in 1983-84. Support for pre- apprenticeship training has increased. More emphasis on occupational health and safety is taking place. It is a pity that the honourable member for Gippsland has left the chamber because he made an appalling statement that the Federal Labor Government is not on target to meet its objective of 500,000 jobs in three years. I would like him to take notice of this if he is listening in his room, or playing cards, or wherever he may be: Unemployment is falling. There has been an increase of 210, 000 jobs within the last 12 months. This is very significant and means that the Government is well on target to meet its objective of creating 500,000 new jobs within three years. I do not know how far the honourable member went with his education, but it seems to me that 210,000 jobs within 12 months is certainly well on target to meet 500,000 jobs within three years. There has also been a dramatic fall in the inflation rate from 11.5 per cent in March 1983 to 5.9 per cent during our first year in office, which by any standard is truly remarkable. The Minister covered many areas of benefit to the Australian community in his very constructive report. With the likely tax cuts to be announced in this year' s Federal Budget, all Australians will either directly or indirectly be better off. There is no doubt that overall a feeling of optimism is growing which is having a far-reaching effect and is spreading quickly. More and more Australians are becoming confident about their future. Hopefully, this will have a snowballing effect in employment and production. Spending will increase, creating demand, and the supply-demand theory should really take off. I congratulate all who have participated in and worked for the successful implementation of the accord. Those who participated in the discussions at the baptism of the prices and incomes accord last year can justifiably have a feeling of pride in the present magnificent result. In the industrial area of the Iron Triangle within my electorate of Grey, union organisers like Doug Elkins and John Watson have worked diligently, laboriously, and with complete and utter dedication to make the accord work. I record my thanks to them and all other competent union representatives in my electorate of Grey for their co- operation on this matter. I am extremely pleased to have been able to participate in this debate and to congratulate those on this side of the House, who are well aware of the benefits of the prices and incomes accord to all Australians and to Australia as a whole. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(12.21) —I commend the Government for introducing such a report and giving the Parliament a rare opportunity to become involved in discussion and debate on what is, after all, one of the important issues confronting the country. It is a good time to look at the prices and incomes accord, some 15 months after it first became effective. I suppose that, 15 months on, it is also worthwhile remembering the buzz words that we heard over much of that period, although they do not seem to be much in evidence today. Those words were 'reconstruction' and 'reconciliation', which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) loved to bandy around. I see he has dropped them from his vocabulary for the time being, and I can understand why. If we are talking about reconstruction and reconciliation we have only to ask the coal and iron ore miners and the beef producers of Australia about reconstruction. Those great industries are being reconstructed all right, but not in a way that brings any credit to this Government. While we are about it, we should ask about the role and contribution to national reconciliation of the Builders Labourers Federation. It would be fair to conclude that we are getting absolutely nowhere in that direction also, despite appeasement by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), and despite gentle persuasion in the form of idle threats by the Prime Minister and even sullen hand-wringing by the Treasurer (Mr Keating), not unnaturally at the behest of his Department. In all this building industry nonsense that is going on, it would be interesting to know the involvement and role of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I suspect that, whilst I admire the words he used this morning, they are not matched by deeds in connection with developments and negotiations concerning wages in the building industry. If we go back to early 1983, soon after this Government came to office, a so- called package was being negotiated by certain representatives of building industry employers and unions. It is conventional wisdom, I think almost established fact, that the Minister arranged for departmental people, and on occasions himself, to be present at some of those meetings; or all of them. That applies also, I understand, to the developments in the current finaglings about the superannuation scheme. This morning Mr Willis said that he hoped there would be no wage increases outside the indexation-arbitration orbit. He said that the Government was confident it would not happen. We cannot be all that much reassured by those words because it should not have been necessary even to suggest or to express the hope that a breach of the guidelines would not happen. We would have thought that the Government could be more positive in that respect . The Minister went on to spell out what the Government proposes to do to keep its accord and guidelines intact. Of course this involves almost exclusively discussion with the Australian Council of Trade Unions because, after all, it is the key to it. We all know, however, that the ACTU cannot control its members. It has no mandate for that so we will have to await developments in that direction. Again I refer to the 1983 package for the building industry. There were attempts at ways to get around the Government's guidelines. Given that the Minister or his Department were present at those negotiations it is fair to question the Government's knowledge and role in that connection. Concurrent with but separate from the 1983 package negotiations meetings were being conducted between employers and unions under the chairmanship of former Conciliation and Arbitration commissioner Alan Vosti. Representatives from the Minister's Department were present at those meetings. Mr Vosti was appointed by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations with the specific brief, as I understand it, of devising better working relationships and claim settling procedures to bring about industrial peace in the building industry. That is commendable enough but things went awry. Despite guidelines under which pay claims could be ratified only by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, Mr Vosti ventured into the substance of negotiations which took him way outside the terms of reference nominated by the Minister. He expressed opinions and influenced negotiations on hours of work, no financial ticket-no start matters, cash in hand payments, review of allowances and the operative date for award changes as well as those matters which could properly have fallen within his area of responsibility such as demarcation issues and dispute settling procedures. In a telex dated 1 July last year to an employers' representative and, presumably, also to union representatives, Mr Vosti had this to say, amongst other things, about claims for allowances which were to be ratified by and which were the sole prerogative of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission: The proposal to increase the follow the job loading by 4 days would in my view open up an area of argument by other opponents that might lead the Commission to view the increase with considerable dubiety. The proposal to increase the special allowance is completely vulnerable and in my view those latter two variations could discredit the totality of the allowance proposal. The guidelines on allowances make provision as follows: 'Only in circumstances which could not have been foreseen at this date should increases in existing award allowances or service increments be created'. I interpose to point out that it is apparent that the guidelines would not allow a particular aspect of the claim being made and which looked like being conceded by the employers' representatives. Already we see a hint in the telex of a way to find a remedy in the form of a device to get around those guidelines. The telex continued: Having regard for the unforeseen circumstances this may be a problem with the increases proposed for the existing allowances but that is a matter for appropriate debate. However I propose that a new allowance be introduced and that the follow the job loading and the special allowance increases be discarded and the new allowance to be known as the building industry recovery procedures allowance with a weekly amount of $7.50 would more than compensate for the dropping of the two allowances indicated. I interpose again to point out that there we have the ex-commissioner arriving at the conclusion that we cannot get the money legitimately and we have to contrive a way around that because there is a crying need to compensate. That is precisely what he suggested in this telex. Again I say that I presume that because of his presence at meetings the Minister was advised of Mr Vosti's thoughts and, Mr Vosti being the Minister's appointment, it could also be presumed that he would make sure that his Minister knew what he had in mind. The telex continues: It is clearly based on 'unforeseen circumstances' and has the added extra of being building industry orientated and is a recognition of the efforts made by the unions to put forward a package designed to bring about a settled industry. Furthermore this type of approach in my opinion should prove more acceptable to the concept of varying allowances outlined by the Minister. The general tenor of Mr Vosti's telexed recommendations to the parties is along the lines that, because the Commission was unlikely to approve an increase in the industry allowance, which was then $11.40 a week, the Commission's likely objection to an increase could be overcome by creating a new allowance-the building industry recovery procedures allowance. On any reasonable interpretation of the words used by Mr Vosti in the telex, he was recommending a device as far as I know unique to any award in existence in Australia. It is a matter of recorded history now that the 1983 package, which in the end totalled some $9, was thrown out by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission despite the machinations I have spoken about. But this has some relevance to recent developments in relation to a superannuation scheme for the industry as a whole. I quote now from a telex from the Director of the National Industrial Construction Council in which he conveys a recommendation to his members. He says: This executive recommends to an urgent meeting of council: 1. That subject to the understanding that a similar 'package' to that of 1983 is reinstated: (A) NICC be prepared to negotiate and have implemented a genuine superannuation scheme within the building industry, (B) NICC be prepared to demonstrate its bona fides by recommending that certain employers will commence contributions as soon as a satisfactory scheme has been agreed. 2. That the Federal Government be asked to confirm its support for NICC's approach. That is very interesting language. We know how precise industrial advocates can be and I have no reason to doubt that that is very precise. It is also rumoured- I do not necessarily subscribe to the rumor-that the Minister has supported the superannuation proposal in the building industry. But the salient point I make firstly is that this superannuation deal is subject to a similar package to that of 1983 being reinstated. That is clear enough. It is another device to get around an earlier device to get around the guidelines. If that is happening with the co-operation and agreement of the Minister he should be brought to account for it. The word 'confirm' is used in the NICC's telex. It states: That the Federal Government be asked to confirm its support for NICC's approach . We all know that confirm does not mean approve. I suppose that if the NICC meant approve it would have said so. It asked the Minister to confirm something. It has reason to believe that at least tacit approval has been given by the Minister. These are the sorts of things happening in relation to the accord. Devices are being employed to get around it with the very strong suspicion-I will put it no higher than that at the moment-that the Council has co-operation and support of the Minister, or at least some people within his department, in its efforts to get around the accord. The Minister, in an exchange with my colleague the honourable member for Balaclava earlier this morning, did not seem to think it was true that a superannuation payment of $11 is being made by some employers in the building industry. Let me assure him that it is being paid. Let me assure him also that payments relating to the 4.1 per cent indexation decision withheld from the building industry by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission until those unions comply with certain requirements are also being made by some employers in the building industry. So the prices and incomes accord is crumbling. That is to be regretted; but it is within the power of this Government to put the situation right. I suggest that if the Government is serious about keeping the accord intact it should look to its own court in the first place and approach the matter with a bit more vigour and honesty than apparently it has to date. Mr SAUNDERSON(Deakin)(12.36) —In rising to speak to the report of the Advisory Committee on Prices and Incomes which was presented to the Parliament today, I wish to express some of my views in relation to this issue. I am grieved, in listening to the debate, that the Opposition has failed to acknowledge that over the 12 months since we have been in office there has been a remarkable turnaround in the areas of employment and unemployment and in terms of benefits going into industry itself. If we look at the record of the Opposition, based on statistical information made available by independent groups, we can see that in the 12 months prior to our coming to office-that is, from March 1982 to March 1983-the previous Government was successful in increasing the rate of unemployment by 58 per cent. That is a tragic record. We have been able to turn that increase in unemployment into an actual reduction in unemployment in less than 12 months. The trends indicate that during the previous Government's term of office there was a gradual increase in the level of unemployment until 1981-82 when unemployment took off and accelerated at a rate never seen in this country. Honourable members opposite fail to acknowledge the fact that in 12 months this Government has been able to create 200,000 jobs in Australia. The figures show that this is the case. Mr Groom —They are not real jobs. Some last three weeks; some last six weeks. Mr SAUNDERSON —I point out to the honourable member that 200,000 were created in 12 months of which only 40,000 were related to the community employment program. The honourable member is incorrect in suggesting that the jobs last only a few weeks. Surveys clearly show that people who participate in the community employment program greatly enhance their chances of obtaining long term and beneficial jobs. Not only are we looking after people who actually have been disadvantaged by the previous Government's policies but also the vast majority of the jobs that have been created are full time, permanent jobs in industry. But the Opposition cannot get it right. We saw the ludicrous position of the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) coming into this place and saying that the Government has not gone anywhere near meeting the target it set out to attain. Obviously he does not know anything about the subject. What is more, he came in here and spoke on this subject without doing any research. As previous speakers on this side of the House have shown, we have done better than we promised to do. We said that we would create 500,000 jobs in three years. If we keep going at the rate we are going we will be well above target at the end of that period. More importantly, let us look at the attitude of the Opposition. When we came to government in March last year we were faced with probably the worst situation this country has been in since the Great Depression of 1930. The then Government was decimated at the general election. The people said: 'We are sick and tired of your poor performance and attitude; what we want is some new hope'. Has the Opposition changed its views in the 12 months since the last election? Has it tried to say: 'We recognise that Australia is in a bad state and we really should work together'? No. From the first day they sat on the Opposition benches , honourable members opposite have set out deliberately to white-ant and undermine the prices and incomes accord because they see it as the mainstay of bringing Australia together. The Opposition has released its policy on industrial relations. The Opposition' s spokesperson on industrial relations released the policy and then announced in the media that he recognised that there would be massive industrial unrest if ever the Opposition were allowed to introduce that policy. What a shameful admission from a spokesperson on industrial relations to say that the Opposition has developed a policy which is guaranteed to cause massive industrial unrest! Because of some concern on the Opposition back bench, Opposition members are going away for a two-week retreat at Thredbo to work out how they can convince everybody that causing massive industrial unrest is a wonderful policy. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has been able to show that they will be threadbare at Thredbo. It is probably a good job that the Opposition did not pick Perisher because if it had we might have been able to make a bit more out of it. Members of the Opposition who have taken part in this debate have tried to show that unions are breaking the accord. Opposition members have picked out some unions that are in industrial disputation. We do not try to hide that fact but we believe there is ample evidence to show that the vast majority of people are observing the accord. I want to talk about how perhaps the largest union in Australia has chosen in previous times to ignore the decision of an independent umpire. A recent announcement was made about increases in doctors' fees. The President of the Australian Medical Association indicated in terms of the accord that doctors should take note of the desires of the community in relation to fee adjustments. The recent tribunal decision to increase fees has meant that fees are now set at a level which most doctors are already charging. I think the community now expects doctors, who are perhaps the most highly paid individuals in Australia, to show the restraint that the rest of Australia is showing. We in this Parliament have shown it. The trade union movement has shown it in its acceptance of the accord. I believe the community is now expecting doctors also to show the restraint that is being shown by the rest of the community. Doctors' fees should be set at the recommended level of $14. I hope that all doctors will observe that fee and charge the recommended fee. When doctors charge more than the recommended fee they are not only making more money for themselves but also grievously hurting people-the patients themselves-who can least afford it. By charging more the doctors are forcing patients to pay more out of their own pockets directly into the doctors' pockets. I believe it is about time that doctors showed restraint. In my view it would have been far better if the Opposition had come out today and said: 'We recognise that there has been a significant turn- around and that this Government deserves a lot of credit for that'. The Government has done an enormous number of things in relation to the accord. Obviously the Opposition is not concerned about the recovery of Australia or the benefits that can flow to the Australian community. It is not interested in that. The Opposition hopes that it can destroy the accord by its white-anting and thereby destroy the recovery that we are seeing today in order to gain some political advantage. Members of the Opposition have always been political opportunists. The Opposition has performed disastrously in the industrial relations area. It has never been able to achieve a harmonious working relationship with the trade union movement. It is trying to destroy the recovery. As I have said, the figures are very good for us. Mr Groom —It sounds political. Mr SAUNDERSON —It is political. I bet the honourable member would like to have had those figures when his party was in government. I think the community employment program, which is part of the accord, is worthy of note. The Australian Labor Party gave an undertaking at the last election in regard to this program and it certainly has proved to be enormously successful in achieving its aims. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The honourable member will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I inform the House that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) left Australia today to attend international trade meetings with United States Special Trade Representative Brock, in Washington. The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) is Acting Minister for Trade and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is representing the Acting Minister in this chamber. The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) is representing the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in this chamber until Mr Bowen returns on 17 May. I also inform the House that the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) left Australia today to attend the World Health Organisation conference in Geneva and to visit Norway, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Greece for ministerial discussions. The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) is Acting Minister for Health and is representing the Minister for Social Security ( Senator Grimes) in this chamber until Dr Blewett returns on 25 May. Mr PORTER —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Did Premier Burke contact the Prime Minister by telephone and subsequently by telex earlier this week expressing his opposition to the Federal Government's intervention in Aboriginal affairs issues, in particular the proposed sacred sites legislation and the handling of the issue by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs? Were the States consulted in the drafting of this legislation? Have officers of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs been sent to Western Australia to discuss Mr Burke's concern? Mr HAWKE —To the best of my recollection I have had no telephone conversation with my good friend and colleague Brian Burke, the Premier of Western Australia, this week; nor have I seen this week, to the best of my recollection, any telex from him on this matter. I would hope that members of the Opposition as well as members on this side of the House would treat this matter with the utmost seriousness and not indulge in petty political point scoring. This Government, particularly through its fine Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, is attempting to address these important issues on the basis of two things: Firstly, recognising the fundamental rights of our fellow citizens, the Aborigines of this country, and secondly, recognising the legitimate rights of the mining industry in Australia. The Minister is conducting himself in discussions with the industry, with the Aborigines and with the States in a way which brings great credit upon him, upon this Government and upon the people of Australia. Mr CUNNINGHAM —I address my question to the Prime Minister. What is the Government's general approach to regulations affecting business? Can the Prime Minister inform the House what progress has been made in removing unnecessary regulations? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the honourable member for McMillan for his question. I want to say again in this House as I have said on behalf of this Government on many occasions around Australia that this Government does not believe in regulation for the sake of regulation. Indeed, it is well known and much applauded in the business community of this country that we have already given substantial effect to that approach by our floating of the Australian dollar and our removal of exchange controls. The position of the Government is clear, effective and principled. It stands in very stark contrast to the nonsense which is emerging from the Opposition, because the Opposition has made so-called deregulation and the selling off of a range of long-standing government enterprises a centrepiece of its so-called economic policies. Let me remind the House of just what the Opposition is proposing in this regard . It is a matter of very great interest not only to this House, but also, I suggest, of increasing interest to the people of Australia. I want to remind the House and the people of Australia just what this bunch of incompetents on the other side of the House is proposing. First, members of the Opposition are proposing to sell off the Australian Industry Development Corporation established by them in 1970. Secondly they propose to sell off the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation established by them in 1965. Third, they want to sell off Medibank Private which is already providing more than one-fifth of private health care cover in Australia. Fourth, they want to flog off Aussat Pty Ltd established by them in 1981. Fifth, they want to get rid of Trans Australia Airlines which since 1945 has been central to the building up of one of the world's most efficient, effective and safe airlines system. It will get rid of TAA. Sixth-and this is a matter of very real interest to the country people of Australia-it is proposing to flog off Telecom Australia. We are not sure whether the Leader of the Opposition speaks for the whole of the Opposition, including the National Party of Australia, when he proposes it, but in the release of his so-called policy he talked about selling off Telecom. Every person in Australia knows what that would mean, particularly for the country people of Australia. I can assure the people of Australia and I can assure the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party that we will hammer the Opposition in every rural electorate in Australia because the people in rural electorates will give the Opposition the most almighty kick in the backside for deliberately intending to increase the costs of telephone and other related services in this country. Telecom was the sixth thing it would flog off. But I want to assure the people of Australia that that is not the end of it. Look at the seventh thing members of the Opposition propose to flog off-the Australian National Line, which was- Opposition members-Hear, hear! Mr HAWKE —The Australian National Line was established by them in 1956. If members on this side of the House are observant-and I know they are-they would have seen that there were some mute faces on the other side when there were cries of 'hear, hear', because if the Australian National Line is sold off it means the closure of the Tasmanian passenger ferry service. Mr Speaker, I know that you will allow me the indulgence of rhetorically asking a question of the representatives from Tasmania. Do they agree with that proposal? At least there is one honest one amongst them because the honourable member for Bass shook his head. I congratulate him. On the assumption that he was not trying to knock away the striking hand of the honourable member next to him and that he was not trying to collect his very considerable thoughts, I take it that the shaking of his head indicates that there is at least one honest man who knows that that part of the Opposition's policy, as with most of the rest of it, is a recipe for disaster. So those are seven of the things that the Opposition would flog off. Finally, I come to the eighth great public enterprise the Opposition would flog off. In a sense, it will be the one that in the months ahead will come to haunt the Opposition more than anything else, because it is talking about flogging off the Commonwealth Bank. Mr Leo McLeay —What about the people's savings. Mr HAWKE —Well may the honourable member ask: 'What about the savings?'. Mr Cohen —They can put them under the bed. Mr HAWKE —No, the honourable member knows why they cannot hide their money under the bed. I remind honourable members and the people of Australia in respect of the Commonwealth Bank-it was established in 1911 and it has served the people of this country so marvellously well for over 70 years-that more than 3 1/2 million of our fellow Australians have savings with the Commonwealth Bank and in the last financial year the bank granted 42,000 housing loans. It lent $1.4 billion for housing. That is the promise of the people opposite, that they will flog the Commonwealth Bank with which 3 1/2 million Australians have their savings. Mr Speaker, when you take this altogether you can see that what this discredited Opposition is talking about is the dismantling of the basic economic infrastructure of this country. This co-called policy is ideology gone mad. Mr PORTER —I refer the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to a statement made by Senator Walsh on Wednesday when, in relation to mining rights on Aboriginal land , he said: If it becomes clear from the study and ensuing consideration that the Toohey recommendations will be insufficient of themselves to deal with the situation and facilitate mineral activity consistent with Aboriginal interests then there could be merit in adding to Justice Toohey's proposals. In view of the fact that adding to Justice Toohey's proposals would involve a reconsideration of the Government's policy of Aboriginal control in relation to the mining of Aboriginal land, does the Minister agree with Senator Walsh? Mr HOLDING —Senator Walsh made a number of points in a very informed and well reasoned presentation of his policy to the Australian Mining Industry Council conference. The first point that he made, and I think it is important that the House should know it, is that Aboriginal land rights, farming, forestry and mining are not mutually exclusive. That is a view with which I wholeheartedly concur. Secondly, he said: The Government is conscious of a lack of mineral exploration on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory in recent years. He referred to the point in the Toohey report that 42 companies offered 165 exploration licences since 1981, none of which have been subject to consent agreement and that is a matter of concern for him, as it is a matter of concern to me. It is also a matter which is now being acted upon whereas it was virtually ignored by the previous Government for far too long. Senator Walsh also referred to discussions between his Department and the Northern Territory Department of Mines and Energy, and noted that the Northern Territory Department is carrying out a study concerning this backlog. That was a position which was initiated by my Department, and it is a position on which I again wholeheartedly concur with Senator Walsh. Senator Walsh also agrees that Aborigines are willing to have exploration and mining proceed. That is a position with which I wholeheartedly concur. He also pointed out correctly that Aboriginal land rights extend well beyond the Northern Territory. It is crucial that an optimum base for both Aboriginal and resource interests be achieved. That is a position which represents the view of every member of this Government. Finally, the lack of perception of the shadow Minister is shown when he asked the question. What the honourable member is saying is that in formulating a land rights policy-this is his view, not my view -the only thing that I can have regard to are the recommendations of Mr Justice Toohey. That has never been my position. It is not the Government's position. As I keep telling the honourable member, if he will discuss this matter with officers of my Department at least some of the questions he will intelligently ask can be properly responded to, but he really must lift his game. Mr BRUMBY —Is the Minister for Transport aware of alleged criticism of some safety and operating procedures by some interstate passenger coach companies, including travel schedules which are too tight for safe speeds, two-up driving- that is the practice of one driver sleeping while the partner drives-and drivers being forced to drive for long periods over long distances without rest? Is it true that the passenger coach is becoming an increasingly popular mode of interstate travel? Has the Minister received representations from concerned parties on the question of bus safety? What action does he intend to take to safeguard the interests of the travelling public? Mr PETER MORRIS —I am aware that certain claims have been made against some interstate passenger coach companies. Transport safety is an important priority of this Government and it is determined that in this year we will considerably raise the profile of government activity in the whole area of transport safety, with particular reference to road safety. That has been evidenced recently by the record Federal expenditure on roads for this year and by the recent launching of the new 'guardian angel' generation of television and radio commercials aimed at the under-25 year olds. We have launched a world first inquiry into the related effects of drugs and alcohol on driving ability and behaviour. Last week's release of statistics showed that for the first time the cost to this country from road crashes is some $3,000m a year. I have discussed the matter raised by the honourable member, and the allegations that have been made, with the chairperson of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety. I am aware that some members of the Committee are concerned about this matter and it is my intention to ask the Committee to set up a full public inquiry to examine the allegations as well as the broad question of safety in interstate coach travel. I stress that the allegations that are being made are serious, but at this stage they remain unproven; they are simply allegations. It is my belief that the Committee is the appropriate body to evaluate those allegations. I do not think it is proper in those circumstances that I should be going into the details of them here. But if the Committee does decide, after consideration of my request, to conduct an inquiry it is my hope that it will address the issues of the enforcement of regulations on driving hours, the need for tighter mechanical inspection of interstate passenger coach vehicles and the possible registration of companies and employees in the road passenger transport industry. In conclusion, we have to recognise that the road toll in this nation is a serious national crisis. There is a lot of action to be taken by States individually and some action to be taken by local government, but in issues such as this one, which are of a Federal nature, the leadership has to come from the Federal scene. I am hopeful that if the Committee does pick up my request in this matter it will conduct a comprehensive inquiry and report back to Parliament on it. Our Government is determined that it will take a much more active role, in a collective way, co-ordinating national efforts to help save the lives of Australians who do have an entitlement to travel safely. Mr PORTER —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs , relates to the Minister's answer to a previous question. How does the Minister reconcile his view with that of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie? In relation to mining on Aboriginal land, the honourable member for Kalgoorlie said : Mineral rights are a total anathema to a socialist philosophy and in any case will not redress the past years of wrongs. Does the Minister believe that the honourable member's letter reflects the growing concern regarding the Minister's policy on mining on Aboriginal land? Mr HOLDING —I have seen the view expressed by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie, and I appreciate that in his view mineral rights is anathema to a socialist party. But we are dealing with a policy in respect of access to mineral royalties. I can understand the attitude of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie because that policy has impeccable conservative credentials. The legislation which is being so hotly contested and the principles which were written into the Act came about as a result of the recommendations in the report of the Woodward Aboriginal Land Rights Commission. The Commission was established by the Whitlam Government, but the recommendations were enacted by the Fraser Government and voted for by all honourable members opposite. Let me be the first to say that, on the basis of the recent performance of members of the Opposition, Malcolm Fraser is looking better every day. It must be said for Malcolm Fraser that he was prepared to act in respect of the Woodward report. He would not be intimidated by the lunatic fringe that exists in various sections of the Liberal Party of Australia and in the National Party of Australia and he produced a policy which I believe stood as one of the creditable results of the Fraser years of government. It is sad to see the bankruptcy of honourable gentlemen opposite who are so intellectually weak that, when a group of extreme racists want to undermine the policy of the Fraser Government, they immediately want to repudiate concepts in respect of Aboriginal land rights that go back to 1911. These concepts were endorsed by an independent royal commission and enacted by their own Party. The people of Australia are entitled to expect from this Opposition that in trying to produce something that passes for a policy in any area it will show not only some honesty in regard to the needs of the people of Australia but also some intellectual integrity. I do not always agree with my friend the honourable member for Kalgoorlie and he does not always agree with me but, whatever view he puts, he puts it with honesty, candour and intellectual integrity. That is far more than we have seen from the honourable gentlemen opposite on the issue of land rights and the rights of Aboriginal people. Mr ALLAN MORRIS —I ask the Prime Minister: To what extent does the Government attach importance to the need to reduce the Budget deficit in 1984-85 to ensure that demands on financial markets are not excessive? Mr HAWKE —I have made it clear in this House and outside that the Government attaches very great importance to reducing the deficit and, at the same time, to providing significant cuts in personal direct taxation. As we did in 1983-84, we will strike exactly the right balance in 1984-85. It is quite clear that a reduction in the deficit is necessary to avoid excess pressure on interest rates and to provide a firm basis for continuing recovery in the private sector. This policy and approach, which have already proved remarkably successful, contrast with the totally irresponsible approach of the Opposition. It had become quite clear that, if the Opposition were given the chance, which of course it will not be, it would blow out the deficit to quite unacceptable proportions. As I did in response to an earlier question, let me give to the House and to the people of Australia examples of the way in which the Opposition, if it had the chance, would blow out the deficit. I will list them. Firstly, the Opposition has indicated that it would repeal the new taxation arrangements for lump sum superannuation, which would ultimately cost over $300m in a full year. Secondly, the Opposition has rejected our removal of the $1,000 rebate on dividend and income, which would cost another $100m in a full year. Thirdly, it has opposed our removal of the home loan interest rebate, and restoring the rebate would cost $395m in a full year. Fourthly, the Opposition has opposed the reduction in the threshold tax rate for income splitting relating to minors and that would cost $7m in a full year. Fifthly, and here we are really getting in to the cloud cuckoo land situation, the Opposition has given an unequivocal commitment that it would build the Darwin to Alice Springs railway, which a totally independent economic inquiry has shown would cost $1 billion. Sixthly, in regard to the area of taxation on oil, the Opposition has indicated that it would repeal the levy on Fortescue oil so that would mean a tax cut to Esso-BHP of another $300m. Seventhly, the Opposition has indicated that it would repeal the proposed resource rent tax that we will bring in, and over the longer term that would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Finally, in Brisbane on 21 March the Leader of the Opposition indicated that the Opposition would support the re-establishment of the bicentennial water program. That would cost over $ 350m, and it was the most ill-thought out, uneconomic grab-bag of proposals that has ever been thought of. I have given a list of eight things the Opposition would do which would blow out the deficit by billions of dollars. It is quite impossible, in those circumstances, to reconcile those undertakings with the calls of the Leader of the Opposition for a reduction in the deficit and with his concern about high taxation. It comes down simply to this: The Leader of the Opposition is practising voodoo economics in this country. He has a massive credibility gap-a gap of several billion dollars. I conclude by saying that on this side of the House, and I speak for all honourable members behind me, we wish members of the Opposition well this weekend at Thredbo. We ask them to digest these facts that we have given to them. We make one plea to them-that at Thredbo they will come up with some more policies exactly like the ones they have come up with so far. Having made that plea, kindly and with the compassion and charity for which I am well known, I suggest to them that they take several changes of clothes because they need not bother coming back. Mr TUCKEY —I refer the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to his statement during Question Time yesterday which implied that Opposition members do not seek information through questions and his reference today to integrity. I ask: Is it a fact that the Minister was asked by Mr Hunt on 7 December 1983 whether he had either formally or informally instructed the Aboriginal Development Commission to take control of Aboriginal Arts and Crafts Pty Ltd? Further, is it a fact that on 27 March 1984, some four months later, the Minister replied in one word: 'No'? I ask him whether it is a fact that on or about 22 September 1983, some six months earlier than the question from Mr Hunt, the Minister wrote to the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment stating, in part: . . . at a portfolio meeting yesterday it was agreed that the Aboriginal Arts and Crafts company would in future be managed by the ADC . . . Is it a fact that on 8 November 1983- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind honourable members that the House has not seen fit to give the Chair the power to restrict the length of answers but under Standing Orders there are rules with regard to questions. I ask the honourable member for O'Connor to bring his question to a conclusion. Mr TUCKEY —I can do that very quickly, Mr Speaker. I ask whether K. C. Martin of the ADC sent a telex to Kevin Waltz of Aboriginal Arts and Crafts which stated: . . . I have been instructed by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs that he wishes the ADC to take over control of the commercial aspects of Aboriginal Arts and Crafts . . . I now ask the Minister: Why did he so deliberately mislead his questioner and the Parliament on this matter and why would there be any purpose in other members of this place seeking information from him in this fashion when he replies with outright lies? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will withdraw his last imputation. Mr TUCKEY —I will withdraw, and replace it with 'untruths'. Mr HOLDING —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. Everyone knows about the honourable gentleman's conviction in Aboriginal affairs. In respect of the answer that was given- Mr Howard —I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you going to allow the Minister to get away with that comment? Mr SPEAKER —What was the comment? Mr Howard —He made a derogatory comment about the honourable member for O'Connor . Mr SPEAKER —What comment was made? Mr HOLDING —I said that everyone knows about the honourable gentleman's conviction in Aboriginal affairs. I did not say his sentence; I simply said his conviction. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Minister to reply to the question and not indulge in across the chamber comments. Mr HOLDING —I cannot hope to deal with the myriad of detail that the honourable gentleman asked me about but, in respect of the takeover of Aboriginal Arts and Crafts by the ADC, I can say to the honourable gentleman- Mr Peacock —You lied. Mr HOLDING —I beg your pardon? Mr Peacock —You lied. Mr HOLDING —Mr Speaker, I ask that the Leader of the Opposition withdraw. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the remark. Mr Peacock —As you will recall, there is precedent for a person on this side not withdrawing that word. I recall that last time it was indicated that it was not regarded as unparliamentary. Mr SPEAKER —Order! That was not indicated on that occasion. The Leader of the Opposition is not interpreting the situation properly. It is usual for that remark to be withdrawn and I ask the Leader of the Opposition, in fairness to the Chair, to withdraw. Mr Cadman —On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I have sat here on numerous occasions when the Prime Minister has used the words 'liar', 'lies' and 'lied'. Are you going to set a precedent by asking the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw but not the Prime Minister? Mr HOLDING —Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker, to assist you I find the remark personally offensive and I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw it. Mr Howard —Mr Speaker- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I think I am quite able to reply. A number of points of order have been raised. I can understand why they were raised but there is a long- standing precedent for the withdrawal of that remark in usual circumstances. The Minister has found the remark offensive. On those grounds I ask for its withdrawal. Mr Peacock —I withdraw, and replace it with 'apparently lied'. Mr HOLDING —I was in the process of pointing out that the decision to transfer responsibility from Aboriginal Arts and Crafts to the ADC was based on a decision by the Aboriginal Arts Board. We have acted in respect of a unanimous decision made by an Aboriginal body. As to the other matter, I will be perfectly happy to arrange for the honourable gentleman to pursue the details of that with the permanent head of my Department on the basis that when he attends he, as a matter of decency, leaves his loaded lead hose at home. Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, I find the last statement offensive and I point out that the Minister did not answer the question as to why he lied to the Parliament. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor has found that remark offensive. I ask the Minister to withdraw it. Mr HOLDING —Sir, I do withdraw because I am reliably informed that I used the wrong term. It was a copper cosh. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister should not aggravate the situation. Mr Howard —Mr Speaker, I take the point of order that the Minister treated your request with absolute contempt by the nature of his reply, and if there is to be even-handedness in terms of withdrawing offensive remarks, you will require the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to withdraw unqualifiedly his offensive remark about the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Knowing the experience of the Minister in Parliament, I ask him to withdraw unqualifiedly. Mr HOLDING —I withdraw unqualifiedly and, if I might use the precedent set by the Leader of the Opposition, say 'apparently a copper cosh'. Mr Tuckey —That is an insult to you, Sir. I am not worried about it. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Tuckey —On a point of order, Mr Speaker. When I was elected to this Parliament I was elected as a member of parliament, and as a member of parliament I have exactly the same rights as everyone else. That man has not withdrawn and you have an obligation to make him withdraw. He should also tell the truth in Parliament. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister unqualifiedly withdrew the remark. Mr Tuckey —With a rider. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister unqualifiedly withdrew the remark. The fact that he had made a statement about what the Leader of the Opposition had done did not apply to that withdrawal. Mr Tuckey —We will remember that precedent. Mr SPEAKER —I trust the honourable member will read Hansard to see what it says, too. Mr WELLS —Since the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is going so well today I direct a question to him. Does he recall a commitment made on behalf of the Queensland National Party before the State election last year that the administration of education in the Torres Strait Islands would be progressively transferred to the State Department of Education? Does the Minister also recall a similar commitment in relation to the administration of health services? Does the Minister know whether either of these promises has been kept? Can the Minister inform the House whether the present arrangements are considered acceptable to the islander people who naturally have a deep concern for their children's health and for the quality of their children's education? Mr HOLDING —Promises were made by the Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs that legislation that was to be introduced into the Queensland Parliament would effect a transfer, in terms of both health and education, to the appropriate Queensland authorities. That promise has not been kept. It is a matter of deep and growing concern, not merely to my colleagues the Minister for Education and the Minister for Health, but also to the Queensland education and health authorities. I draw the honourable member's attention to a statement by my colleague the Minister for Education, who points out that if these concerns continue in the Torres Strait Islands to the detriment of the education of islander children then it will become a matter for action by her, as Minister for Education. Mr PEACOCK —My question, which is directed to the Prime Minister, relates to a question which he answered regarding the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and relates to his own veracity. I refer him to his answer to my question on Wednesday relating to a direct line of telephone communication between his office and the ABC senior management. The Prime Minister, in his answer, said amongst other things that no such arrangement had been 'contemplated'. I refer the Prime Minister to newspaper reports yesterday. I quote the Age of 3 May which states in part: Laurie Oakes reports that at Friday's meeting-- that is the meeting I had questioned the Prime Minister about- a proposal for a direct line of communication was definitely put forward. The article continued: There was discussion of the idea, though it took up only a small part of the meeting. He concluded: It is difficult to square these facts-and they are facts-with Mr Hawke's claim in Parliament yesterday that such an arrangement had not been contemplated. In view of that, how can the Prime Minister tell this House that such an odious arrangement was never contemplated? Has he apparently lied to the House? Mr HAWKE —The answer which I gave to the House was correct in every respect. I remind the Leader of the Opposition of what he said. He referred to a censorship hotline. The answer which I gave in that regard to this House has been confirmed by the General Manager, Mr Whitehead, in discussions with the Minister for Communications. Mr SIMMONS —Is the Minister for Defence able to inform the House about the outcome of discussions held in Bathurst yesterday between Army and Department of Administrative Services officers with the local working party on the establishment of an Army base in the region and with the Central Tablelands No Base Committee? Mr SCHOLES —Discussions took place yesterday in the Bathurst areas between various organisations and a team set up to explain the proposals for the relocation of the School of Artillery, the School of Infrantry in the Holsworthy artillery range. In each instance the discussions were satisfactory and the people involved were fully briefed on the proposals. It is anticipated that support for the proposals will be forthcoming from those areas. I met yesterday with the honourable member for Gwydir and a delegation from the Dubbo area who indicated their support for locating the schools complex and range in their area . Last night the Orange City Council carried a resolution supporting the location of the schools complex and range in that area. I think there has been and still is some concern about the proposals. It would seem that when the proposals were originally put to the Premier of New South Wales by the former Minister for Defence and the former Minister Assisting, the importance of those proposals was made clear. Despite claims to the contrary made in this House, the proposals have progressed, with the announcement, shortly after this Government came into office, of the areas under consideration and subsequently, with the investigation which is currently taking place. I believe we will be able to reach satisfactory resolutions of the problem and that the area which is chosen will be satisfactory. I make it absolutely clear to this House that there has been no rejection of the proposal by any Minister who has considered the matter. Mr STEELE HALL —Can the Special Minister of State confirm reports that the Government has approved the provision of additional staff for senators and members? Mr YOUNG —I have not seen the reports to which the honourable member for Boothby refers. However, it is true that I have received representations from a lot of individual members, both of the House and of the Senate, and, collectively, from our own liaison committee, from among the Government members and also from the Leader of the Opposition regarding staff availability to members of this Parliament. It is now 10 years since the additional staff member was given to parliamentarians-that was in 1974-by the then Leader of the House, Mr Daly. Mr Donald Cameron —The number of politicians is about to go up and the number of electors to go down. Mr YOUNG —Was that a help? For a long time of course members had only an electorate secretary to service all their needs in carrying out their work within the electorate. In the past 10 years an electorate assistant was added to a member's personal staff to assist with parliamentary duties. In the past 10 years the work load of electorate officers has changed enormously. I think every member would have experienced the additional work that has to be carried out in the electorate offices. The electorate assistant given to us in 1974 has now become a second electorate secretary, virtually, so a lot of members are receiving no assistance at all in their parliamentary duties. These sorts of decisions always come under a great deal of scrutiny by our friends in the media and by the public who want to keep a close watch on what sorts of facilities or conditions we work under. This Government has taken the attitude that allocation of staff should be the responsibility of government. There was a period when submissions were made to the Remuneration Tribunal about staff. On a couple of occasions it made recommendations that staff levels should be increased for members. However, the former Government took it upon itself on those two occasions to refuse to increase the staff. When we came to government we marginally increased the staff and classifications of people available to the Opposition. However, I know from the figures that have been given to my Department that even some of the shadow Ministers are now sharing staff members. Having been a shadow Minister for about seven years I know it is not a very happy position. I realise the importance of staff. I think that governments in the past have made bad decisions for the country in considering that, perhaps the Government is better off by trying to frustrate the work of the Opposition by not giving it sufficient staff to carry out its duties in Parliament. We have had a very close look at the work load in electorate offices and the very arduous tasks of people particularly in electorates such as the Northern Territory, Kennedy, Kalgoorlie, Grey, Darling, and Gwydir, which cover such vast areas and which include major provincial cities and towns. I hope to be able to make a decision on this matter in the not too distant future. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I want to make a correction to an answer I gave to the honourable member for Barker. It has been drawn to my attention that on Monday morning of this week-I thought it was before that-I saw a telex from the Premier of Western Australia which did relate to the matter which the honourable member raised. I am sorry that I had not recollected it. I thought I saw it last week. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister for Science and Technology has sought indulgence to correct a material error in a statement which he made yesterday. I grant him that indulgence. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —I wish to correct an answer I gave the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) in closing the second reading debate on the Weights and Measures (National Standards) Amendment Bill. I said: There is, I understand, no Australian legal unit of time. Certainly, it is not covered by this . . . Bill. That was incorrect. The legal units of measurement of time interval are specified in Schedule 7 of the Weights and Measures (National Standards) Regulations which were not, of course, before the House yesterday when the Bill was debated. All those units are related to the second as specified in column 3 of Schedule 7. The Schedule states: The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of radiation corresponding to the transition between the 2 hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. The standards for the measurement of time and frequency are both maintained by the Telecom Australia research laboratories in Melbourne on behalf of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Telecom is responsible for its own standards insofar as telephone metering is concerned. Such meters are not subject to National Standards Commission approval at this time. I am advised that the question of the approval of telephone metering equipment is presently under investigation in at least the United Kingdom and Indonesia. Mr SPEAKER —I understand that the honourable member for Forrest intends to lodge a request for detailed information relating to the administration of the parliamentary departments. I call the honourable member for Forrest. Mr DRUMMOND(Forrest) —I seek information relating to a matter administered by the Department of the House of Representatives. Mr SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member to hand in his request in writing to the Clerk. If the request is in order it will be printed in Hansard for today. In due course I will provide a written answer which will also be printed in Hansard . Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —For the information of honourable members I present the fifteenth report of the Committee on Overseas Professional Qualifications dated December 1983. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Hodgman) adjourned. Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's inept and provocative handling of Australia's coal export trade. 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 HUNT(Gwydir)(2.54) —The Hawke Labor Government is making a mess of Australia 's trading position in Japan and South East Asia. The recent failures to maintain our share of the Japanese beef market to date, the loss of the Singapore beef market, the failure of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to consolidate our Korean beef market on his recent tour, his badly thought through plan to integrate the Chinese-Australian steel industries and now the raging controversy surrounding the recent coal price negotiations with Japan all add up to a worrying scenario for our trade in these important regions. I regret that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) is not here to answer some of the things I intend to say about his handling of his trade responsibilities. The Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) has proved to be a lazy, an inept and an uninterested Minister in his portfolio. He should be here to sort out a mess that he has created in the coal industry by his provocative actions. His failure to take an active and energetic negotiating role soon after the Anthony-Okawara agreement for the beef trade with Japan, which expired on 31 March last year, is a prime example of his dilatory approach to maintaining our hard-won markets. The Trade Minister's inept handling of the coal price guidelines policy of the Government is a further example of his bungling. His unfair and provocative attacks on some of our major coal producers, following their price negotiations with the Japanese authorities, is further proof of his intemperate approach to his responsibilities. These attacks are designed to transfer to some companies the blame for the Government's failure to administer its policy judiciously. Indeed, those companies were forced to accept prices well below the price he had set for the negotiations. These attacks have inflamed the unions and will undoubtedly lead to unfortunate relationships between their employers. Ultimately this could lead to devastating industrial actions which could well severely damage our capacity in the coal industry to maintain our markets. The Minister's strong public stance on coal price issues has not been evidenced in his ministerial actions. The Minister did not stand by the guidelines early in the negotiations and permitted companies to negotiate for sales without prior approval. I have had this advice from the Australian Coal Association. The Minister set the scene for the present price negotiations in Japan by endorsing a cut price Pakistan contract several months ago. The approval by the Minister of a 400,000 tonne coal contract to Pakistan of $2 a tonne below the Japanese steel mills price made it infinitely harder for our producers to negotiate a better price with the Japanese. There is no use the Minister attempting to cast the blame on the former Minister for Trade, Doug Anthony, who some time ago approved a contract price for the sale of coal to Pakistan. The Minister has said that the price was a contractual arrangement, part of the contract approved earlier by his predecessor, the former honourable member for Richmond. The facts are very different. That contract had expired. It expired in December and new tenders were called publicly. I understand that five companies tendered for the contract, but the Minister double-crossed them. He undercut his own guidelines and awarded what was in effect an extension of the previous contract to the original supplier. He was warned at the time that this would be a disastrous precedent for talks with the Japanese steel mills, but he took no notice. Mr Newman —No wonder he has gone overseas. Mr HUNT —It might be a good thing from Australia's trade point of view if he stays overseas. As a matter of fact, the beef industry would prefer to have the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), who is sitting at the table, negotiating trade matters in Japan than the current Minister for Trade, and that is saying something. The fact remains that the coal producer concerned went to the Minister for Trade for a price approval of $2 a tonne below his established JSM price which was set as a bench-mark for our companies price negotiations in all countries. If the Government intends to adopt such an interventionist approach to coal price negotiations, it must do so with consistency. I have reservations about the Government's interventionist role in these commercial issues, but if it is to be the policy of the Government- Government members interjecting- Mr HUNT —I will answer the questions of honourable members opposite in a moment. The policy must be implemented with efficiency and consistency. There is no point in the Government now condemning the coal producers for having negotiated sales of between $1.50 and $2.50 a tonne lower than the bench-mark price set by the Government. The Government itself broke its own rules by approving the Pakistani sale. Yet the Minister is now moralising to Broken Hill Proprietary Co . Ltd and Utah Development Co. against its alleged breaches. Mr Lusher —That is just two-faced. Mr HUNT —It is two-faced. Firstly, let us examine the Minister's claims that BHP and Utah somehow undermined the Australian coal industry's stand in Tokyo. We have heard what the Minister said. It was timely to hear the response today by the Managing Director of BHP, Mr Brian Loton. He said: No BHP or Utah officers have made any offers to the Japanese outside the guidelines, and nor did we accept any offers outside the guidelines. One cannot get any plainer statement than that. I believe Mr Loton. No offers were made outside the guidelines and none was accepted. In fact Utah, which has settled for a price of $US51 a tonne, which is a $3 a tonne cut, received an offer for the same amount in February but refused it at the time on the direction of the Government. Now the Government has approved the price. With Mr Loton's comments, broadcast this morning, it became clear that the Minister for Trade deceived the nation when he blamed BHP and Utah for the price cuts. His claims were drummed up to save face with the union leaders, who appear to ignore the fact that the producers are selling coal in a buyer's market. Our producers have negotiated sales at higher prices than most other world producers. In a buyer's market they have done well. The Minister knows that. His Department knows that. Indeed, it was the Minister who approved the prices. It was the Minister who earlier approved a 400,000 tonne sale to Pakistan at a price which was $2 a tonne below the JSM negotiating price. It is therefore hypocritical of the Government to blame the coal producers for negotiating at prices the Minister had established with his earlier price approval. The abuse directed over the past two days by the Government at coal-producing companies is a poor attempt to disguise its own mishandling of delicate coal negotiations. The coal industry has listened with incredulity. It cannot accept his statements as credible. The Government has claimed that its guidelines for exporters were broken and that a big stick will have to be wielded in future to make sure that it does not happen again. The truth is that these two coal companies have at all times acted within the guidelines they were told to apply. The truth is that these companies have acted with a great sense of responsibility towards the industry in selling their coal in what is clearly a buyer's market. The truth is that the Government set the scene for the Japanese buyers to obtain a reduction in the new prices. One man alone has created all this chaos and that is the Minister for Trade. It was an exceptional achievement. It occurred for a very simple reason. This Minister thought he could make water flow uphill. He thought that at a time of overcapacity in world coal supplies and continuing low production in the steel industry, he and he alone could force the Japanese buyers to pay more for Australian coal. He tried to do this by taking the first steps towards what amounts to an attempt at cartel-style negotiation by Australia. By forcing the producers together into what he called consultative groups and then attempting to direct them by remote control-not even going to Japan himself-he believed that he would be able to control the market. What a foolish thing for him to have tried to do. The hard coking coal producers have had price cuts approved averaging around $1.50 a tonne. Jobs are threatened in the less efficient mines. Instead of responding positively, instead of seeking ways to make the Australian coal industry more competitive to counter growing competition, the Minister has raged around like a wounded buffalo, striking out at everyone and everything in his vicinity. The Minister says it is the industry's fault. He says it is the fault also of the National and Liberal parties. He refuses to face the truth. I find it hard to remember a period when the credibility of a senior Minister has been so quickly undermined. I regret that the Minister for Trade is not here to answer the charges I make against him. It is no wonder that he has resorted to heavy-handed threats to the industry over the past two days. His knee-jerk reaction was to steer attention away from his disgraceful performance, not only on behalf of our $3 billion coal industry employing 40,000 people but also on behalf of our cattle producers and our steel companies, all of which have been subjected to a rapid downgrading of their export markets. Despite the obvious record of deception and blundering by the Minister for Trade, despite his growing reputation as a disaster waiting for something to happen, he can take the full blame for the problems we are now facing. There are at least four other factors. One is the Prime Minister, who added another chapter to his record of failure in trade talks with his extraordinary claim about the so-called iron-clad guarantee of beef going into Japan that appears to have led to the suspension of coal contract negotiations at the time and a build -up of totally unrealistic expectations. The second factor contributing to the coal industry's problems is the Government's insistence on full indexation of wages. The Government has condemned the price cut of $1.50 a tonne, but the indexation increases under the Government's policies since October 1983 have added $2.50 a tonne to underground mining costs. This has done more to threaten the jobs than any price cuts. For this the Government and the unions have to share the blame. The other factors are the level of government charges and rail freight costs on industry. These are particularly critical in New South Wales, with its relatively less efficient underground mines and continued industrial disputation and where the Labor Government forces industry to use the railways. The threat by the mining unions in New South Wales to block all exports of soft coking coal unless there are price increases of 10 per cent can be seen only as self-destructive. The unions have taken aim at the mining companies and are about to shoot themselves in the foot. The irresponsible move must be condemned, as must the Minister for Trade, who has provoked it with his baseless allegations. The only response of the Minister for Trade to the present problems has been to propose more control by a massive increase in the powers of the Joint Coal Board -an even greater Government intrusion into the industry. The Minister is like the generals of World War I who, having ordered millions of soldiers to their death, could think only of ordering millions more to die. He is trying to deal with a complex market situation with all the outdated apparatus of Labor's socialist interventionist policies. It cannot work and it will not work. The only future for the coal industry under this Minister and this Government is lower competitiveness and more job losses. Government members will have a lot to answer for in the coal industry. Government members interjecting- Mr HUNT —No wonder they are sitting there interjecting. No wonder they are worried. I would be very worried if I was on their side. I would be very worried about their Minister for Trade. No wonder they are shouting and screaming their heads off. They should scream their heads off at the Minister for Trade, who has let their people down. They should go to the Premier of New South Wales and tell him to reduce rail freights. Mr Robert Brown —Come to the Hunter and say that. Mr HUNT —I will, if the honourable member invites me to have a wine at one of the wineries, but not for any other reason, I can assure him. He should go and talk to the Premier of New South Wales and tell him to do something about the coal industry in New South Wales. The industry and the nation deserve much better treatment than this Government is giving them. I have great fears for Australian trade opportunities while ever this Government continues with the inept policies it is adopting. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(3.09) —If I can give some charitable advice at the outset, I think the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) should stick to sheep. He has been given a mission impossible because the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) , last night indulged in a baseless attack upon the Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen). Ever since the Minister for Trade sprang the Opposition this morning on AM, when he simply replied pointing out that the Opposition was wrong , it has been trying to backtrack. If there has ever been a case of not letting the truth spoil a good story this is it. The Minister for Trade has already publicly explained the fundamental errors in the desperate adjournment speech last night of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Those allegations were totally wrong. The Government totally backs the Deputy Prime Minister and his statements and actions in this regard. This is a desperate, leaderless Opposition. All it has to run on is false stories. Let me take the statement last night by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He did not even know what he was talking about. The leadership of the two parties opposite must be a serious concern for anyone in this country. The two leaders of the Liberal Party are known as lightweight and short change. The Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for New England, (Mr Sinclair) is famed for his defamation of innocent men. No government would believe its luck with this triumvirate facing it. These people are desperate and dangerously irresponsible. They are not interested in the coal industry or the workers in it. They are not interested in being constructive. They are playing the man and not the issue. They hark back to Japan, Korea and Singapore. In Japan negotiations are still going on. We have not lost the Singapore market. All these things have already been exposed and all these claims are baseless. We have already gone through the beef and steel trade. On these issues the Opposition was playing the man. It was attacking the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). It was not saying anything constructive about trade. It is destroying the negotiating positions of our industry to score petty political points. It is assuming that the public is misinformed. A spokesman for the beef industry recently said that he wished the opposition would pull its head in. Members of the Opposition and the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), whom I believe the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) thinks is on to a good thing, are so busy saving the Queen they have no concern to save Australia or Australian industries. They are trying to destroy them. This so-called matter of public importance today is in the same vein. Its aim is to destabilise our trading position. Now the opposition wants the Deputy Prime Minister to come back to Australia. A while ago it wanted him to go overseas. It seems to think that we can have Ministers constantly in aeroplanes. The National Party has sunk so far. It seems to me now that the patron saint of the National Party is the ranting ratbag, the Premier of Queensland, who is taxing the industry in Queensland into the ground. The disputes in that State are far worse than they are in New South Wales. Why does the Opposition not check the facts? Why does it not do its homework? It cannot get the facts, the times or the figures right. The Government represents Australia and Australian interests. It wants to guarantee investments, profits and jobs. Let me start with some of the basic factual material. Soft, high volatile coal is not in over-supply. The price is firming. Hard, low-volatile coal is in over- supply and the price is stagnant or lessening. The latter is the coal in respect to which negotiations recently took place-hard coal, not soft coal. This is the area where Japanese investment is taking place, particularly in Canada in the mines of Quintette and Bullmoose. This is the reason why there is an over-supply as well. If we want to talk about people attacking the coal industry, there were two things that caused Japan to spread its sources of supply more. The first was the housing tax and the way the former Government attacked the coal mining industry. The blame for that lies squarely with the then Treasurer who is now the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. That was a fundamental reason for the buyers of our coal spreading the risks and trying to get more suppliers. The other reason-we quite happily admit it-was the thuggery on the wharves at the time and the problems with shipping. But the coal miners themselves have a very low strike record. It was the honourable member for Bennelong who, above all else, disestablished the industry when he was the Treasurer. Let us talk about the Pakistan deal. Goodness gracious me! The Opposition is totally misinformed. It was not a dollar deal. It was not related to the Japanese settlement. The arrangement-a continuation of that which was first approved in December 1978-was to maintain a fixed discount below the current Japanese price at the time of shipment. In other words, the price was not negotiated separately; it was negotiated in terms of a relativity to the Japanese price. That price-it was not $2; it was $2.05-was to be below the current Japanese price. The contract was signed in December 1978 and covered the years 1980 to 1982 inclusive for a total of approximately 850,000 tonnes with provision for extensions. Subsequent addenda extended the contract period to 31 December 1983, at which stage approximately 400,000 tonnes had not been delivered. The delays in delivery were the result of late commissioning of the Pakistan steel company's blast furnaces and related facilities and shipment difficulties owing to congestion at Newcastle. This trade was all in soft coal. The honourable member for Gwydir has tried to give additional information today. His information concerned soft coal, not hard coal. All the discussion about Pakistan is irrelevant. It does not affect hard coal negotiations. In rebuttal to what he said today, in addition to what the honourable member for Bennelong said last night, there were people who expressed interest at the time, including Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Limited, and the Pakistanis asked for bids to test the market. But negotiations were continuing between the company and the Pakistanis in relation to the existing contract. Approval was given in October 1983 to continue the sales of undelivered coal under the old contract, which was not due to expire until 31 December 1983. This concerned soft coal, not hard coal. Mr Hunt —Talk to the New South Wales Coal Association about it. Mr KERIN —We have talked to the coal miners and what they tell us is exactly what the Deputy Prime Minister tells us. The approval for maintaining the previous discount on the current Japanese price was given in October, six months ago, not four months ago as the honourable member for Bennelong says. The Japanese steel industry is now in a much better position, both financially and in production terms. The Deputy Prime Minister has explained that the approval was for undelivered tonnage against an earlier contractual commitment and for delivery under exactly the same terms agreed by the previous Government when the contract was first signed. But the contract was for soft coal. Let us try to get that through to the Opposition. I will now look at the industry overall. The matter of public importance uses the word 'provocative'. It is nonsense. Let us talk about the industry positions relative to individual firms versus the Australian interest. For the bigger firms tonnage is always better than price. That approach is disastrous for the small firms. When the Premier of Queensland was in Japan, he was taking the position of the big firms, of course. He was complaining about delays. Again, of course, the Queensland Premier was acting to destroy the national position, Australia's position. In these negotiations on hard coal, not soft coal, it became clear to the Deputy Prime Minister-he was told by the industry itself, not just the big two-that BHP and Utah Development Co. were prepared to settle. When that happened the Canadians came in and the deal was effectively done. Let us look at that situation. The Japanese now have about 100 million tonnes for the first quarter. They have taken 26 million tonnes. The financial difficulties of the steel industry in that country are easing. In other words, if the coal firms could have stuck to their guns a bit more they would have got more money. Even so, due to the guidelines that we agreed to, we now have a spread of at least $51 to $54 a tonne and the industry in that process gained an additional $50m. It could have gained more and that was the point that the Deputy Prime Minister made. The coal industry and the people I talk to in my electorate-the firm of B.P.-Clutha and the smaller firms-all know the realities of the situation. As companies themselves concede, the offers by buyers improved during the negotiations. BHP, in a Press release, stated: The buyers made counter offers which improved during the period of negotiation. BHP has admitted itself that it was an improving situation. This was the result of companies sticking together and not caving in earlier. The Government played a major and significant role in this by not approving individual proposals by companies at prices below the parameters set in consultation with the industry. It is just a pity that some companies could not hold out further. As I have said , the profitability and production levels in the Japanese steel industry are improving. In our judgment the coal companies could have achieved higher prices. Nevertheless, the Government's exercising of export controls meant an improvement of some $50m in hard coking coal from the results facing us earlier this year. Is this regarded as inept? Talk to the producers. Talk to the producers in my electorate; talk to the smaller producers in New South Wales. They do not think so. As for being provocative, the Deputy Prime Minister did no more than acknowledge what many producers have been saying, that two companies had broken the line before Easter. The Canadians had been holding out with us and then settled, and the remaining Australian companies-and the Government of course-had no option but to follow. The employment consequence of that is perhaps 1,000 jobs. So let us have no doubt about that. This Government stands behind jobs. We do not want these things to happen and more people to be put out of work. As for being inept, let us look at the figures. The total exports increased from 47.2 million tonnes in 1981-82 to 55.5 million tonnes in 1982-83, comprising 16.8 million tonnes of steaming coal and 38.9 million tonnes of coking coal. Exports in the first 36 weeks of 1983-84 were running at an annualised rate of 65 million tonnes-there is nothing inept about that-comprising 20.9 million tonnes of steaming coal and 44.3 million tonnes of coking coal. The annualised rate has increased marginally since then. Let us have a constructive approach to this matter. The Government wants to work with the coal industry and, despite the protestations of some people involved in the industry, we are faced with the sort of activity by major companies that we had in the Japanese negotiations. We are trying to take a market study group approach. This is an initiative of the Australian Coal Association. This approach was not fully effective or ultimately successful because of the inability of many companies to look beyond their own narrow and short term interests and co-operate in pooling their knowledge to advise the Deputy Prime Minister. This was the intention. Nevertheless, a senior officer of the Department of Trade is talking today with industry leaders in respect of new ideas to assist in co-operation. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade suggested at the coal conference last month revisions to the administration of export controls which would have ensured greater industry and State government input into decisions on export proposals. This would have given all involved in the industry a role in ensuring the export control policy was the most appropriate possible. There was an immediate negative reaction from the Queensland Premier, of course, and the industry has been far from supportive. But now we are faced with calls for a central marketing authority or even nationalisation, which was rejected by the Deputy Prime Minister this morning, and of disruption. We say that the companies and the industry as a whole would be much better off if they followed a constructive and co-operative approach in the national interest so that we take hard decisions together, as the Japanese mills do, with one buyer negotiating on behalf of the group. The Government faces the challenge of finding a mechanism that is effective. Hopefully the companies, particularly the larger ones, will co-operate because jobs are at risk. What has happened is regrettable. But for the Opposition somehow to relate this nonsense about a Pakistan coal deal-a deal the parameters of which were fixed by the previous government-relating to soft coal in October is simply nonsense. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Mr CUNNINGHAM(Mr McMillan) —by leave-I present the official report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to Vanuatu, Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea. I seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr CUNNINGHAM —I had the honour to lead the first Australian parliamentary delegation to Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea, three countries which have gained their independence over the last 10 years. Vanuatu gained its independence on 30 July 1980, the Solomon Islands in 1978 and Papua New Guinea in 1975. The delegation saw the main purpose of the official visit as being to express Australia's goodwill, to enhance Australia's understanding of the political, economic and social environment of that South Pacific region and to enable an exchange of views on matters of mutual interest. In each country the delegation had discussions with Ministers and members of parliament. Discussions were also held with other community leaders, employer and employee representatives, administrators, teachers and agricultural extension workers. Throughout its visit the delegation was met with friendliness, generosity and goodwill. It was clear that there was a genuine desire to improve communication and understanding on matters of mutual interest. These views were shared by the delegation. Genuine desires were expressed for a closer relationship with Australia. In Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands, as Britain and France reduce their commitment to development assistance and defence needs, Australia is clearly seen to have a very important role to play. Australia at the moment provides some 10 per cent of the foreign aid to Vanuatu. Sixty per cent of the aid received by that country is made up of support from Britain and France in the form of budgetary assistance similar to that which we give to Papua New Guinea. The direction and form of Australia's financial aid and technical assistance are generally well received. Australia's policy of adopting a forward commitment of specific amounts of aid makes for better long term planning of the disbursement of those aid funds. It was made very clear to the delegation in discussions that the people appreciated the type of aid that Australia was making available to these newly-formed nations. We make the money available to them on the basis of its being oriented towards projects, mainly in the fields of education and infrastructure development. For instance, while we were in the Solomon Islands we looked at a national secondary school which was being constructed at a cost of some $4.7m. As well as that there is a need for teacher training, which is also provided as a result of our aid. Vanuatu still has English and French speaking schools. This is something that is causing many problems in that country. However, that country is developing a language of its own called Bislama. Australian aid is playing a big part in that respect because we have funded Vanuatu's one and only communication facility-a major radio station. That radio station is used for all types of education purposes. In that part of the world a radio station is used in a similar way to a telephone in this country. The national radio is used by people to send messages from one island to another. It is really fascinating to see the way in which Australian aid is being used in this part of the world. We have also put money into a bridge building project in the Solomon Islands which is designed to assist the agricultural development of the Guadalcanal plain. This should be completed by July of this year at a cost of $2.3m. Many members of our armed forces will clearly remember the Guadalcanal area. It was of great interest to the delegation to go to that part of the world. The delegation was able to appreciate the sort of development aid that is necessary to advance these countries. Australia is also giving assistance by way of anti- malaria spraying. We have put money towards a turberculosis ward in the major hospital. We also fund staff who are involved in the detection and treatment of eye diseases among village people. These are all very important projects. They are not big but they are the sorts of projects that those countries really appreciate and they are creating a very good atmosphere between the people of those countries and Australia. In all three countries I was very impressed by the openness and friendliness of the people themselves. On many occasions we had the opportunity to attend village feasts. The delegation was really fascinated with these feasts. We were able to go along and meet a complete village of people in a very friendly atmosphere. Everybody from grandparents to the youngest and smallest come together for a village feast. My colleague the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) was one of the highlights of the trip. One often finds when one goes away that one of the delegates becomes the comedian of the show. The honourable member, being so tall, impressed those at the village feasts we attended. Mr Robert Brown —An impressive gentleman. Mr CUNNINGHAM —Very impressive. It is important for all Australians to understand the importance these people place on their new independence as nations in their own right. They all have a definite commitment and a determination to improve their living standards without destroying their culture . This came about clearly from the day of independence. We in the Western world have been a little inclined to go into some countries with our aid projects and our education and base our aid on what we think those people should have. We did this particularly prior to independence. But since independence these people are clearly expressing their priorities. We quickly discovered that there is not much point in taking children out of a village structure and taking them through to grade 6 in schools and then sending them back to a village. That type of education is not suitable to their present structure. Since their independence they are doing much to rectify the situation. As people who provide aid to them, we certainly should take notice of these things when discussing matters with them. Attitudes on foreign affairs issues such as the Indonesian occupation of East Timor and transit rights for nuclear powered or armed ships varied greatly among the people with whom we spoke. There is great concern in that part of the world about these major issues. The report itself does not outline opinions, but is designed to allow the readers to make judgments based on their assessmen of the material within. In conclusion, I want to give a little time to my colleague the honourable member for Lowe. I would like to express my gratitude to the colleagues who went with us on the trip for their support. At times on a trip that is 21 days straight with very little time for relaxation one can come to the point where it gets rather hectic and people start getting a little at each other's throats. But I can say that this delegation worked together very well, at times in very hot conditions, going from one office to another, from one group of Ministers or people with whom we were speaking and from whom we were hearing opinions. Such conditions make the job a little nerve-wracking at times but the delegation worked very well together. The delegation wishes to record its sincere gratitude for the courtesy and generosity shown by the parliaments of Vanuatu, Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea, and to those who arranged the details of a most delightful and enjoyable itinerary. I would also like to extend our gratitude to the Australian High Commissioners in each country. We thank Her Excellency, Miss Joan Norwood, who works in Vanuatu, His Excellency, Mr Trevor Sofield and His Excellency, Mr Bob Birch in Papua New Guinea and their staff. A special mention from the delegation should go to Miss Joan Craig, Mr Denis Fitzgerald and Mr Barry Welsby who accompanied the delegation on its visits, arranged our itineraries and kept things moving as we went through those countries. The delegation particularly records its appreciation of the assistance of Mrs Sofield whose tireless efforts made the visit to the Solomon Islands all that more enjoyable. We had some fascinating times in the Solomon Islands with the Prime Minister, Mr Mamaloni, who is a great man at the dart board. He was very keen on playing darts for relaxation. Some of us thought that we could throw a pretty accurate dart, but he quickly showed us that we were a long way out of his league. There is a small aside to the story. Just after our delegation came back the South Pacific Forum was held here in Canberra. Many of the people we had met during the delegation's visit attended it. The Prime Minister of the Solomon Islands considered that he was also a fairly good tennis player. He asked me to arrange a match with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Apparently from what I can gather there was some talk of the patrol boats that the Government is negotiating with those governments in that part of the world. There was a little side bet waged. Of course, the Prime Minister does not like to get beaten at anything and there was a pretty torrid tennis match on the Sunday morning. Those were some of the sidelights to the visit. It was a very constructive and a very good visit as far as the delegation is concerned. The assistance of the parliamentary relations office of this Parliament and of the legislative research service of the Parliamentary Library which provided a very comprehensive brief for the delegation prior to its departure is also gratefully acknowledged. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —by leave-I regard that part of the trip of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Vanuatu, Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea that I was able to attend as particularly successful. I will not make a lengthy statement, but I found the exchange that occurred between sitting members of this Parliament and provincial representatives in Papua New Guinea of value. It is my view that we should seek to re-establish a closer bond with elected representatives in Papua New Guinea, in particular. It used to be the case that members of this Parliament had the option of including Papua New Guinea as part of their internal travel flights within Australia and there were frequent visits made in the days before I came to this place. One of the problems that has occurred as a result of changes both here and in Papua New Guinea has been that there has tended to be a drift away from each other on a working basis. There is good contact between Ministers and government officials, but I think that the bonds of assistance, co-operation and understanding would be enhanced by a ready exchange of elected representatives. With this in view, I wrote to the Speaker suggesting that on a regular basis the Parliament should endeavour to send a delegation to Papua New Guinea and that a delegation from Papua New Guinea should be invited to visit Australia. I think much use would come from that. It distressed me that this delegation was the first parliamentary delegation to visit Papua New Guinea since Papua New Guinea gained independence. That was a very distressing aspect of the visit. There is no blame to be attributed to anybody for this. I consider it is an oversight that we as a Parliament have tended to neglect our friends because they are close at hand. I would like to see that process rectified. This delegation and the contacts that were made by its members will prove of invaluable assistance to individual members and to the Parliament as time passes. I would like to see the opportunities that we have in this process enhanced and extended. Mr MAHER(Lowe) —by leave-I also had the privilege of representing the Parliament as a member of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Vanuatu, Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea. I pay tribute here today to the leader of that delegation, the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham), who guided the members from both Houses and both sides of the House through a very exhausting trip. At times it was difficult and trying. In the western Solomons the accommodation in some areas was somewhat primitive. Nevertheless, the honourable member for McMillan showed his great good sense and leadership capacity and got us through the trip. I know that members arrived home in a state of complete exhaustion. As the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) has said, it was the first delegation for many years to go to Papua New Guinea. I too think that this is a great shame. Papua New Guinea was our former colony and we give $360m in untied aid to it every year. I believe there should be regular consultation and regular overviewing of our aid by members, not to spy or pry, but merely to acquaint members of this Parliament with what is going on and where Australian taxpayers' money is going. The delegation from this Parliament was the first to go to the young democracies of the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu. All of us made many contacts and many friends in those three nations and we thank our host countries. I also wish to mention the clerk of the delegation, Mr Robert Alison, who with good humour and great ability, managed the tour and the delegation. We all pay tribute to his resourcefulness. The Committee did note with great concern that there is an upsurge in the incidence of malaria in the three countries. In fact, it is as bad now as it was during the War when the Americans and the Japanese lost 30,000 men in Guadalcanal, largely from the effects of malaria rather than from the War itself . All of these countries are in great need of technical training. That was the cry we got from the people who were there and who seemed to know the situation. The need for technical training was paramount to everyone. We found on an extinct volcanic island in the Western Solomons called Kolombangara that the Australian Marist Brothers from New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia have an adult education centre where young men are brought for two years and are trained as technical jacks of all trades. They can do any job. Then they go back to their villages. The Brothers and the other people on their staff go around the hundreds of islands in the Solomon Islands group, call on these young men and supervise them in, as it were, an extension program. We noted that this type of training was greatly in demand wherever we went in the three countries. The role of women in politics was also something that gave me some concern, there being only one lady, Mrs Rooney, in any of the three Parliaments. Mrs Rooney serves in the Papua New Guinea Parliament. Of course, Papua New Guinea is in the eyes of the world at present because the Pope is about to visit that country, and rightly so, because many of the political leaders we met, who gave us great hospitality, are ordained priests or, in some cases, former priests or former Christian Brothers or Marist Brothers. This reflects the fact that there has been no tertiary and adult education until recent times. The only people who got a decent education were those who were in the church. I join with the leader of the delegation, the honourable member for McMillan, in praising the work of the staff of the High Commissions and the High Commissioners themselves. We met a quite incredible High Commissioner in the Solomons, Mr Sofield, and his very charming wife and family, and Denis Fitzgerald, the No. 2 man. In Vanuatu, Miss Craig, a very talented young woman organised our trip. These people all impressed both me and the other members of the delegation greatly. I am sure that members of parliament in both Houses will be interested in the report that has been prepared. Bill presented by Mr Scholes, and read a first time. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Defence)(3.44) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 1984 proposes amendments on various subjects to a number of Acts dealing with defence matters. Many of the amendments made by the Bill are of a minor or drafting nature. Details of these amendments will be found in the explanatory memorandum being circulated to honourable members. There are, however, more important amendments which fall into six groups. These are: The establishment of an independent pay fixing authority for the Defence Force. A change to the rules for commutation of pension under the Services' retirement benefits scheme, in connection with the new taxing rules for lump sum payments. Abolition of the annual training obligations of members of the Emergency forces . A change to the title of the Chief of Defence Force Staff. Abolition of the requirement for collectors of military insignia to have official permits. Extensive amendments to the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982. I will describe these particular amendments briefly. Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal This is a proposal which the Australian Labor Party put in its election platform and which it has had in its Party platform for a number of years. It will supersede the existing arrangements for Defence pay fixing which were established in 1979 as a result of serious problems which had arisen in Defence Force pay fixing. At that time pay fixing was dependent on the making of regulations and this resulted in excessive delays. The then Government chose not to proceed to establish that for all the Defence Force, although an amendment was moved by me in this House calling for such a course to be adopted whereby the committee of reference, which was established, would become a tribunal which would determine the salaries and conditions of members of the Defence Force. Those salaries and conditions would have the same force as determinations of other pay fixing authorities. This Bill brings into operation those proposals and will eliminate once and for all the practice which has unfortunately been inherent in pay fixing for the Defence Force, whereby references to the committee by Ministers have not been made regularly. In many cases there have been serious delays in the hearing of Defence Force salary-related matters, with the result that, when recommended rises have been substantial and have caused serious problems within the Defence vote. In turn, this has caused delays and has created hardship to members of the Defence Force and their families. The Australian Labor Party platform includes a commitment to the fixing of Defence Force pay and conditions on a similar basis to the arrangements applicable to the Public Service. As honourable members will be aware, the pay fixing arrangements for the Public Service consist of two arms. One arm is the Public Service Board. The Board is empowered to determine terms and conditions of employment under section 82D of the Public Service Act. The Minister for Defence is similarly empowered to determine financial conditions of service for members of the Defence Force under section 58B of the Defence Act. The other arm for the Public Service is the independent Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. This Bill sets up a similar independent body for the Defence Force. It is to be called the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal. The Tribunal is to consist of a Deputy President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, and two other persons-one a person experienced in industrial relations and the other a person who is a former member of the Defence Force. The Bill provides the Tribunal with jurisdiction to determine salaries and salary-related allowances for the Defence Force, and requires the Tribunal to review these matters at least every two years. The Tribunal will also have jurisdiction to determine other financial conditions but only if the particular matter is referred to it. The Bill also establishes the office of Defence Force Advocate. The Advocate will have the function of preparing matters for reference to the Tribunal by the Chief of the Defence Force and of preparing submissions to the Tribunal on behalf of the Defence Force. He will also represent the Defence Force in any proceedings before the Tribunal. This arrangement recognises the fact that the Defence Force has no industrial organisation. Commutation of Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Pension Under the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act, an eligible member of the Defence Force can elect on retirement to take a lump sum of up to four years ' entitlement to retirement pay. Following such an election, the member's retirement pay entitlement is reduced in accordance with the formula set out in the Act. This aspect of the scheme recognises the disabilities of employment in the Defence Force and helps in the resettlement of members into civilian life after lengthy service. The application of the new taxing provisions on lump sum benefits will gradually reduce the net value of commutation. The Bill accordingly amends the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act to increase gradually the amount of pension that may be commuted. The amount that may be commuted is to be increased by annual stages over the next 20 years from four to five years' retirement pay. In general terms, this formula will preserve the net value of commutation after tax. However, the increase in the amount that may be commuted will mean an appropriate consequential reduction in the level of retirement pay received in the form of pension. This reduction will initially be very small but even in the long term it will not be more than 6 per cent of the current pension entitlements. Emergency Forces Each arm of the Defence Force has an Emergency Force which may be called upon to serve in situations short of a proclaimed defence emergency. These forces are intended to be a supplement to the permanent forces. Each Emergancy Force consists of members who were formerly members of the permanent forces. Each member is currently liable to render two weeks service annually. The previous Government decided, on the advice of the Chiefs of Staff, that there was no need to require members of the Emergency Forces to undergo annual training because they joined from the permanent forces as fully trained members. The only exception would be where it became necessary for a member to be re-trained on new or improved equipment or for a similar reason. The present Government has endorsed that decision and the Bill amends the Defence Act, the Naval Defence Act and the Air Force Act to remove the general obligation for members of the Emergency Forces to undergo annual training. Permits to collect military insignia In order that a person may legally collect Defence Force uniforms, emblems, badges, et cetera, written authority from the Minister for Defence or an authorised person is necessary in accordance with section 83 of the Defence Act. It is an offence to have military uniforms and insignia in one's possession without authority. In practice, military uniforms and insignia are freely available for purchase from disposal stores and other military equipment stores. It is reasonable to assume that many collectors would not be aware of the requirement to obtain written authority. In practical terms, it is impossible to police adequately the requirement to have written authority; nor is there any reason to inhibit the interest in defence matters which is reflected in the collection of military insignia et cetera. The Bill accordingly removes the requirement to have written authority for the possession of such items. The manufacture, sale, supply and use of military uniforms and insignia will continue to be subject to the requirement to have written authority. Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 The Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 was passed by Parliament with the approval of all parties. It was a long overdue reform of the law governing the discipline of the Defence Force. It is hoped to bring the Act generally into force early in 1985. I informed the House at the time that the Labor Party would not oppose the Bill, although it had some reservations about certain matters. I explained that we took this view because of the extremely long development time for the Bill and because of the importance that the Labor Party attached to getting the Bill into force and replacing the existing archaic and complex law on the subject. I also informed the House of our belief that a set of laws which is totally new, whose application has not been tried or tested and which may be found to have deficiencies, should be re-examined after a reasonable period of operation. I am reinforced in that view by the number of amendments which it has been found necessary to make even before the Act has come into general operation. The Bill accordingly amends the Act to require the Minister for Defence to appoint a board to review the Act after its first three years of operation and to report to the Minister, who will table the report in the Parliament. It is essential for such a review that adequate statistics and other details be kept of trials and proceedings under the Act. It is desirable, in any case, that such statistics be kept and published on an annual basis. The Bill accordingly amends the Act to require the Judge Advocate General to report annually to the Minister on the operation of the Act and for the Minister to table the report in Parliament. Other amendments to the Defence Force Discipline Act made by the Bill are of four types. They are as follows: Inclusion of provisions dealing with the investigation of offences, based on relevant provisions of the Criminal Investigation Bill 1981; inclusion of provisions which were originally intended to be provided for by subordinate legislation; correction of certain omissions and inclusions of new matter; and correction of defects and drafting amendments. These amendments are adequately explained in the explanatory memorandum. As passed, the Defence Force Discipline Act contemplated that the investigation of offences would be governed by the Criminal Investigation Bill then before Parliament. However, that Bill lapsed with the dissolution of the Parliament in February 1983. It remains the Government's intention to introduce a criminal investigation Bill as soon as possible. However, it is necessary to include appropriate provisions in the Defence Force Discipline Act so that it may be brought into operation. The terms in which these provision are included in the Discipline Act should not be regarded as representing the Government's final view on the subject and if the criminal investigation Bill, when passed by Parliament, differs in any important respect from the provisions in the Discipline Act, it is the Government's intention that appropriate amendments be made to the Discipline Act. Chief of the Defence Force A significant amendment is the change to the title of the Chief of Defence Force Staff. This title does not accurately describe the positon, because the holder of the office heads the Defence Force, not just a staff. The Government considers that the title Chief of the Defence Force more clearly expresses the intended role, and the Bill makes the necessary substitution in the Defence Act and other Acts. Financial Impact Statement With regard to the introduction of the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal, the only additional cost will be the fees related to the cost of the Defence Force Advocate, which are estimated to be $60,000 annually. The costs of the Tribunal itself will be equivalent to those of the existing Committee of Reference for Defence Force Pay, which the Tribunal replaces. With regard to the new commutation rules, the net cost to the Commonwealth for the present financial year is estimated to be $150,000, increasing steadily in succeeding years until the new maximum rate of commutation is reached in the year 2003. With regard to the abolition of annual training obligations for members of the Emergency Forces, the saving to the Commonwealth for the present financial year is estimated to be $175,000. The saving in future years will be directly related to the number of members in the Emergency Forces. Other amendments made by the Bill will not have any measurable financial impact. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 4 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Scholes-I require that the question be put forthwith. Question resolved in the negative. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Defence)(4.0) —On behalf of the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford)-I 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: Upgrading of facilities for introduction of F28 aircraft, Wagga Wagga Airport, New South Wales. The proposal is for works necessary to facilitate the safe introduction and efficient operation of F28 aircraft. The main elements of the work are upgrading of the runway and aircraft movement area and provision of a terminal building and control tower. The Committee has reported there is a need to upgrade the terminal, runway and apron to provide adequate levels of service, and to establish air traffic control at Wagga Wagga, to permit F28 operations. The Committee also reported that siting and design of the proposed buildings are satisfactory. In reporting favourably on the proposed works the Committee drew attention to the need to monitor closely aircraft delays and provide a parallel taxiway if significant delays arise. The Committee also agreed with minimal movement area upgrading works but drew attention to the recurrent maintenance expenditure necessary to keep the move area operational. In this respect aircraft movements and pavement maintenance costs will be monitored so that any additional requirements can be developed at the proper time and brought forward for inclusion in future works programs. The estimated cost for the proposed work is $2.3m at November 1983 prices. If the House agrees to support this motion, planning and construction of the works can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee. I commend the motion to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Scholes) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr WELLS(Petrie)(4.03) —I invite the House to consider a typical family in my electorate of Petrie in which the breadwinner earns $12,000 per annum. On the basis of the recent national wage case decision based on consumer price index increases, that family will be about $330 per annum or $6.40 per week better off after tax-the price of two packets of washing powder per week. Compare this with a typical family in the electorate of the Leader of the Opposition and honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), in which the breadwinner earns $25, 000 per annum. The 4 per cent national wage case decision would increase that family's income by $540-the cost of a stereo unit. Recently I received a letter from a constituent of mine, Mr George Greentree of Margate. He and a number of other constituents, including Mr George Mawhinney of Kippa-Ring and Mr Lou Wilkinson of Clontarf, have contacted me on this subject. Mr Greentree is concerned about the effect of percentage income increases based on the consumer price index. Mr Greentree argues in favour of a flat rate increase similar to the original concept of the basic wage. He says, to quote from his letter: These basic wage increases were granted to set periods to cope with any rise in the cost of living and were uniform. We had the same and sound position where everybody received the same increase. Not at all like the system of wage indexation under which people on large incomes can be given something like $500 a week and pensioners under $3 a week . . . with both sections called on to pay the same prices for the same goods and services. Referring back to the days of the basic wage, my constituent says: There were lots and lots of people on wages and salaries away and above the basic wage . . . but when the increases to meet rises in the cost of living were made everybody received the same. My constituents do not pull any punches when it comes to political debate, and they are not afraid of being controversial. Mr Greentree continues: Politicians of those days would not have been game enough to do such things as declare a 'wage pause'-as the Fraser Government did-and then immediately grant themselves and their friends substantial increases to cope with the price increases they knew would occur while the pause was in operation. Many pensioners and low income earners in my electorate have expressed the same sentiments as Mr Greentree. It is easy to see why. When pensioner benefits are indexed to the CPI a 4 per cent rise will gain a pensioner around $3.40 per week . An executive on $50,000 per annum gains over $15 per week after tax. Both pay the same price for their goods except that the pensioners can buy three loaves of bread with their increases while the executive can afford 15 loaves. By the same token, the typical family in the Leader of the Opposition's electorate would be receiving $210 per annum more than the typical family in my electorate of Petrie as a result of the decision based on a percentage increase of their current wage. My constituent's argument is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer by comparison. This implies that the inevitable price increases will hit the poorer family harder than the more affluent family which has the capacity to absorb the effect of increased costs. This is because in many cases retailers gear their price rises to the level of what increases can be afforded by those who got the biggest recent income increases. This effectively excludes low income earners from access to an increasing range of consumer goods. Mr Greentree reminded me in his letter that the basic wage principle was first laid down in 1907 by Mr Justice Higgins when he brought down his famous Harvester judgment which provided for a reasonable standard of living for a man, his wife and three children after taking into account current living costs. The basic wage concept became the universal criterion for the assessment of minimum living standards. The Depression forced the Commonwealth Court in 1931 to introduce the element of the capacity of the community to pay as a basis of its wage decision and the basic wage concept was eventually abandoned by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in 1967. From 1969, however, with few exceptions wage decisions have been handed down on the basis of a percentage increase of the current salaries. Many of my constituents are age pensioners and low income earners of other kinds, and many of them remember the time when the basic wage was part of the lives of all Australians. I know Mr Greentree speaks for many of them when he argues that they would be better off if that system still operated. I suggest that my constituent's ideas are deserving of consideration by all honourable members. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(4.07) —Mr Speaker, I wish to draw to the attention of the House a most serious matter regarding the Australian Wheat Board. A constituent of mine, Mr Norman Thomas Jennings, is a wheat agent who had his contract with the Australian Wheat Board cancelled at the end of 1979. The way in which the contract was cancelled provided most distressing circumstances for Mr Jennings and his family, and he sued the Board by process of litigation. In the process of the hearing which took place some 12 months later and at considerable expense to Mr Jennings, the judge, Mr Justice Foster, in assessing these matters made the comment that he preferred to rely upon the remarks of Mr Jennings in every instance where Mr Jennings was in conflict with the Board. On page 21 of the transcript of the judge's findings, the judge said: I observe that the reasons for the cessation of forwarding of the copy of the GEB out-turn advanced in the second and third paragraphs of this letter- from the Australian Wheat Board- would, on the evidence, appear to be incomplete and misleading. On page 25, the judge says: I was not particularly impressed with the evidence of Dr Orth. I was particularly unimpressed with the evidence of Mr Kemp. They are both officials of the Australian Wheat Board. Mr Justice Foster then goes on to describe the attitude of the Board and its officials in this way: The material itself- letters and correspondence- together with the cross-examination of Dr Orth and Mr Kemp in respect of it, satisfies me that those gentlemen, in a manner which can only be described as one of bureaucratic obstinacy, sought by devious and dubious explanations, to justify both the original decision and the refusal to alter it. He is referring there to the cancellation of the contract. He further says on page 26: . . . I have come to the conclusion that I should prefer the evidence of Mr Jennings wherever it is in conflict with the evidence of Dr Orth or Mr Kemp. These are condemning remarks from a judge after having heard a case. Not unpredictably, the judge decided in this instance to award all costs against the Australian Wheat Board and in favour of Mr Jennings. The final paragraph of the judgment states: Accordingly, I enter judgment for the First Defendants in the Plaintiff's action and order the Plaintiff to pay the costs of the First Defendants in that action; in the Plaintiff's action against the Second Defendant, I enter judgment for the Second Defendant and order the Plaintiff to pay the Second Defendant's costs appropriate to those of a submitting appearance only. The Australian Wheat Board, in this instance, told Mr Jennings that it considers the just amount payable to be $30,000 and if Mr Jennings disputes that, the Board will tax his bill. I am extremely concerned that an Australian Government instrumentality, having lost a case which was brought against it with full justification-the comments of the judge indicate that-is now seeking to avoid its responsibility in the payment of costs. Predictions that I have had from barristers who appeared for Mr Jennings are that the Board's costs ranged from $ 70,000 to $80,000. Mr Jenning's costs were of about a similar amount. The Board is now seeking to set back any obligations it has under the judge's decision by proposing that the payment to Mr Jennings be half of what the real costs were and if Mr Jennings disputes it to have it further taken to court so that a further court case would follow as to what the exact costs paid by the Board should be. I think that is grossly improper. I think that is a matter to be deplored. I will be taking this matter up with the Minister and I will be taking it up with the appropriate Senate committee so that it can be properly investigated. Honourable members of this House know of the concerns that have been expressed about the operations of the Australian Wheat Board. This is a stark instance of improper behaviour and improper actions where the Board has been found lacking in its procedures. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(4.13) —On 29 and 30 March of this year in answer to questions in the Senate, the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) indicated that he was satisfied that the nuclear waste disposal problem had been solved. As he is the Minister responsible for the provision of uranium from which nuclear waste is derived, I am most concerned that his advisers have not given him correct information. The Minister stated that a Swedish disposal method, involving copper canisters containing unreprocessed cooled spent fuel rods from nuclear power stations, are packed very tightly in bentonite clay and disposed of in granite. The Minister stated that the Swedes have the technical expertise and a sense of responsibility to do it properly. The trouble with the Minister's reply is that the Swedish method which the Minister said was satisfactory is only in the experimental stage and is in fact far from satisfactory. Apart from the at present unresolved problems with the process itself to which I will presently refer, the highly active nuclear fuel rods have to be stored in cooling ponds at the reactor site for six months. They must then be transported to cooling ponds some distance away from the nuclear power station to be stored for 40 years. The rods must then be transported to the final burial place. During the whole of this period of 40 1/2 years, this dangerous highly radioactive nuclear waste is accumulating in the cooling ponds at great risk to life forms, including human beings, who may happen to be in the vicinity. I now come to the actual final disposal into what is known in Sweden as KBS3. The Minister should have been told by his advisers that the fundamental research on KBS3 remains incomplete. There are a number of problems with KBS3 which have not yet been solved. So far the Swedes have not subjected their work to independent scientific study nor have they selected the final burial site. Satisfactory research into the detection of fracture zones near the burial site, studies of groundwater flow in fractured rocks including the use of chemical tracers to track the radionuclides and testing of the effectiveness of the dense claylike material, bentonite, has not yet been undertaken. It would appear that only laboratory simulation involving mathematical modelling has been undertaken to date and such simulation studies are notorious in oversimplifying the solutions to problems. Preliminary results have already indicated, for example, that the predicated flow rates in fracture zones as tested in the laboratory are inaccurate. The Swedes have indeed admitted that they are hoping for a more improved method of final disposal by the year 2020 which, of course, means that the disposal method presently developed is less than satisfactory. The possible burial sites mentioned so far are all unsatisfactory from one view or another, either because of fracture zones or groundwater flow or because of possible displacements of the bedrock. In many places in Sweden the uplifting of land is still in process and there was glaciation in the Stockholm region as little as 10,000 years ago. The copper cannisters, if they are to safely contain the waste, must last for tens of thousands of years, not a comparatively short time span of 10,000 years. Apart from the faulty bedrock however, there is no firm evidence that the copper canisters will last for several million years as claimed. A well-known specialist in nuclear waste has said that because of unknown future corrosion rates, a more reasonable estimate of the life of a canister would be 1,000 years. Even the bentonite sealing material which will be used as a buffer between the canister and the bedrock has not been fully tested for heat effects and water uptake. The buffer mass test will not be concluded before the end of 1985 and if one takes into account that bentonite cannot survive over long periods at temperatures greater than 100 degrees centigrade, how can the material be used at the proposed depths of 500 metres? There are a number of other criticisms of KBS3 which could be made but in the short time at my disposal I will have to sum up. The fact is that the claims for KBS3 rely on pre-1983 research and studies are continuing. In consequence it is far too early to quantify groundwater flow rates in fracture zones, rates of dispersion of radionuclides, the effectiveness of bentonite plugs and other essential studies. Our knowledge of what will happen to physical and chemical conditions in nuclear waste burial sites over millions of years is far too uncertain to date for the Swedes or anyone else to be certain that KBS3 is a satisfactory nuclear waste disposal method. It is significant that the Swedes have watered down the wording of the Swedish stipulation Act from 'absolutely safe' nuclear waste disposal to waste management which 'can be accepted with due regard to safety and radiation protection'. On no account should an Australian Labor Party government water down nuclear safeguards in this way as we owe it to future generations of Australians to ensure that the storage of high level nuclear waste is completely and totally safe. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(4.17) —The matter which I wish to raise in the adjournment debate relates to the abolition of school cadet corps. There are up to a thousand school cadets in my electorate. I have four high schools within my electorate, including the Marist Brothers, Maitland, the Maitland Boys High School and the Raymond Terrace School. The Taree Cadet Corps consists of pupils from four secondary schools within the Taree area. These are very strong and very active cadet corps. I am most concerned that the Government should take the action to abolish cadet corps. There are 18,000 cadets within the State comprising young men and women who have joined the corps simply because they have been encouraged to do so by some of the members of the staff of their schools or by the principals of their schools and certainly by the citizens of the areas concerned. They have the strong support of the people within the community. It disturbs me greatly that the Government should even consider abolishing school cadet corps. I wish to say something specifically about the Taree Cadet Corps. I actually attended a public meeting convened by the schools the other evening. There were a lot of people there. They asked me to raise this matter in the Parliament and to say that there are 135 young men and women who belong to the Taree Cadet Corps. Over recent months it has been, to a certain degree, an open cadet corps. I explained that to the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) and to the Army. We are aware that there are only a limited number of open cadet corps to be allowed to continue in schools in Australia and that there will be other schools that will continue to have cadet corps because they are underprivileged schools. Funding has been cut from $11m to approximately $2m. It is no use the Government saying that the Army wants the extra funds to spend on other things relating to the defence forces of Australia. Basically this Government is opposed to cadet corps. I emphasise that. I have not been backward in telling my people that this is the reason why the four cadet corps within my electorate are being abolished. I appeal to the Minister to consider the sincerity and the great use of these cadet corps, particularly as regards teaching discipline and giving pride to the cadets within their schools. They teach them to be good Australians, which they are. These young people will, in many cases, form the officers and staff of our Army in future. Being cadets gives them the opportunity to study whether or not they want to join the permanent Army. Mr Geoff Woolridge, a member of the staff of the Chatham High School, has led the fight to retain the Taree Cadet Corps. He has the support of the people around him. From my discussions with the Army, it does not appear that all the areas that need a regional cadet corps, an open corps, will actually receive one . The regional areas throughout Australia will be looking for the funds available because they will be used by the reserve corps in the districts concerned. I am very much afraid that there will not be sufficient funds to allow for the formation of these open cadet corps in all the regions of Australia based upon the Army Reserve depots in those areas. It would do members of this Parliament well when they are making representations on behalf of the people within their electorates to check on this case. I am sure they will find that it is the situation. I make this appeal to the Minister: If these cadet corps are to go, if there are to be no open cadet corps, they be allowed to keep the equipment, uniforms, rifles and so on. That would allow them to continue a cadet corps of their own, the arrangements for which, it appears, will have to be finalised by the citizens, the schools, the Returned Services League, the councils and the communities that are involved . This afternoon I appeal to the Government to review the matter favourably so the cadet corps will be allowed to keep their equipment. The Taree Cadet Corps stands out as one that I believe should be retained. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(4.23) —I wish to raise in the House an important matter concerning Medicare and part of my electorate. Within the Drummoyne municipality a number of constituents have telephoned me at my home or at my electorate office wanting to know which doctors bulk bill. Some of those people were known to me to be low income earners, people with high mortgages or with children in parish schools for whom they have to pay fees. They could really be classified as people of modest means. I was unable to find any local doctor who bulk billed . Tonight I draw to the attention of the House a matter which I have already taken up with the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett). It concerns an article which appeared in a new publication called the 'Drummoyne News' in its No. 1 issue of April 1984. It is a publication put out by a group of interested residents at the Drummoyne community centre. The front page of the publication alleges: A meeting late last year of most local general practitioners decided unanimously that doctors would bulk bill only disadvantaged people, such as pensioners and health care card holders. That explains to me what is going on in this area. A number of suburbs and approximately 20,000 to 30,000 people are involved. Today I spoke to Miss Sue Allard, the co-ordinator at the community centre. She said that the centre had invited any doctor who was prepared to bulk bill patients to ring in and that only one doctor had actually done so. His name will be revealed in the next issue of the Drummoyne News. It is very difficult for me to raise this matter this afternoon because the local general practitioners are for the most part personal friends. I have known many of them all my life. I know their spouses and children. I am very reluctant to raise the matter, but it was an essential cornerstone of the Government's election campaign. We campaigned on the platform of jobs, jobs, jobs. We promised the people that we would introduce a simple, cheap and effective type of health insurance scheme, and that is Medicare. The legislation has gone through the Parliament. It is part of the accord between the unions, the employers and the Government, which is so basic to industrial harmony in our nation. Yet in this area the medical practitioners, for reasons best known to themselves, have decided to take this course of action of refusing to bulk bill. They have taken upon themselves the role of assessing whether every person is disadvantaged. I do not know how this is achieved when a patient who speaks very little English comes in. During the years I have been a State member and a Federal member of Parliament many people have hoodwinked me as to their means. I am sure that all members of parliament have had people coming into their offices crying a hard luck story and then, when forms are lodged or some minor inquiries are made, the situation turns out to be much different. I have raised this matter with the Minister. He has explained to me that the only solution, as there is no public hospital nearby, would be for a community health centre to be developed. The repatriation hospital at Concord is some miles away, but it may be possible for the Department of Veterans' Affairs, with total Commonwealth funding, to establish a community health centre in Five Dock, Drummoyne, Abbotsford, or one of the other areas. Alternatively, the Commonwealth and the State could fund a community health centre. There is a community health centre in Five Dock which has a psychiatric component. A number of doctors, social workers and nurses run the school health scheme. They follow up on psychiatric patients who are discharged from public hospitals. They do very good work, but they certainly do not run a casualty department or an out- patients department. The alternative would be-I am putting this to the western suburbs group of the Australian Medical Association-that the local doctors themselves run a clinic. They could set up a clinic in which local GPs give their time and, in return for being available at some centre in the area agree to bulk bill whoever comes along. I believe the doctors could do this themselves. There would be no loss of revenue to them. Surely they could mutually agree to serve such a clinic at different times. It is an old idea, but I hope that common sense will prevail. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(4.27) —It is my painful duty in this adjournment debate to dispute emphatically the truthfulness, veracity and integrity of an answer given in this House on Wednesday by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in response to a question asked by the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Hollis). Mr Speaker, it will be recalled that the honourable member for Macarthur specifically asked the Prime Minister: . . . what progress the Government has made in meeting its target of creating 500,000 new jobs in its first three years of government? The Prime Minister's answer appears on pages 1632 and 1633 of Hansard of 2 May. It has to be said that the Prime Minister simply did not tell the truth in his answer. The Prime Minister claimed: Since the National Economic Summit Conference last April we have created 210,000 new jobs-that is in 12 months. He went on to say that that represented over 40 per cent of the job target for three years 'so we are obviously well ahead of target'. He further claimed, quite deceitfully: . . . between June of last year and the present time we have created 186,000 new jobs. The Prime Minister concluded his answer in typical egotism and self- aggrandisement by falsely claiming 'the magnificent achievement of this Government of creating over 200,000 jobs in its first year'. Mr Howe —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am concerned about the language used by the honourable member. I noticed that he made frequent references to ' untruths' and he made various similar statements. I would have thought that this type of language was appropriate in debating a censure motion, but given that this is an adjournment debate I would have thought it inappropriate to use language of that type. Mr SPEAKER —My attention was diverted momentarily, but I do not believe the honourable member has diverted from the Standing Orders. I call the honourable member for Denison. Mr HODGMAN —The facts are that the Hawke socialist Government has not created 210,000 jobs in the past year or anything like it. That 210,000 people may have come into employment in the past 12 months may not be disputed, as the figures of the Australian Bureau of Statistics seem to prove that fact. But to say that these alleged jobs in some way have been created by the present Government is a patent untruth. It is a giant lie and the Prime Minister knows it. To boast about an alleged achievement, knowing that it is not a bona fide achievement, is a cruel, wicked and malicious deception on the people of Australia and particularly the unemployed. The Prime Minister is misleading the House and the people of Australia and he knows it. He is in diabolical trouble because he knows that the cannot honour his promise to create 500,000 additional jobs. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 4.30 p.m., the debate is interrupted Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 4.30 p.m. Mr Drummond to ask Mr Speaker- What are the individual totals for salary payments to each Member of the House of Representatives from 1 April 1983 to 30 April 1984. Mrs Kelly —[missing question]. Mr Speaker —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There are two categories of Fellowships within the Department of the Parliamentary Library. It is assumed that the question relates to the Parliamentary Political Science Fellowship which is an award designed to encourage younger and/or emerging political science academics to study the processes of Parliament, and to undertake research related to it. Selection criteria are:- (a) a university degree in Political Science, preferably at or beyond Masters level; (b) an awareness of political issues and the information needs of parliamentarians; (c) the ability to prepare objective analyses of issues and to write clearly and accurately; (d) the ability to meet deadlines and to accept supervision but to work with minimal supervision when appropriate; (e) the ability to undertake oral consultations with parliamentarians; (f) the capacity to maintain a rigorous program of reading in the professional literature and in current affairs; (g) general maturity; (h) the ability to undertake a major research project related to the functioning of the Australian Parliament. (2) The last Parliamentary Political Science Fellow was selected according to the above criteria by a panel consisting of members of the Library Committee, senior staff of the Parliamentary Library and representatives of the Australasian Political Studies Association. (3) All applicants were considered against the same criteria. The Public Service Board's equal opportunity guidelines were adhered to. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 799) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 16 November 1983: (1) What (a) financial, (b) technical and (c) other forms of assistance, are available from the Minister's Department, to private business. (2) What (a) is the contact point and (b) requirements have to be met to qualify, for each form of assistance. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Financial Assistance (i) The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations administers a range of programs which provide assistance to employers for training apprentices, for providing training and work experience to unemployed people and those under threat of retrenchment, and for overcoming skill shortages and improving training arrangements in industry. In the apprenticeship area, there are several support measures available to employers. The Commonwealth rebate for apprentice full-time training (CRAFT) scheme provides tax exempt payments to employers of apprentices to improve/maintain the quantity and quality of apprentice training - for release to approved technical education, employers can receive daily rebates of between $21.90 and $43.80. The number of days paid can vary considerably depending on the trade and duration of the course. However the average number of days paid for technical release amounts to 88 days over three years - for release to approved off-the-job training in industry employers can receive daily rebates of between $21.90 and $31.30 up to a maximum of 130 days in the first year of apprenticeship - employers who engage from 1 January 1984 onwards an apprentice who has completed an approved trade based pre-employment course can receive a $750 rebate on condition that the normal term of indenture is reduced by at least 6 months - to encourage an increase in apprentice training in 1984 a CRAFT special additional employment incentive is being offered which comprises: (i) $1,500 tax-exempt payable in respect of each additional apprentice in employment, measured by the difference between the total number of apprentices an employer has indentured (or employed and subsequently indentured) in any trade at 30 June 1984 and 30 June 1983; and (ii) $750 tax-exempt payable in respect of each additional female apprentice in employment, measured by the difference between the total number of female apprentices an employer has indentured (or employed and subsequently indentured) in all trades except hairdressing at 30 June 1984 and 30 June 1983. Employers who qualify will also be eligible for an allowance of up to $1,000 to assist toward the cost of adapting their facilities to accommodate female apprentices where necessary. Under the group apprenticeship support program, joint Commonwealth/State financial support is provided for costs associated with the management and administration of new or expanded group apprenticeship schemes. To qualify, schemes must result in net increases in apprenticeship employment and give preference to suitable out-of-trade apprentices, females and graduates of trade based pre-employment courses. The level of assistance depends on the number of apprentices employed in each scheme - schemes can receive set amounts of up to $33,000 from each Government. Schemes with more than 150 apprentices can negotiate assistance beyond this level. The special trade training program provides a means through which innovative approaches to trade training can be tested and/or introduced. Employers can receive wage related rebates for releasing mature age apprentices to attend basic prescribed technical education and other approved off-the-job training - depending on the trade and stage of training employers can receive between $ 43 and $61 per day. The special assistance program provides wage subsidies to employers in two categories. The first is to retain apprentices whose employment and training they have sought to suspend or cancel by application to the relevant apprenticeship authority because of economic circumstances. The second is to engage and re-indenture certain out-of-trade apprentices. - employers who retain their apprentices can receive $63.70 or $86.90 per week depending on the wages paid for up to 17 weeks - employers who re-indenture out-of-trade apprentices can receive $63.70 or $86 .90 per week depending on the wages paid for up to 26 weeks. The group one year apprentice scheme provides additional apprenticeship opportunities by utilising surplus apprentice training capacity in public sector agencies to provide high quality training for first year apprentices indentured to private employers who have inadequate training capacity/facilities. The Commonwealth reimburses apprentice wage costs and additional training costs. - the estimated cost per apprentice for one year is $8,800. The points of contact for information on these apprenticeship programs are the Regional Offices of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. For specific categories of unemployed people and special groups, wage subsidies are available to provide an incentive to employers to provide employment, training and/or work experience to the unemployed, in particular the long-term unemployed. A description of these programs follows. More information can be obtained from offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service. Under the special youth employment training program (SYETP) employers who take on eligible unemployed young people may receive subsidies at either of two levels, determined principally by the duration of unemployment and age of the trainee: - Standard SYETP provides an employer subsidy of $75 per week work experience for 15-24 year olds who have been unemployed and away from full-time education for at least four of the preceding twelve months; and - Extended SYETP provides a subsidy of $100 per week for an initial 17 weeks, reducing to $75 per week for a further 17 weeks, providing a total of 34 weeks work experience for 18-24 year olds who have been unemployed and away from full- time education for at least eight of the preceding twelve months. The adult wage subsidy scheme (AWSS) offers two levels of subsidy to employers, depending on the age and duration of unemployment of the job-seeker: - under the standard provisions, AWSS subsidises employers at the rate of $100 per week for 17 weeks, reducing to $75 per week for a further 17 weeks, providing a total of 34 weeks subsidised employment for those aged 25 years or older who have been unemployed and away from full-time education for at least eight months in the preceding twelve months; and - under the extended AWSS provisions, employers receive $125 per week for 52 weeks for employment provided to unemployed people aged 45 years and over who have been continuously registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service and away from full-time education for at least twelve months. The general training assistance program (GTA) provides subsidies to employers for on-the-job training where the Commonwealth Employment Service is unable to refer an experienced or qualified job seeker to a vacancy. - GTA subsidises employers at the rate of $86.90 per week where adult award rates apply; or $63.70 per week for junior award rates. The actual period of training varies according to the occupation. Individuals eligible for assistance generally must be unemployed or under written notice of retrenchment, or if voluntarily unemployed, must have adequately tested the labour market for four months. Under the training for aboriginals program, on-the-job private sector trainees receive the award or going rate for the training they undertake, while the employer receives a subsidy. In some circumstances, when Aboriginals require specific work experience to gain basic employment skills, a private sector employer who provides training assistance may be reimbursed wages plus associated costs of training. In other circumstances, fees to offset the costs of training may be negotiated with private sector employers who are prepared to provide significant training opportunities to enable Aboriginals to upgrade skills. Under the training program for the disabled, special subsidies are available to employers who engage a disabled person. Currently the subsidy rate for the first half of the training period is $196.95 per week for adults and $104.30 per week for juniors. For the second half of the training period the subsidy is $86.90 per week for adults and $63.70 per week for juniors. The subsidy period is related to the particular occupation with a minimum period of 20 weeks and a maximum period of 52 weeks. As from 1 July 1983, employers of disabled apprentices may receive a wage subsidy of $104.30 per week for the duration of the apprenticeship. The skills in demand program (SID) assists industry to overcome skill shortages and establish new or improved training arrangements and at the same time helps unemployed people to obtain stable employment. Financial assistance can be provided to industry for the development and conduct of training programs, with the extent of assistance depending on the nature of contributions from industry and other Government departments. The levels of subsidy in respect of on-the-job training are the subject of negotiation between the sponsor and the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. Advice on this program should be obtained from Regional Offices of the Department in the first instance. (ii) occupational safety and health research grants to be awarded annually are designed to encourage and assist research which would have important practical implications for occupational safety or improving the physical working environment. $200,000 has been allocated in 1983-84 for this new scheme, which was announced in November 1983. The contact point is the Director, Physical Working Environment Section, Working Environment Branch, Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, GPO Box 9880, Canberra City ACT 2601. Proposals submitted for the first round of the scheme were considered by the National Consultative Committee on Occupational Health and Safety, Research Selection Committee, and the Working Environment Branch. Projects submitted for funding were selected on the basis of their emphasis on occupational safety or direct relevance to improving the physical working environment. Most of the projects selected for funding will run from one to two years and will attract funding from $20,000-$30,000. Details were included in national press advertisements. (iii) employee participation research grants are an ongoing program designed to promote the development of employee participation in Australian industry. Grants totalling $60,000 for four separate projects have recently been announced. The projects will be completed by early 1985 and are expected to contribute to a deeper insight into the factors influencing the establishment of successful employee participation schemes. The contact point is the Project Director, employee participation research grants, Working Environment Branch, Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, GPO Box 9880, Canberra City ACT 2601. The scheme is administered by the Working Environment Branch under the advice of the National Labour Consultative Council's Committee on Employee Participation. Projects are judged on their relevance to accelerating the adoption of employee participation in Australia and on their potential wider applicability in industry. (iv) The employee participation/industrial democracy cost subsidisation program is aimed at accelerating more widespread appreciation of employee participation/ industrial democracy in Australian organisations. In 1983-84, nine projects are to receive subsidies totalling $199,060. The contact officer is the Director, Employee Relations Section, Working Environment Branch, Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, GPO Box 9880, Canberra City, ACT 2601. Applications were invited from employers, employee organisations and trade unions, and were considered by the National Labour Consultative Council's Committee on Employee Participation. Each successful applicant will receive a subsidy, based on a proportion of approved expenditure: Employees will be eligible for up to 75 per cent of approved expenditure. Employer organisations and trade unions will be eligible for 100 per cent of approved expenditure. However, the project or activity must extend beyond an individual enterprise-that is, encompass an industry sector or involve the total membership of a trade union. The maximum subsidy to any applicant will be $30,000. Typically, approved expenditure will encompass the salaries and expenses of consultants, and the costs associated with awareness-raising and educational activities. Successful applicants will commence their projects in 1984 and complete them within 12 months. The program was advertised nationally. (1) (b) Technical Assistance. The Working Environment Branch of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations is a focal point for information on occupational safety and health, and employee participation/industrial democracy. It provides research material and advice to the Government on: The technical and physical aspects of the working environment-such as ergonomics, ventilation, acoustic comfort, lighting, hygiene, amenities, office design and layout, and operation of machinery and equipment. The human and social aspects of the working environment-including employee relations matters such as varied working hours (part-time work, job sharing, shiftwork), technological changes, job design and consultative practices. The Branch's technical, professional and specialist staff produce and disseminate authoritative publications giving information, advice and guidelines applicable in both Government and private organisations. These publications include: Work and People (journal) Employee Participation News (newsletter)* Employee Participation: Ways and Means (booklet)* Accident Prevention (booklet in 9 languages) Job Design (booklet-Working Environment Series) Sources of Information at Work: Safety and Health (booklet-Working Environment Series) VDUs at Work (booklet-Working Environment Series) Occupational Safety and Health in Australian Government Employment (Code of General Principles) and specific codes supporting the Code of General Principles (booklet)* Research reports resulting from projects funded under the employee participation research grants scheme (booklets). Most titles produced by the Branch may be purchased from Australian Government Publishing Service (AGPS) bookshops in each capital city or from AGPS Mail Order Sales, GPO Box 84, Canberra City, ACT 2601. Brochures detailing these are available from the Information Officer, Working Environment Branch. Titles marked with an asterisk above are available free on request from the Information Officer, Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, GPO Box 9880, Canberra City, ACT 2601. No special requirements apply with respect to eligibility. The Branch also produces employee participation training modules. The modules, aimed at introducing the various forms of employee participation to a wide range of audiences, are available on loan to organisations and individuals developing educational and practical programs involving participation. (1) (c) Other Assistance (i) The Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) provides assistance to private business in the form of assisting employers to meet their staff requirements. In this context the CES additionally provides a pre- selection service to employers, whereby a specified number of the most suitable registrants are referred to an employer for final selection. The CES also provides a service to employers known as 'Employer Paid Advertising' (EPA). Under this facility vacancies are advertised at the employer 's expense, with the advertisements directing applicants to the CES. This facility encompasses the provision of advice and information on vacancy advertising and the processing of responses to EPA advertisements, including the conducting of screening and/or assessment interviews, together with the pre- selection and referral of applicants for interview by the employer. Assistance to private businesses is also provided by the CES through promotional visits to employers, at which the opportunity is taken to inform them of the services available and to acquaint them with Government labour force programs and services assistance. In addition to the direct forms of assistance provided by the CES to private business, indirect assistance is received by employers through the Relocation Assistance Scheme and the Fares Assistance Scheme. (ii) Other assistance to private business is also provided by the Arbitration Inspectorate. The Inspectorate was established within the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations on 1 July 1983 with the following functions: to secure the observance of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, the Reguations and awards, orders and agreements made under the Act and, in particular, to ensure that federal industrial awards are being observed, by carrying out enquiries; interviews, and inspections of places of employment; to assist employers and employees to understand and give effect to their rights , duties or obligations under the Act, Regulations and awards by issuing appropriate advice upon enquiry; to maintain contact with appropriate organisations and authorities, discussing difficulties apparent from award inspections and indicating Departmental policy and possible means of resolution and, as necessary to provide information to interested groups and parties on the Inspectorate's functions and responsibilities; and to seek voluntary compliance where award breaches are, or non-observance is, discovered, and to set in train movement towards legal proceedings where compliance is not forthcoming or where breaches are deliberate, repetitive or sufficiently serious to warrant prosecution despite voluntary compliance. These functions involve, inter alia, the provision to employers and employees in private business, either in response to enquiries or on the Inspectorate's own motion, of advice as to rights, duties or obligations under the Act, Regulations and awards. The Inspectorate maintains offices in all States and Territories and the relevant addresses appear at pages 122-123, Volume 1 of the Commonwealth Government Directory, July 1983. There are no requirements which have to be met to qualify for any assistance the Inspectorate is able to give. (iii) The Working Environment Branch of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations is the Australian National Centre for CIS (the Centre International d' Informations de Securite et d' Hygiene du Travail) which is the International Labour Organisation's International Occupational Safety and Health Information Centre. CIS systematically collects and analyses scientific and technical information in the fields of ergonomics, occupational physiology and psychology, conditions of work, training and education, industrial toxicology and air and water pollution of industrial origin. The results are made available to subscribers by means of periodic abstract bulletins, bibliographics, publications, information sheets et cetera. The annual subscription is $175. The contact point is the CIS Information Officer, Australian National Centre, Working Environment Branch, Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, GPO Box 9880, Canberra City ACT 2601. A brochure including a subscription form is available on request. (iv) The Tradesmen's Rights Regulation Act 1946 provides a national system under which a person who has not completed an Australian apprenticeship may achieve recognition as a tradesman in specified classifications in the metal, electrical and footwear trades. The issuing of trade certificates which have national recognition can assist employers in recruitment of qualified staff and allocation of work. Enquiries concerning trades recognition matters may be directed to the Secretary, Local Trade Committee, Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, GPO Box 9880 in the Capital City of the relevant State or Territory. (v) The National Trainer Training Service (NTTS) provides a range of training services and programs through Trainer Training centres in the five mainland State capital cities. These services include: provision of nationally consistent and accredited courses for the training of trainers predominantly in the private sector; basic training manuals prepared to accelerate skills acquisition by apprentices and operators; development and production of supervisor and instructor training packages; use of training centre facilities for meetings and courses; and technical support to national and state industry training committees in the development of industry based training programs. Initial contact can be made through the Manager in each State Training Centre or through the Assistant Directors (Training) of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations in Tasmania and the Northern Territory. Requests in relation to the Media Services and Basic Training Manuals Unit should be made through the Director, Trainer Training Services, Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, GPO Box 9880, Canberra City, ACT 2601. (vi) The Industry Training Committee (ITC) Network consists of voluntary committees established on a tripartite basis with the objective of developing systematic training for a specific industry. They are established on the initiative of the industries themselves and under the auspices of the National Training Council. In 1983-84 it is estimated that over 100 ITCs in some 20 industry sectors will be supported. Under the industry training services program, funds are provided for the employment of manpower development executives and industry training officers by ITCs and industry associations, the development of new training programs, research into training needs, and the production of basic training manuals and group training schemes to allow groups of small firms to employ training specialists. The initial contact point is the Principal Executive Officer, Industry Training Sevices, Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, GPO Box 9880, Canberra City, ACT 2601. (2) See answer to (1) above. (Question No. 863) Mr Spender asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 29 November 1983: (1) What are the full terms of the agreement entered into early this year between Trans Australia Airlines and Mayne Nickless Limited in relation to future operations of Hertz Rent-a-Car. (2) Is it open to Mayne Nickless under the agreement, or otherwise, to offset future profits earned by Mayne Nickless against accumulated losses by Hertz Rent -a-Car. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) I have provided advice on the broad terms of the agreement in my response to the honourable member's earlier question No. 337 (Hansard, 7 March 1984 pages 687-688). Details of the full agreement between TAA and Mayne Nickless remain commercially confidential until and unless the parties to the agreement disclose those details. (Question No. 1041) Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 February 1984: (1) Are single Royal Australian Air Force personnel paid $30 living away from home allowance for living in Housing Commission houses which are in fact disused . (2) Will he ensure, with his colleagues, priorities for use of government subsidised housing. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Currently there are no RAAF single members occupying Housing Commission houses allocated to the RAAF for use as married quarters. There have been occasions in the past when it has been necessary to place single members in Housing Commission houses allocated for RAAF use to protect the properties from vandalism and illegal occupation. This protective occupancy was deemed necessary for certain houses which became temporarily vacant pending the arrival of married members, major repairs and maintenance or return of the houses to the Housing Commission. From December 1982, when the need for protective occupancy first arose, until October 1983 when the most recent protective occupancy ceased , 15 RAAF controlled Housing Commission houses have been occupied by single RAAF members. The periods of occupancy varied from 1 night to 6 weeks with most less than three weeks. Single members undertaking protective occupancy duties who were unable to use Service messing and other facilities, were paid statutory meal rates per day (breakfast $5.55, lunch $5.95 and dinner $11.95) and a daily incidental allowance of $5.25. (2) Housing Commission houses allocated to servicemen under the Commonwealth/ State Housing Agreement (Servicemen) are funded from the defence vote. These houses are therefore provided specifically for Service personnel in accordance with overall defence priorities. In the event that any of these houses are no longer required for defence use, they are returned to the respective State Housing Commissions for use as public housing. (Question No. 1327) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Science and Technology, upon notice, on 5 April 1984: (1) What changes to existing equal opportunities programs have been made in the Minister's Department since the 1983 general election in regard to (a) aims, (b) assessment procedures, (c) methods of ensuring that the aims of the program have been met, (d) procedures for union involvement and/or consultation in the program, (e) the involvement of the Public Service Board Equal Opportunities Bureau and (f) the priority rating of the program within the Department. (2) What is the cost of the Department's programs. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Department had no equal employment opportunity programs established at the time of the 1983 general election. The Department is taking action to appoint an equal employment opportunity officer who will be employed substantially on developing and implementing an equal employment opportunity program. (2) See answer to (1) above.