Wednesday, 6 June 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: To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that the current discriminatory application of sales tax on confectionery at the rate of 20% is an unfair and unjust burden on this important manufacturing industry and your petitioners therefore pray that confectionery be treated in a similar fashion to all other foods, including snack foods, which are exempt from sales tax. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Baldwin,Mr Blunt,Mr Brumby,Mr Cowan,Mr Drummond,Mr Duffy,Mr Hodgman,Mr Morrison,Mr Rocher,Mr Saunderson and Mr Shipton. 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 before the Parliament amend the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulation and the Customs (Cinematograph and Films) Regulations and supersedes the ACT 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 videos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board before release from Customs. 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 the Censors more appropriately reflect reasonable and responsible community attitudes; That further measures be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; That, because of the importance of this issue to the whole community a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Carlton 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 shows: That, having received information from the Attorney-General's Department concerning the New Commonwealth Censorship Procedures for Publication. We are abhorred by the intent of the Government to change the already liberal Censorship Laws into such Laws as will open the doors to nearly complete license where publications are concerned. We most strongly feel that in this way the Government would be intentionally instrumental in perverting the thoughts and actions of young and older Australians. We therefore request the Government to abandon its 1983 decision to alter the A .C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinance forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Adermann. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in parliament assembled we the undersigned citizens of our community which is part of Australia wish to condemn the action of the present Government and urge it to abandon its 1983 decision to alter the A.C.T. classification of publications ordinance forthwith. We believe this action of the present government will have a very demoralising influence upon the minds of the youth of our country. The evidences of these facts are proof in our society of today by the increasing acts of vandalism; rapes bashings and robbery. For the Government to ignore this fact with the present restrictions. To relax the laws on drugs and pornographic material would open the floodgates to lawlessness in out society. These young people are the citizens of our country tomorrow. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Adermann. 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 shows: That we the undersigned request the Government to abandon its 1983 decision to alter the A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinance forwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows: That we are greatly disturbed by the attitudes and intentions of the Federal Government with respect to proposals in relations to the censorship laws. That we find it abhorrent that it is intended to lift barriers which have previously prevented hard-core pornography and similarly offensive material from widespread distribution. That we also note with disquiet the apparent lack of concern shown by the present Government for the moral health and well being of the Australian people. That the Scriptures teach us that ''Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.'' Your petitioners accordingly pray that the Government reconsider its policy and consequently abandon its 1983 decision to alter the A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinance forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows: (1) That we unreservedly oppose the Federal Government's proposals in relation to the censorship laws designed for the Australian Capital Territory; and further we oppose any such proposal on censorship laws becoming law in any State in Australia. (2) That we consider it right and proper that the citizens of this nation be consulted, and their views and desires respected in the formulation of law in censorship and similar areas. (3) That it is with alarm the proposed censorship laws are regarded by citizens living in a society based on christian ethics. In essence Australia is a Christian nation and our nation's laws must reflect and uphold our established values. Legislation which sanctions behaviour repugnant to Christians, is legislation not appropriate to Australia. Moreover, it is legislation which condones the destruction of the very fabric of our society. Legislation which promotes the degradation, abasement and exploitation of people, both young and old, and of our nation, is unacceptable. (4) That we the undersigned request the Government to heed the points in this petition, and abandon its 1983 decision to alter the Australian Capital Territory Classification of Publications Ordinance forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Millar. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizen of Australia respectfully shows: That as youth director of our local Community Baptist Church, it causes me great concern to learn of the governments intention to relax the control over hard drugs and pornographic material. It also causes me great distress to learn that our Prime Minister, one who should be setting a standard and an example, says he is not concerned and regards those who are concerned over this issue as being stupid. As a parent and one who works with young people I believe to relax such controls would be disastrous both to the minds and moral standards of our young people at large, even now it is becoming increasingly difficult to choose a film without an undue emphasis upon sex or violence, and if the government cannot see the effect of drugs on young lives then it must have its head in the sand. If ever our youth needed good quality leadership it is today. By saying to them they can have whatever they want is a complete abdication of that leadership. I cannot strongly enough voice my opposition so I the undersigned request the Government to abandon its 1983 decision to alter the A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinance forthwith. And your petitioner as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Adermann. 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 the Soviet Union continues to violate human rights in Latvia. This is clearly demonstrated by the recent case of Janis Rozkalns, a practising Baptist who, on January 6, 1983, had his house forcibly entered into by K.G.B. agents searching for various religious publications. The K.G.B. confiscated 40 Bibles. Mr Rozkalns was charged with 'anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda' and now faces a sentence of seven years deprivation of freedom plus five years internal exile. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled condemns the religious and human rights persecutions within the Soviet Union. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Blewett. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We petitioners of electors call on the Federal Labor Government to reject the demands of the Australian Medical Association and doctors who want to demolish Medicare. We request the Government to implement Medicare in its original form. We believe that medical care and a proper health system are a basic social right and should not be a privilege available to a wealthy few. We pray the Government does not succumb to the minority business interests opposing Medicare. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Blewett. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia , namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation 's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that 'the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: That international agreements, covenants, laws and the like cannot be imposed as laws in Australia by any government unless agreed to by the people by referendum as required by the Constitution. That any existing legislation, or proposed legislation, based on any international agreement, covenant, law or the like such as Human Rights, Heritage Commission, Land Rights Acts, Race Relations Act, Sex Discrimination Act, etc., be repealed or suspended until agreed to by the people by referendum as required under the Constitution. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Brumby. 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 Carlton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to stop the commercial exploitation of the kangaroo. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House re-apply the ban on the export of kangaroo products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Carlton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we, loyal citizens of Australia firmly express our wish to have the traditional place of Her Majesty The Queen as Head of State retained in our national and constitutional and democratic affairs and institutions and also strongly advocate the retention of our present Australian National Flag, standing for historic and loyal links with the United Kingdom, the nation which founded our Australian way of life. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife. 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 the overwhelming majority of Australians are completely satisfied with the existing Australian National Flag. 2. That we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as provided in Section (3) of the Flags Act, unless such proposed change is first voted on by the people of Australia and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife. 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 Hodgman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned Citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Millar. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the undersigned Citizens of Australia showeth that: We protest the proposed relocation of the Artillery and Infantry Schools from North Head, Singleton and Holsworthy to the Central Tablelands of New South Wales, and the Cobar district. We humbly pray that the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, will ensure that the current investigation being carried out in the Central Tablelands is ceased forthwith and that no Military Establishment be located in the Central Tablelands of New South Wales. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Keefe. 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 Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we are patients, colleagues and friends of Dr J. Martinick. That she is apparently being victimised by the Department of Health and the Federal Police regarding itemisation in 1983. That at no time in the last year the Department of Health Liaison Officer or Investigator had approached Dr Martinick to discuss any apparent problems. That the Federal Police who are not a representative of the Department of Health made the first contact with her. That we are perturbed that the normal procedure of investigating an irregularity was not adhered to in this case and we request that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should clarify this situation and amend the Health Insurance Act if necessary to ensure that the Medical Practitioners in future receive a fair and just hearing. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600. We, your petitioners, humbly showeth: That permitting kangaroos to be commercially exploited when permissible cropping rates are unknown and the means of enforcing controls or protective laws are completely ineffective in this land, is allowing this unique animal to follow the path to rarity or extinction along which all wild animals have gone when subjected to exploitation in similar circumstances. We Australians, have the right to see kangaroos in reasonable numbers on the landscape: We find the commercial slaughter of the kangaroo to be abhorrent and unjustified. Commercialisation of wildlife should be stopped, particularly as exemplified by the kangaroo industry. We your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will. 1. Ban the export of products made from kangaroos. 2. Take action to see that State Governments prohibit the commercial killing of kangaroos. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Wilson. 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Division of Bass respectfully showeth. 1. Although Australia is endowed with vast quantities of natural gas, Tasmanians are denied reasonably priced access to those resources. It should be shared equally between all Australians. 2. The Tasmanian householder using liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) pays $35.40 for an average household cylinder. In Melbourne, the same cylinder can be purchased for as little as $23.77. 3. A Tasmanian family on reticulated gas supply pays double the price paid by a Melbourne family on natural gas. 4. Tasmanian commercial and industrial users, paying high prices for their gas, are penalised. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government gas subsidy of $20.31 per tonne should be increased to Tasmania to compensate for Bass Strait freight charges. The subsidy should be raised so that Tasmanian users pay no more than the average of Austalian users. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Newman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia, electors of the Division of Calare show concern at the proposed classification guidelines of X rated video material which would do nothing to halt the sale and ready availability of same. Your petitioners pray that a responsible attitude would lead you to outlaw production and supply in Australia and the import into the country of X-rated video tapes And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Simmons. Petitions received. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition) —Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to raise a matter with you relating to the proceedings of the Parliament. I refer to page 2742 of the Hansard record of proceedings of this chamber on Friday, 1 June, in which you were recorded as saying to the Treasurer (Mr Keating): I will undertake to examine the record in Hansard and see what is recorded there, so I can see what the appropriate action is. I ask in relation to what transpired that day whether you have examined the record. If so, can you advise the House of your conclusion? Mr SPEAKER —Yes. I will reply to the Leader of the Opposition. I examined the transcript in Hansard. There were matters in it that concerned me, but I made a judgment that it was in the best interests of the House if I took no further action. Mr Peacock —Mr Speaker, can you advise us what the matters in the record were that concerned or troubled you? Mr Young —No, he does not have to do that. Break it up. Mr Peacock —The honourable member does not want him to do that? Mr SPEAKER —Order! It was a conflict of statements between two members. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I give notice, seconded by my colleague the Leader of the Opposition, that on the next day of sitting I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that 6 June 1984 is the 40th anniversary of the Allied landings in Normandy that led to the end of the Second World War in Europe; (2) registers its gratitude to the men and women from all 3 armed services and from all the nations which took part in Operation Overlord and the subsequent campaigns in France, Belgium, Holland, Eastern Europe and Germany; (3) expresses its deepest sympathy to the families of those who died during the landings and the subsequent campaigns, and to those who were injured, and (4) hopes sincerely that the deaths and injuries suffered in Operation Overlord , and the death and devastation around the world from 1939 to 1945, will serve as a perpetual reminder to mankind of the ultimate folly of tyranny and conquest and the tragedy of war. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (a) notes the recent statement by a spokesman for the Premier of Queensland that the Premier is still interested in the Mount Isa-Darwin-Alice Springs rail link; (2) calls on the Northern Territory Government to carry out its self- acknowledged responsibility to pursue the Queensland government's offer to fund the estimated $700 million cost of the rail link, and (3) condemns the delay which has occurred on the part of the Northern Territory Government in pursuing the project since July 1983. The motion will be seconded by the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay). Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I give notice, seconded by my colleague the honourable member for Gwydir and Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Hunt), that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the recent statements by the Prime Minister and the Premier of New South Wales that productive farm land in New South Wales would not be taken over by the Army in its program of acquisition of infantry and artillery range and manoeuvre areas; (2) regrets that in the light of these statements, the Government has not seen fit to instruct the consultancy firm of Dames and Moore to delete such areas from consideration in the environmental impact study now being undertaken by that firm into the acquisition of new Army land in New South Wales, and (3) calls on the Government to confer as soon as possible with the NSW Government to identify further areas suitable for acquisition by the Army, taking into account Crown Land, including state forests and national parks, and which as far as possible do not include productive farm land, so that it may end the uncertainty and fear now facing thousands of landholders, business people and employees in the State. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) congratulates the Government and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations on the very successful implementation, to 6 June 1984, of the Community Employment Program, and (2) commends the Minister for his personal efforts in ensuring that the program administration remains sensitive to the needs of sponsors, and the needs of the long-term unemployed. Mr HUNT(Gwydir) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) will second: That this House- (1) notes with concern that the Army is planning to acquire for occasional military manoeuvre purposes either the whole or part of 5 million acres of valuable pastoral and agricultural country south of Cobar, New South Wales; (2) calls upon the Minister for Defence- (a) to terminate further consideration of the Cobar lands for military purposes , and (b) to instruct the Army to immediately investigate other more appropriate Crown land areas for military purposes; (3) expresses outright opposition to the use of productive pastoral and agricultural lands in any district in New South Wales for military purposes, and (4) calls upon the Minister to make a statement, as a matter of urgency, on the Government's intentions to end the uncertainty affecting the lives of 15 000 people and the future production levels from 10 million acres of land in New South Wales. Mr Tickner having given notice of a motion, it was later ruled out of order. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House condemns the Government for its vicious discrimination against Australia's elderly migrants and in particular its- (1) total disregard of the recommendation of the Gruen Panel of Review on the need to avoid discrimination; (2) failure to fix a time for migrant widows to dispossess themselves of deceased husbands' estates; and (3) cruel failure to make clear whether overseas assets and property will be taken into account under the assets test. Mr Simmons having given a notice of motion, it was later ruled out of order. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that industrial strife is still a daily occurrence within Australia as evidenced by 2 strikes at Parliament House over the last 2 weeks; and (2) calls on the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to admit that industrial disruption has gone underground in the forms of bans and limitations to avoid the statistical record. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) deplores the high number of stoppages, strikes, go-slows and work-to- regulations, taking place in Australia, and (2) calls on the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to report to the Parliament on a monthly basis, all industrial activity which causes loss of production. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —I given notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes- (a) the decision of the Federal Government to withdraw financial support from government and non-government secondary schools' cadet corps across Australia, except for only 8 schools, one of which is in Queensland; (b) that the 8 schools have been given continued financial support on the grounds of their being financially disadvantaged; and (c) that most of the other schools do not have the financial resources to continue funding of their cadet corps and that the cadet corps in many schools will be forced out of existence; (2) condemns the Government for this discrimination between schools and for its policy of saving $10 million in this area while spending more than $10 million to create an additional 36 Members of Federal Parliament; and (3) asks for a reversal of this crazy decision. Mr SIMMONS(Calare) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House supports the Member for Calare's introduction on 6 June 1984 of a deputation of No Base committee members to the Minister for Defence to explain their concern about the Army's proposals for the acquisition of new infantry and artillery areas in New South Wales. Mr Sinclair-Mr Speaker, we will agree to the suspension of Standing Orders to allow the honourable member to debate that notice of motion forthwith. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the House indicates that he does not propose to take action. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House notes the view of Her Majesty's Opposition that the Prime Minister has most definitely 'shot himself in the foot' in the case of the iniquitous assets test, and that this issue will bring about the defeat of the Government at the next Federal election. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) confirms its support and recognition of all Australia's elderly, and (2) rejects the Prime Minister's classification of some of those people as tall poppies. Mr Scott-Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to notice No. 567 given by the honourable member for Denison in which he made reference to 'fascists of the Left'. Why does he reject being called a fascist of the Peacock Government when he used the same term in an earlier notice? Mr SPEAKER —I recall that notice because I examined it. The term used is a general term. It does not apply to a group in the Parliament or to any acknowledged grouping. On those grounds it was allowed. The other matters were directed to a much more specific designation of a person or group of persons. Debate resumed from 5 June, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Carlton had moved by way of amendment: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House expresses its concern at the plight of pensioners and beneficiaries whose incomes will be reduced as a consequence of the artificial reduction in the Consumer Price Index caused by the introduction of Medicare. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(10.17) —In supporting the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1984 I note that the Bill contains amendments to seven various Acts, all of which cover an attempt to alleviate the circumstances of people in need. As indicated by the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones), the amendments attempt in some cases to remedy anomalies and in other cases to improve benefits. I must say that I find the amendment moved by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) rather ludicrous. The Hawke Government has done more to improve the lot of pensioners in one year than the Fraser Government achieved in seven years. During that terrible period of seven years the age pension dropped from nearly 25 per cent of average weekly earnings to less than 23 per cent of average weekly earnings. Now honourable members opposite are castigating the Hawke Labor Government because it is attempting to redistribute pension entitlements in aid of needy pensioners. I reject the amendment as a total misrepresentation of the Australian Labor Party's policies for the aged. The problem with the provision of social security payments is that because the lives and the living circumstances of human beings are so complex it seems to be almost beyond the means of government to remedy all the defects of social security and repatriation legislation. Single parents are one of the most disadvantaged groups in our modern society, although I concede that Aboriginal groups and the under-18 unemployed are in an even more impossible position. Nevertheless, pensioners with dependent children, usually single parents, and usually women, are held fast in a poverty trap. The recent example of a sole parent pensioner living in government subsidised housing with three children was presented in a paper entitled 'Trends in the Incomes of Australian Families' as a case study by a social scientist at the fifty-fourth Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science Congress in Canberra in May. That case study showed that with a supporting parent's benefit of $133.40, a family allowance of $21.75 and $20.12 under the secondary assistance scheme for the oldest child, less $26.67 rent, there was $148.60 left to feed, clothe and provide the other household necessities for four people-which was not exactly a princely sum. However, if the sole parent took up a $100-per-week part-time job she increased her net income by only $38 per week. If the employer offered her a full-time job at $320 per week, she would have had to decline, because, with her pension lost, her secondary assistance grant reduced to $6.89, her rent increased to $80, a rise in child care cost to $26, travel costs of $10, a Medicare cost of $3.20, personal income tax of $56.80, and the coup de grace being the loss of her pensioner fringe benefits, she would have ended up with hardly any increase on her original single parent pension income. Of course, some people might have the view that a sole parent would be irresponsible in not taking up a full-time job because at least that person would no longer be a social security beneficiary. I have no doubt that some honourable members on the benches opposite hold such a view. But what about the cost to her children? Such a view has no regard for the human cost that the sole parent's children suffer as a result of their mother not being available to listen to their cares and problems. If the sole parent could increase her income so that she could substantially improve her children's living standards and quality of life, it might be worth the sacrifice of being a part-time mother. But, for the paltry few dollars a week that she would gain from a full-time job, she had no alternative but to remain caught fast in the poverty trap. As the case study indicates, although there is some financial gain to a sole parent from taking up employment, the gain from earning $320 per week is approximately the same as it is from earning $100 per week. (Quorum formed). It is interesting that an honourable member opposite found it necessary to call a quorum. There are only five Opposition members in the chamber. That shows just how interested the Opposition is in social service beneficiaries. There is little incentive for a sole parent-they are sometimes males but almost always females-in the circumstances indicated in the case study to become fully financially independent. However, there are methods of eliminating problems for social welfare recipients, such as sole parents. The Institute of Family Studies , in its May bulletin, indicated some alternative policy options in taxation and welfare transfer. The bulletin analyses the policy option of the impact of an increase in family allowance payments to allow the family to substitute the allowance for the major income tested payments for children. The replacement of income tested payments could be justified on the grounds of simplifying the existing provisions, increasing work incentives-as in the case of the previously quoted case study-improving the anti-poverty effectiveness and equity of income transfers, and providing a larger income for many non-pensioner mothers at home. A table is provided in the Institute's bulletin which I would have liked to incorporate in Hansard, but unfortunately the rules of the House preclude such incorporation. I also wish I had the time to go into the details of the studies contained in the bulletin. They illustrate the great advantages of computer programs in examining the effects of government policies on social welfare and repatriation beneficiaries. They also indicate three options for providing income tax cuts without changing the basic income tax system. But they also highlight the plight of disadvantaged groups below the tax threshold level. It is essential that tax changes are planned in conjunction with policies which will assist such disadvantaged groups. As emphasised in the bulletin, there is a danger that the high cost of providing tax cuts to large numbers of taxpayers can squeeze out the revenue needed for other social needs, such as increases in pensions and housing rental assistance. It is to be hoped that, when the Government is considering income tax cuts in the Budget, it does not overlook those Australians whose incomes are below the tax threshold. In some senses the Bill before the House only tinkers with the system. However, the tinkering is to the advantage of pensioners, and I do not wish to appear to be carping. I notice that the Bill will amend certain provisions of the Compensation ( Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971. I hope that these provisions will assist a constituent of mine, Mrs Patricia Owen, who suffered an injury whilst in the Army in 1962. The injury was aggravated by a car accident in 1964 whilst she was chauffering an Army officer. Mrs Owen was discharged on 26 November 1965 . She married the next day and she now has a teenage daughter. Correspondence between the Department of Defence and Mrs Owen has made it clear that the Department has accepted liability for the injury. Mrs Owen has had continuous treatment since 1965 and has suffered intense pain since that time, for which she has received medication. The medication has caused further physical impairment which restricts Mrs Owen's ability to live a normal life. She can walk only with difficulty and is completely unfit for work. Since 1965 Mrs Owen has received only $14,000 to $15,000 from the Army for loss of wages, and is at present attempting to live on the single parent pension and other benefits which , as has already been indicated, are totally inadequate. I am concerned about the inordinate length of time which the assessment of the compensation claim is taking. Of course, I am not in a position to tell Mrs Owen whether the present amendments to the 1971 compensation Act will help her case. But I do wish that her claim could be dealt with more speedily. I quote from the most recent letter I have received from Mrs Owen: Once again, I must ask for your assistance regarding my compensation claim with the Department of Defence. I apologise for bothering you once more as you have helped me so much with this matter last year. At present my claim is under consideration for total incapacity payments dating back to 1976 and I realise that with such claims there are rules and regulations to abide by, but on the 28th March I visited the Defence Department to find a way of easing the financial strain we are under. The Department gave me a letter, a copy of which I've enclosed, and told me although they were waiting upon a letter from Mr Shumack they would forward the file to Canberra. Last week I telephoned the Department to request a letter stating, if possible, a settlement figure on my claim. This letter was required by the Ministry of Housing to stop the monthly payments on my second mortgage until the claim is finalised. This could not be done because my file is still in Melbourne awaiting a final report and assessment before being sent to Canberra. I must mention that the gentlemen I spoke to was very nice and told me that any queries concerning my claim from the Ministry of Housing or the co-op be directed to him per telephone. It's just that so much of our future and survival depends on this claim and its settlement . I'm concerned that I'm told one thing only to find out another, and with my daughter going back into hospital within the next couple of weeks for the first of the cosmetic surgery to restore her face to its former beauty after the car accident last December. I suppose I am being a worry wart over this claim but I'd like to think that after all the pain and suffering over the past and in the future will be eased with the knowledge that my daughter and I will be secure in our own home with a little set aside for that rainy day. I remain yours faithfully P. Owen My initial letter to the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes), requesting urgent assistance for Mrs Owen, was sent at the beginning of September 1983. It is now nine months later and Mrs Owen's financial circumstances have considerably deteriorated. I call on the Government to do something to help people like Mrs Owen who are in such great need. In supporting the present Bill, I call on the Government to look at its administrative procedures and to attempt to speed them up, particularly in urgent cases such as that of my constituent. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(10.31) —I wish to take part in this debate on the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill. As the speaker who has just resumed his seat, the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton), pointed out, this legislation can be described as tinkering with a very substantial problem. I suppose it is true to say that from time to time it is necessary to tinker and make marginal change, but it is essential for this country and for all Australians that at some time we take a long, hard, careful look at the total income security program that this Parliament has built up over many years and under many governments. Sadly, that system has been built up rather like Topsy, without any central theme running through it. Very often in the building up of that system one aspect has been looked at and the effect on another has been ignored. This Parliament has mostly failed to identify the very close interrelationship between wages and incomes policy and the tax system that is used to tax the incomes of wage and salary earners and other income earners. It has also often failed to identify the interrelationship between those two matters-wages and the tax system-and the social security system. As a result we find within this country that only two out of five people have their economic security assured by the earnings they are making and receiving week by week. The remaining three out of five Australians are dependent. Some of those, about half, are dependent upon the public sector for most, if not all, of their income. The balance, just over half, are dependent upon other individuals for their income security. In many circumstances, those who are dependent upon other individuals have no income of their own. The other day I had an opportunity to take part in another debate and I drew the attention of the House to the importance of the rising aspiration of more and more Australians to have some degree of personal economic independence. I note that in the legislation before the House today some changes are being made to the social security legislation, as the Minister for Science and Technology ( Mr Barry Jones) said in his second reading speech, to make it 'conform with the spirit of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984'. The Minister went on to say: For example, references to 'dependent' female in the context of age, invalid, wives' and spouse carers' pensions, and unemployment, sickness and special benefits are to be replaced . . . These references are to be replaced by what the Minister describes as 'the neutral non-discriminatory phrase ''de facto spouse'' '. I will have some words to say on whether this phrase is as non-discriminatory as the Minister implied. For a moment I want to bring to the attention of the House the plight of the dependent female or dependent spouse. Whether we describe people as dependent or whether we choose not to so describe them because we think it discriminatory, the fact is that many spouses, the majority of whom are women, are dependent. They have no income of their own. They have no economic independence. It is true that such spouses are living in households with their husbands, in some cases with their wives, and that the other spouse is providing the income for the mini -economy-the household, the home and the family. Many of those who can be described as dependent spouses have no income of their own except, in some instances, the amounts they receive in respect of their dependent children in the form of family allowance. This legislation is making some cosmetic changes but it really has not addressed the major problems, one of which is that the public sector, the Government, through the pension and social security system, will provide incomes only to some people, including the aged. Interestingly enough, when a married couple, one of whom has been totally dependent on the other throughout their working lives, attain the ages of 60 and 65 and become eligible for a pension, the social security system pays a pension to each. It does not ask whether during their working lives the household was a single income household and it does not pay a combined married rate pension to the person who was the breadwinner for the household. The social security system has recognised the importance of providing income to each of the spouses. To spouses of working age , in an economy not able to provide job opportunities for all those who would like some form of paid employment, whether it be full time or part time, the social security system says: 'It is quite all right, if you are living in a household with your husband, that you should be totally dependent on him and have no personal degree of economic independence from income that you receive in your own right'. This cosmetic change to describe in certain circumstances as a de facto spouse a woman previously described as a dependent female totally ignores the reality of the position of many dependent females. The difficulty arises because of the separate assessments over the years in our tax system and our social security system. Many dependent females in the community and their husbands are gravely worried by newspaper speculation, no doubt fuelled by certain groups with influence within the Labor Party, about the possibility that the Government may achieve its tax cuts by abolishing the spouse rebate, an allowance made to a husband privately supporting a dependent spouse. The genesis of this allowance was in the claim that we had a tax system designed on the basis of capacity to pay. In assessing capacity to pay, we have recognised over the years that a taxpayer supporting another individual, an adult or a dependent child has a reduced taxable capacity. I have often argued that we have not made adequate allowance for the support given by a taxpayer for a dependent spouse or a dependent child. But the reduced taxable capacity has been the genesis of the provision of that rebate. Of course it is true that the benefit of the reduction in tax flows to the taxpayer, mostly the husband but sometimes the wife. However, merely to suggest that the spouse rebate should be abolished will punish single income families, the great majority of whom today are in a single income situation for one of two major reasons. The first is that they have young children in their care and they choose to provide parent care to young children prior to their going to either primary or secondary school. The second major reason is that, even if the spouse in a single income family who has been caring for children has reached the stage when the children have grown up to an age at which the mother feels that she could seek employment, beause of the state of the economy, because of changes in economic circumstances, the jobs are just not available. So in those circumstances the dependent spouse is unable to get an income of her own and is extraordinarily grateful and assisted in the household budget by the fact that her husband, the sole breadwinner in the household, has a reduced tax burden. But that reduced tax burden is only part of the tax concession that is made available to the two-income household because the amount of the spouse rebate is not, as it should be, equal to the value of the tax free threshold. For many years I have advocated that the tax system should be reformed so that people living in a household-mainly husbands and wives but it may be possible to extend it to other household economies-should be entitled to have their tax levied upon the basis of an income splitting or partnership arrangement between them so that it should make no difference whether one spouse, one adult in the household, earns all the income and shares it in the household economy in some way or another with those who are living in that household. I still advocate that there should be a fairer system of tax so far as the single income household is concerned. But if we are to continue to provide that benefit through the form of a spouse rebate there are a number of things which I think should be done. In the first instance the amount of the rebate should, as I mentioned a moment ago, be increased to a value-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! I am reluctant to interrupt the honourable member but I cannot find any reference to the spouse rebate within the Bill to amend seven Acts, that we are debating at the moment. I will wait for the honourable member to return to the contents of the Bill. Mr WILSON —Madam Deputy Speaker, I pointed out in my opening remarks that I believe one cannot look at social security legislation without also looking at the tax system because it would be possible to do for the spouse rebate what has been done for family allowances. The honourable member for La Trobe drew attention to family allowances. They were formerly given as a tax reduction, taking into account this capacity to pay principle, and, by a bold, imaginative and very positive move that recognised the changes that were occurring in society, the Fraser Government converted those tax rebates for children into an allowance which now comes through the social security legislation. So we have the two sides of the coin: Tax on the one hand and social security on the other. As I have already mentioned, the payment of those child allowances gave to many thousands of women a degree of economic independence. Now I come to what I believe should be done with the spouse rebate. Firstly, it should be increased to a value equal to the value of the tax free zone to an individual taxpayer. Secondly, consideration should be given to the payment of a sum equal to the rebate as a cash allowance to the dependent spouse in order to give that person a degree of economic independence. That should be but a first step towards the recognition of the needs and interests of individual Australians for a fair and non-discriminatory arrangement in respect of the unemployment benefit. The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) drew attention in his second reading speech to the fact that he was trying to make some changes-some cosmetic changes at that-to accord with the Sex Discrimination Act. The Sex Discrimination Act not only prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sex but also prohibits discrimination on the grounds of marital status. Today the people discriminated against by the social security system are married women. They are discriminated against as a consequence of the fact that they are not eligible to claim the unemployment benefit on the basis of their own income. They have to bring into account the income of their spouses. However, in this legislation we are changing the law to make it non-discriminatory by describing certain women not as dependent females but as de facto spouses. I draw the attention of the House to the discriminatory administration of these provisions. It is very easy administratively to identify the fact that a woman or a man is a de jure spouse. It is easy for the Department of Social Security to ask: 'Are you married? Is there a piece of paper? Did you go through a formal , legal ceremony?'. The Department of Social Security then says: 'We will treat you as married. We will deny the unemployed spouse the unemployment benefit on the basis of a rigorous income test'. In the case of hundreds of thousands of households-increasing numbers of households-where there is a de facto relationship there is discrimination because of the difficulty of identifying when those relationships exist. I am not advocating for a moment that there should be prying into people's private affairs. What I am doing is drawing to the attention of the House the ease with which persons can be identified as married. The difficulty in identifying, in many circumstances, whether a de facto relationship arises is discriminating against those who are living as de jure married couples. That discrimination means that many married women are deprived of the unemployment benefit when they would qualify for them under the work test. They are deprived because they are married and because it can be clearly shown that they are married. However, very often in the same street or in the same community there are many women known to be married women, living in a de facto situation, but nevertheless receiving unemployment benefits. They can be said to be breaking the law, but the fact is they are doing it in their hundreds and thousands. I am suggesting that we need to look at the social security system to try to develop a non-discriminatory method of delivering benefits to people who are properly entitled. We should not deprive women of the unemployment benefit merely on the basis that they are married. It may be that we should look at whether or not the income test that should be applied should be applied on the basis of the individual income of the spouse and that we should then make appropriate adjustments in the tax system to take account of the greater capacity of the husband to pay tax. All I am urging is that we look at the total system to ensure that we achieve the social objectives that all Australians want achieved. They want a degree of personal economic independence. They also aspire to live as families, to live in households of husbands and wives and their dependent children. But they want a system that treats them fairly and with neutrality. It is interesting to note that some amendments in this legislation deal with the entitlement of spouses to the unemployment benefit. But, as was said earlier in this debate, that is only tinkering. It is making a very small change. It is not addressing the major problem or achieving the proper equity between married and unmarried couples. It is not providing women or men who are dependent on income earning husbands or wives with a degree of economic independence. Therefore, I urge that consideration be given to converting the spouse rebate into a cash allowance or to the payment of unemployment benefits on the basis of individual, not family, incomes. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(10.51) —The Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1984 deals with a number of amendments to various Acts. I was interested in the comments of the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) and take some of his thoughts on board. He implied, I think, that it is unfair that an aged brother and sister living together are entitled to two full single pensions whereas a husband and wife living together cannot receive two such pensions. That is an anomaly. Many problems arise out of the payment of pensions . A dreadful problem occurs when one spouse dies and the remaining spouse of the marriage has to live on a single pension and continue to pay the rates and all the outgoings on the matrimonial homes. I believe that the Government must address itself to the difficulties that people face when their wives or husbands die and the only income is the pension or, perhaps, when they have some income and qualified for fringe benefits previously but with the death of a spouse those fringe benefits go and yet they must still meet all the outgoings that are involved in owning a home. The honourable member seemed to overlook the fact that it was his Government that cut out the children's rebate when it introduced the family allowance. (Quorum formed) In regard to the criticism of the legislation by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), I cannot help feeling that he is suffering from a very serious lapse of memory because he completely forgot what his Government proposed to do to pensioners in 1982, which was the main issue during the Lowe by-election. That was to phase out pensions for any single pensioner who had more than $1,500 in a cheque account. Pensioners could not even have enough money in their cheque accounts to bury themselves. That was the celebrated time when Sir Phillip Lynch criticised the rich pensioners, as he called them. Yet in this House yesterday during broadcasting time-when proceedings are broadcast honourable members opposite are very brave and shoot their mouths off-the honourable member for Mackellar had the hide to talk about the Government making a determined attack on the elderly. His Government had no test of $100,000 for a married couple. That Liberal Government's test was $2,500 in a cheque account for a married couple. After that figure, pensions started to decrease. Pensioners were deemed to have 10 per cent income on money in non-interest- bearing accounts. Mr Carlton —We did not do it. Mr MAHER —The former Government did do it. It issued the announcement that that test was to apply and there was a scream from the pensioners-quite rightly. One lady came to me and said: 'I have $1,500 in the bank to bury myself. I have no money to repair the sewer should it break, to fix the roof or anything like that . I will lose my pension if I save any more money in my cheque account'. Mrs Darling —When was this? Mr MAHER —This was under Fraser. Members of the former Liberal Government were heartlessly attacking the pensioners. (Quorum formed) Honourable members will remember what members of the former Government took out of the superannuation fund. What did Sir Phillip Lynch take by way of pension? What did my predecessor take? What did Malcolm Fraser take? They were going to stop the pensioners having more than $1,500. Their assets test was $1,500 at the time-- Opposition members interjecting- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr MAHER —When proceedings are broadcast honourable members opposite are full of noise and shout about bashing the pensioners-- Mr Goodluck —You have had your share. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr Goodluck —We will stop this gang. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr Goodluck —He had the audacity to say that he did not know I was a Catholic. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Franklin. Mr Goodluck —Let him lay off the-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I name the honourable member for Franklin. Mr Young —Madam Deputy Speaker, knowing the character of the honourable member for Franklin, I am sure that if given the opportunity he would apologise to the Chair without our taking any further action, and perhaps then we could get on with the debate. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member for Franklin wish to apologise to the Chair? Mr Goodluck —I apologise for my outburst, Madam Deputy Speaker, but please-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Franklin will not debate the issue. He will resume his seat. Mr MAHER —Opposition members seem to forget the lump sum pensions that some of their colleagues took-the lump sum that the former Speaker took and the lump sums that the former members for Moreton, Corangamite and Fadden took. What lump sum did the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron)-the former member for Fadden-take? The previous Government was going to phase out pensions at $1, 500 for a single person. Mr Fisher —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. What right does this honourable member have to raise these issues when he claimed nappy expenses on-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Far too many fictitious points of order are being raised by honourable members. I will deal with the next honourable member who does so. Mr MAHER —Members of the Opposition have asked questions in the House day after day about the Government's very fair and generous assets test that this Government has proposed. They have occupied Question Time with hysterical questions aimed at frightening pensioners. Yet the Liberals were proposing an assets test of $1,500 on single pensioners' bank accounts or non-interest bearing deposits. The honourable member for Mackellar was knocking on doors in the streets of my electorate. Some of my neighbours told him what they thought of the Liberals' assets test. I know that because they told me that he was around knocking on doors in that by-election. That was the greatest hypocrisy I have ever heard of. The Liberals frightened the old people in my electorate and throughout Australia. Yet honourable members opposite forget that. So next time they ask a question, let us not forget what they tried to do to the pensioners in 1982 by way of an assets test on bank accounts. The honourable member for Sturt also talked at length on other matters. He criticised the Government and talked long and loud about de facto spouses. My experience was that members of the Opposition, when they were in government, declared anyone who lived with a person of the other sex a de facto spouse. I had a poor man who was a boarder in a house in my electorate. The then Government deemed that this man was living in a de facto relationship. It was untrue and it was a very unfair decision. The man had boarded with this woman's mother and had lived in this house as a boarder for over 50 years. I succeeded in getting him about five years back pension. I felt that justice was done and he was very pleased. I believe that a number of honourable members wish to speak on this Bill. I urge honourable members to support the legislation and to reject the amendment moved by the Opposition. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(11.04) —I do not intend to allow that sanctimonious browbeating by the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher), that totally false misrepresentation in this chamber, to pass without comment. The honourable member for Lowe has a very selective memory. He must recall that this Opposition , as did the previous coalition Government, has rejected out of hand an assets test. We have stated our position clearly and unequivocally, which is in marked contrast to the position of the Government. We will repeal this iniquitous, discriminatory, unfair assets test. The honourable member for Lowe walked around during the by-election in 1982 with the then Leader of the Opposition, who is now the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), and attacked the allegedly proposed assets test. It was just a sheer act of dishonesty and hypocrisy for the honourable member for Lowe, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and other members of the Government, who were then in opposition, to attack the present Opposition's position on this matter. The simple fact is that this Government has introduced the assets test. We would repeal it on return to government. Madam Deputy Speaker, I say to you that I doubt whether this chamber will see a more dishonest performance by a member than the performance by the honourable member for Lowe who says that he now supports the assets test. What did the honourable member for Lowe say during that by-election? It is a matter of public record. He opposed and rejected an assets test in 1982. He has the gall, the sheer hide and the hypocrisy to come into this chamber now and say that the Opposition's position is wrong. I simply say that he is condemned by his own words. I certainly welcome the opportunity to address myself to the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill, which amends seven existing Acts, simply because the question of the aged in our society is of obvious concern to all, or should I say most, honourable members. This discussion ought to be undertaken in the most rational and sensible way possible because it is a challenge which faces this Parliament and which will face even the wider sector of the Australian community in the years to come. The figures themselves ought to compel a government into action. At present we know that some 12 per cent of the population is eligible for an age pension; that is not to say they will receive an age pension, but they are of an eligible age to receive a pension. In 20 years' time, at the turn of the century, that figure will increase to approximately 16 per cent. I understand that in the year 2020 the figure will be in the region of 21 per cent. Correspondingly, as the aged population increase escalates there will be a declining tax paying base; that is, there will be fewer people to pay for the services by way of taxation. I was very interested in the manner in which Professor Gruen addressed himself to the matter of Australia's aging population in his recently released report which mostly dealt with the assets test. He makes a couple of interesting points which I am not convinced are absolutely correct. I call upon the Government to examine Professor Gruen's figures and his conclusions as they appear to be somewhat contrary to the expectation that Australia will have difficulty in paying for aged services as the years go by. For instance, Professor Gruen reaches the conclusion that, presuming there is a one per cent growth rate over the next 20-odd years, there will be no need to increase the tax base. He makes reference to the fact that as Australia's population ages there will be less need to provide social security, health and other related government services to the young. Similarly, he reaches the conclusion that the growth in the aged population will be only 0.71 per cent ahead of the general population growth. I express some concern at those figures. I do not believe Professor Gruen had the terms of reference, the time or the facilities to address himself properly to these matters. But certainly it is very interesting and does appear to militate against our long-held fears that Australia will have real difficulty in paying for services in health, social welfare, housing and nursing for our aging population. Professor Gruen's terms of reference were simply to decide the fairest type of assets test. His terms of reference did not allow him to say whether or not there ought to be an assets test, but simply what is the best form. The implication of drafting the terms of reference in that manner was that this Government wanted the most acceptable political assets test possible. For that reason, I do not believe the Gruen Assets Test Review Panel was able to examine properly, in a fair and unrestricted way, the provision of assets tests in the future. By that I mean that if the terms of reference had been properly drafted the Gruen Panel, although obviously not Professor Gruen himself, may have decided that an assets test simply would not work because of its unfairness to farmers, as the minority report pointed out, and the amount of money raised simply did not justify the dislocation caused to so many of the aged in our society. After all, on the Government's own figures, the assets test will raise only $45m in the first year and cost $30m to establish. On my way back to my electorate on Friday evening I heard several radio broadcasts in which Professor Gruen challenged those figures and said that the test would raise only $45m in its first year and cost $50m to establish and administer. I heard those figures on several stations; I am not sure whether they are the correct figures. Perhaps the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) , who is at the table, will advise us later. Certainly to date there has been no Government rebuttal of the reported comments of Professor Gruen. If Professor Gruen's reported comments are correct, the Government will be $5m out of pocket in its first year. Let us consider the harm it will cause a very significant proportion of our population. There are 170,000 family farms. The wives and the children will be affected. Very few, if any, of the numerous small business owners, all of whom undeniably are discriminated against by this test, will be able to receive the full pension, despite a lifetime of hard work, a lifetime of investment, and a lifetime of risk-taking-the sorts of virtues that have made this country great, the sort of individualism, entrepreneurship and initiative which we in the Opposition are proud of and seek to encourage. Yet this Government, with its obsession with the public sector, its dismissal of our traditional values and traditional work ethic, has thrown all that out the window. In short, the Government is saying to these people: 'Drop dead'. It has washed its hands of these people. It does not want to know them. As a result of that shortsighted, narrow, ideological, blinkered view, the economy will suffer. It is only through a healthy, vigorous private sector that we ensure the growth and profit that create long term employment. There are three matters in relation to the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill that concern me. The first is clause 41, which amends a section in the Social Security Act that provides for the payment of the unemployment benefit to be postponed for a minimum of six to 12 weeks in certain circumstances. Those circumstances would be fairly well known to honourable members but they can be summarised by saying that if a person's unemployment is due to his misconduct as a worker the Department of Social Security can postpone a payment of unemployment benefit. Further, if in the opinion of the Director- General a person is a seasonal or intermittent worker, or the income of that person during a period of temporary employment is sufficient for the maintenance of himself and the persons who are ordinarily maintained by him, the Director- General can decline to pay the unemployment benefit for a minimum of six weeks to 12 weeks. This clause will give the Director-General far greater flexibility and far greater discretionary power. These changes will mean that payment of unemployment benefit can be postponed only up to 12 weeks at the discretion of the Director-General or his delegate. The simple fact is that this will become the norm. It waters down this proposition to a point when it will create what the Opposition believes is an unacceptable weakness. I believe that the changes will ensure that this provision in the Social Security Act will be used rarely. I think there are some dangerous implications in that. It appears to me to be an absolute abdication of responsibility by the Government. I have further concerns about clause 74 of the amendment Bill before the House. Clause 74 gives effect to the Government's respite care program, which was announced by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) on 11 April this year. The program introduces a respite care subsidy for eligible persons in eligible hostels. The problem here is that the subsidy will be paid to approved organisations. The definition of 'approved organisations' excludes hostels operated by organisations for profit. In other words, as I read the clause, a resident can obtain a respite care subsidy only if the hostel is run by a non- profit organisation. Therefore, any hostels or nursing homes run by persons for private profit appear to be excluded. I trust that the Minister will address himself to this matter in summing up. Again we see that the private sector is being disregarded. I have visited hostels and nursing homes which are in private hands. The stringent requirements on them by the Department of Health, the Department of Social Security and the State departments are extraordinarily high, and so they ought to be. If a private body or a private person is to run a hostel for profit it is incumbent upon the Government to ensure that the standard of care, the standard of nursing, the standard of accommodation, equates with that of government-run hostels. I do not argue that; in fact I strongly support it. Given that private organisations running hostels for profit satisfy those criteria-again I stress that they are very strict criteria-I do not believe that they ought to be excluded from receiving the respite care subsidy. Before leaving clause 74, which deals with the respite care subsidy, I wish to raise one small problem which a number of hostels have raised with me already in regard to this program, and that is the problem of empty beds. Some hostels have complained that they are ensuring that there are empty beds in the event that somebody wishes to take advantage of the respite care subsidy, but they believe that the beds are remaining empty for far too long while they have a waiting list. I realise that this is undoubtedly the crux of the problem when trying to provide emergency short term accommodation. I acknowledge that problem, but I wish to draw the Government's attention to the snags, if I can use that colloquialism, that have already appeared. I ask the Government to take note of that and always to be aware of it. I certainly do not have a solution off the top of my head, except to say that the situation obviously requires careful monitoring. In drawing to a conclusion I again add the Opposition's support to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), which gives attention to the fact that the Medicare levy has artificially reduced the consumer price index. Since so many pensions are automatically indexed to the CPI pensioners will lose out. I understand that the honourable member for Mackellar has presented to the House figures which show how much pensioners will be out of pocket as a result of the Government's fiddling, if I can call it that , with the CPI. The CPI as it stands is not a true economic indicator of the cost of living. I believe that this House ought to pass the amendment, which states very plainly: . . . the House expresses its concern at the plight of pensioners and beneficiaries whose incomes will be reduced as a consequence of the . . . reduction in the Consumer Price Index caused by the introduction of Medicare. This is an opportunity for those members of the Government who have spoken previously, who have hailed themselves as the saviours and protectors of the aged and the pensioners, to put their money where their mouths are, to show that they are not just mouthing pious platitudes which at the end of the day do not amount to anything. If they are really concerned about the plight of pensioners, if they are really concerned to provide in a proper, fair and equitable way for the aged people of our society, they will support that amendment, as will every member of the Opposition. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(11.20) —I do not want to dwell on the scaremongering tactics of the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran). Anything that he and his Party can do to worry retired people, to misrepresent a test which will hurt no one other than the very affluent, to increase misunderstanding among the aging, they will do. I can assure honourable members opposite that many farmers and others with relatively non-liquid assets are delighted with the Government's provision of pensions to be paid back by their assets. How on earth the honourable member can say that this Government is obsessed with the public sector yet asks for more money from the public sector for people not demonstrably in need, is quite beyond me. An important aspect of the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill provides for new respite care subsidies for people who are aged or disabled and are still living at home. Should these people require temporary accommodation in a hostel, the legislation allows a new subsidy of $10 per week per bed for up to two weeks and $50 per week for each respite care bed occupied from two to four weeks. The policy of this Government at election time included an incentive to keep people at home. Many people have always lived in a particular area. They know their neighbours and perhaps they have relatives in the area and for a whole range of reasons they would like to stay there. An old friend of mine is living at home but he has now reached the stage where he cannot bend over and cannot mow his lawns. All he needs is someone in the home for up to five hours a day; then he could stay there. When we look at the high cost of accommodating people in institutions and hospitals, surely it is cheaper to keep him at home. Yet this old gentleman has to make a decision. Will he try to stay at home and cope with a limited amount of home help or will he go into an institution for which he is not yet intellectually, and probably physically, completely suited? There are many other people who have retired in certain areas. I am thinking of areas such as the Mornington Peninsula in Victoria, the south coast of New South Wales in my electorate, the north coast of New South Wales and a whole lot of the coastal areas in Queensland and other States where people have gone to enjoy their retirement. But as they get older things can become tougher and less comfortable as frailty and illness often increase. The Government is to be congratulated on making this small move of encouraging people to live at home. This provision for respite care provides help not only for those people who would like to stay in their homes, in the area in which they have chosen to live , but also for the carers of the people. It helps give them a break from the rigours of caring for those they love. It also helps prevent the sort of thing I was talking about-premature admission to institutions. I believe that there is a lot more to be done, but the Government is to be congratulated on facing the need of people to stay where they are if at all possible, not only because it is socially better for them but also because it often ends up being cheaper. We will have increasing numbers of retired people. As we face the challenges of new technology and the challenges of early retirement, more and more people will be retired and this will become a bigger problem. So it is of economic importance for the Government to consider provisions which will keep people at home. The Bill provides for two rates of subsidy-$10 a week for each respite care bed occupied by an eligible person or persons for at least one day but for not more than 14 days in any four-week period ending on a prescribed date; and $50 a week for each respite care bed occupied by an eligible person or persons for more than 14 days in any four-week period ending on a prescribed date. The Government considers that this initiative will increase the options of the frail aged and disabled people who wish to live in the community rather than go into hospitals and other institutions permanently and will assist in relieving the burden of community care which falls on relatives and friends. This alone makes the legislation well and truly worth while. I am pleased to support the legislation. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(11.25) —I am very pleased to enter into the debate and to follow the theme expressed by the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) about elderly people being cared for in their homes. I said in the last Government that I thought, and I still believe quite firmly, that there should be a portfolio for the aged, with a Minister and a department specifically responsible for the aged. I think we only just touch the surface. Many of us do not really understand-I know there are many who do-what it is like to grow old, the problems associated with it, the problems that arise when one loses a partner that one has had for many years and all the other problems that are associated with it. One of my daughters nurses in a geriatric hospital and another daughter used to do so but has given it up. They tell me about the extreme problems-- Mr Cohen —She will be able to nurse you soon. Mr GOODLUCK —Yes, they will be good for me, as the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment said. They tell me about the sad problems that are associated with growing old. At times when a person goes into a nursing home or a hospital that is the last time that person sees any of his or her family. We get into an area in which we do not really need the advice of some of the theorists. They probably know everything in theory but they have never really been involved in the problems of the aged. They seem to think it is all a matter of statistics but it is not; it is far deeper than that. Some people grow old very early, some have had a very hard and sad life and when they reach retirement they do not seem to have anything at the end of the tunnel. Some do not want to participate in organisations for the aged, et cetera. It is a vexed, complicated problem and I think that politicians on both sides should be ashamed at times of the fact that they use the aged for political motivation. It is easy for the Government to say that the Opposition has used the assets test to drive into the community a feeling of fear, but it happened when honourable members opposite were in opposition. I remember it quite well because I was very heavily involved in the half-yearly indexation. Really, my outburst against the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) is unpardonable. I am not really one of those people who are vindictive and vicious; I calm down very quickly. But there is something about the honourable member for Lowe at times- not all the time-that seems to say: 'Look, it is all right for me to do it but don't you over there dare do it'. But we all have very good memories of the Lowe by-election when certain things were said about the assets test. The present Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) said: 'If we are elected we will not introduce an assets test'. That sort of thing goes on on both sides. I do not want to dwell on it because unfortunately it creates fear in the minds of the elderly. Many politicians, including me, sometimes do not understand what goes through the mind of an elderly person. One does not have to say anything but if the elderly get the feeling that somebody is going to tamper with their livelihood, to do certain things to them, as they get older it becomes more aggravating. Unfortunately, many of them worry about a dollar, about 20c, about 10c. Some of them put a little bit of water in the bottom of the bath because they are frightened to use too much hot water. I think all honourable members understand the point I drive at. I do not think enough care and attention has been given to the aged in Australia. I still do believe that there should be a Minister for the aged, specifically concerned with the aged and their problems, and a portfolio set up so that we can all devise a better plan to deal with the problems of the aged. Mr Cohen —Are you bucking for the job? Is that why you let your hair go grey? Mr GOODLUCK —That is probably so; but I still believe it. Now I touch on the family situation. In a very marginal electorate one starts to get involved with the problems of the family. One cannot throw stones, because Australia's biggest problem today is the breakdown of the family, for one reason or another. We have single mothers, separated parents, divorce, de facto relationships, and all the other associated problems. None of us can throw stones. However, all of us have to get involved. In a marginal electorate one does not just receive the problem and then write to the Minister who has responsibility for it and forget about it thereafter. One must get involved and one must understand. What is taking place in Australia today has been greatly aggravated by this breakdown. We have this debate on social security, and we discuss where the money should go to time and again. But we do not know how to counter the problem. Will more money erase all the problems? We all know that it will not do that. We know that we can give some families $X and they will still end up in disaster. All of us can be very hypocritical in talking about increased pensions when we really do not get to the nitty gritty of the matter. In my electorate of Franklin one is associated with the problem, unfortunately, day after day. One becomes probably the highest paid social worker in Australia. Unfortunately, that is what is happening to many politicians; that is all that we deal with, and it has an effect. Sometimes we hear hypocritical things said. People outside the Parliament talk about these problems. For example, I got very heavily involved in the lone father benefit. I thought that it was just a clear cut case of fighting for an increased benefit for a father who wanted to stay at home and look after his children. I thought that that was great. I fought hard for that benefit, like many other members. I do not wish to take more credit for it than anyone else. We all fought for it, thinking that it was an excellent idea. Wives who are deserted get a benefit, so we thought it would be an excellent idea that a man who wanted to stay at home and look after his children should get a benefit. It was fine; they got it. Many of them decided not to return to work but to stay home and look after their children and keep the family together. We all know that it is far better for a person to look after his or her children and keep them as a family unit. They will be far happier than they would be if they were put into an institution or dispersed into the community-we all know that that is taking place today-or if the parent shacked up with someone else in the hope that that would overcome the problems. But it did not work out that way. Many people in Hobart who got the benefit could not cope with just the benefit and looking after the children and staying at home, because they were not made for that. It is very important for us to realise that man and woman are completely different. That is why I am so anti some feminists. They seem to stereotype people by saying certain things, such as that certain people can go to work and so on. But the problem is far deeper than that. That is why I attacked so bitterly the Sex Discrimination Bill. I thought that many people behind the scenes were radical feminists who did not have an understanding of the family set-up, with all its frailty. That is why more research and effort by politicians should be put into this problem area of the family. Surveys have been conducted. I should like to cite a few facts that will illustrate my point. We have a massive problem. It will not go away if we just turn our backs on it. It will not be erased by the arguments about increasing pensions. It will not go away if we listen to some of the feminists who get involved in these discussions, who seem to be able to command the media people when they want to do so and seem to be able to direct governments in the way that they wish, when in fact we are the legislators and we should get more involved. We should be prepared to stand up for the family, with all its frailty , at every given opportunity, not to throw stones at broken marriages and so on- - Mr McGauran —It is not a moral question. Mr GOODLUCK —It is not a moral question. We should get more involved and know more about it, and then we might have a better understanding, discounting some of the pious words and arguments. We talk of poverty and of looking after pensioners. We politicians are sometimes condemned by people because they know what our salary is, they know all about us, they know exactly how much money we have, and they know what they are living on. It is useless for politicians to say that we are this and we are that when we have one State member of parliament who has successfully claimed as campaign expenses amounts for dry cleaning, replacement of an umbrella, his wife's hairdressing-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The Chair has been very tolerant during this debate. I suggest to the honourable member for Franklin that he should try to return to its subject matter. Mr GOODLUCK —The expenses included clothing, glasses, and broken sugar bowls during the campaign. How the dickens-- Mr McGauran —Who was that member? Mr GOODLUCK —I do not know. I do not want to name anyone. The point is that, if that sort of thing is taking place, people outside will say: 'What are they all about in talking about poverty and pensions when they can do such things?' The survey conducted throughout Australia from March to June 1982 aimed to discover the composition and characteristics of the modern Australian family. In conducting the survey, the Australian Bureau of Statistics distinguished between families and households. So, research is going into this matter and at least we shall have an opportunity of pinpointing some of the worries, and then we shall, I hope, be able to overcome some of the problems. I come to the assets test. The biggest mistake that governments seem to make is that they always tackle straightforward and simple matters but do not seem able to tackle complicated issues. They talk of the poor old aged, frail and unfortunate people who cannot defend themselves. Suddenly, there is the introduction of an assets test. We all know that it has been ill conceived. There is much talk of poverty and of genuine need, but considering the amount of money that is to be withdrawn from the aged and directed to the needy in Australia-there are many reports on the subject-one finds that it is always exaggerated by the opponents of the Liberal Party of Australia at elections. They seem to think that many Liberals do not care for the aged or the needy. We have all the parasites coming out of the ground who seem to say: 'That is the party for the blue chips, for the rich, for the big timers of Australia; they do not care about the aged, the sick and the needy, and they do not care and do not know what it is like to be poor, to be raised by a single parent or to be very poor when young'. That argument is always used-not always by Government party politicians-by these groups that come out of the ground. Many of them do not know what they are talking about. They increase the figure for those below the poverty level from two million to three million. When one is in government, the figure used is always very high, because these people seem to think that it is a lever that they can use to hit the Government. The assets test will take away certain money from the aged and direct it to the poor and the needy. I ask everyone to determine how much this will give to the needy of Australia. Some of the facts and figures are promoted by the opponents of the former Liberal Government. Mr Groom —Half a Kit Kat. Mr Hodgman —Thirty-six cents. Mr GOODLUCK —It is not very much. The trouble is that some politicians on our side seem to tune in with these people and seem to think that they are there to aid and abet us. They are not helping us; they are out to destroy us. If we think that we shall get back into government by getting involved with some of the trendy organisations, some of the organisations that would like to pull us down, we are mistaken. We must say exactly where we stand on social welfare issues and indicate by example that we do care. There is much talk about strategy and about how to win marginal seats. The only way to win marginal seats is to show the people that our hands are just as dirty as they would want them to be if we are to get involved in their problems. That is the only way that we, as a Liberal Party, will be able to get away from some of our opponents who seem to want to pull us down. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler)(11.40) —I was interested to hear the previous speaker, the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), talk about contesting marginal electorates, as it is rumoured that he will not run for his party at the next election, but that he will run on Senator Harradine's ticket for the Senate. So I suppose one could then judge whether he is sincere. I will address my remarks today to a couple of matters contained in this omnibus Bill relating to amendments to the Social Security Act and the Repatriation Act. It has been said by previous speakers in this debate today that the Government often-- Mr Goodluck —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I do not want to interrupt the honourable member for Grayndler but I am a little upset by his remarks that I will be running for the Senate. Why would I run on Senator Harradine's ticket? I will contest the seat of Franklin for the Liberal Party at the next election. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! Does the honourable member for Franklin have a point of order? Mr Goodluck —So all of this rot had better stop. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Franklin will resume his seat. Mr LEO McLEAY —Previous speakers have said that the Government has shown a callous disregard for the aged in Australia. They have said all sorts of things that they believe the present Government should do for the aged. It is rather interesting, of course, to hear them talk about things that should be done now. They had seven years in government in which to do something for the aged and they did precious little. As my colleague the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) said earlier today in the debate, if anyone put fear into the hearts of the aged about their bank accounts, it was Senator Chaney. When he was the Minister for Social Security he raised the question of how much aged people could have in their bank accounts. While members of the Opposition are now saying that the present Government's proposal to allow people to have $100,000 and their own home before their pension entitlements might be affected is rather mean, one ought to remember what was their proposal for an assets test. Their proposal was that if aged people had more than $2,000 in the bank, they would start to lose their entitlement. They know that that is true. They were not game to implement that test. But that was the test they came up with and that was the test that they were going to implement. If aged people had $2,000 in the bank the Liberals would have started to look at their pensions. I think that the present Government's proposal is fair and just. It is in my view an extremely generous and fair proposal that people can have $100,000 worth of assets and their home and still receive the pension. I am quite willing to support publicly that sort of government proposal. Let us look at some of the proposals contained in the legislation that is before us today. We should remember that the Liberal and Country parties had seven years in which they could try to do something for the aged in Australia, and they did precious little. The honourable member for Franklin, who has now left the chamber, said that he believed the Government ought to set up a ministry for the aged. He said that there ought to be a Minister for the aged. I had not heard him say that until today. It is nice to see that after seven years of Liberal-Country Party Government, he has found time to tell the present Government that it should have a ministry for the aged. I did not hear anyone in the Liberal Party make that suggestion when they were in government and I did not hear any Liberal Party Minister suggest that there should be a ministry for the aged. In fact, we saw, in the seven years of the Fraser Liberal Party Government, a quite significant disruption of programs for the aged because of the 13 different programs run by four different departments. There was a great splintering of the effort to assist old people, particularly the infirm aged in this country. The present Government has a co-ordinated approach about what should be done for the aged in Australia to provide them with some assistance. The Government is in the process of setting up an office of aged care services, the first time a national government has ever done that. Mr Carlton —You have had 15 months to do that. Mr LEO McLEAY —The honourable member for Mackellar bleats: 'Fifteen months later '. All that the honourable member for Mackellar can remember is that it is 15 months since the last election. While he was the Minister for Health he did nothing and in seven years the Liberal Government did nothing except to say that if pensioners had more than $2,000 in the bank Fred Chaney would be around to check them out. That was the sort of fear that it instilled in people, and it did nothing. This legislation will for the first time allow payments for respite beds. The Opposition says that we should be doing something to care for the frail elderly. In Australia, until this Government was elected, in the main old people had no choice if they became infirm except to go into a nursing home. They had no other choice whatsoever. This Government is instituting an element of choice. The respite care proposals are a most important element in that provision of choice. As the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) said in his second reading speech, a survey by the Australian Bureau of Statistics showed that there are three times as many frail aged people over 65 with a disability living in their own homes rather than in institutions. This Government wants to ensure that those people have the chance to stay in their homes rather than be institutionalised. I have never met anyone who was actually keen to go into a nursing home if he had a choice. Honourable members will recall that I was the chairman of a committee that spent a fair amount of time looking into programs for the aged. We brought down a report for this Parliament, many items of which have been picked up by the present Government and put into its aged care program . The respite bed provision is one of the most important provisions of the present Government's aged care program. It helps aged people and it takes a particular load off their families. One of the main problems with the institutional services that have been provided in Australia in the past and a feature of the nursing home benefits system that was controlled by my colleague the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) was that the previous nursing home system subsidised bed occupancy. It paid one for a body in a bed. It did not subsidise nursing home services per se. Therefore, that was an incentive for nursing home proprietors to have beds occupied in order to achieve maximum profitability. In fact, under the previous Liberal Government anyone who wanted to go home for the weekend to see his family or go on a holiday with his family had to get a certificate from the Minister, which was a terribly cumbersome bureaucratic approach. The present Government will now fund respite beds which will allow those people who are presently frail and in their own homes to go into a nursing home for a few weeks or for a month from time to time during the year. That will give them the chance to have some rest, or medication if they need it, and it will also give their families or the relation who is looking after them the chance to have some time to themselves. This program over the next three years will provide 1,350 beds at a cost of $3. 5m; not a great deal of money, but a very important move to assist a range of aged people. If we have 1,350 nursing home beds which are respite beds and if they are only used by people for a month of the year, we will provide a service to nearly 15,000 frail aged Australians for a small cost of $3.5m. This reform of the Hawke Government will be very much applauded by both aged people and their families. In the few moments left to me I wish to canvass one other matter which comes within the ambit of the responsibilities of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs ( Senator Gietzelt) and which I think he may like to take on board and consider in the next few months. I suggest that he have a look at those people who are presently eligible to insure their houses with the Defence Service Homes Corporation home insurance scheme. At present honourable members will be aware that all veterans who served overseas in a declared war zone and those who are serving members of the Australian defence forces are eligible to take up a defence service home loan. Once one takes up that loan one is eligible to enter into an insurance scheme somewhat like the scheme being run by the Commonwealth Banking Corporation for people who borrow money from that bank to purchase a home. Such people are allowed access to a scheme which enables them to insure their houses at quite competitive rates, rates which are much more competitive than those in the private insurance market. At present the only people who are eligible to take up that insurance are those who currently have or have had a loan with the Defence Service Homes Corporation . So it applies only to people who were able to borrow money from the Corporation in the first instance. At present about 200,000 people are insured through that scheme. However, a large number of people are eligible to take up loans, but because of the shortage of funds they have not been able to take them up. It is estimated that there are about 350,000 people in that category. That is nearly double the number who have loans. I think that it might be in the Minister's interests to have a look at extending this insurance scheme to all those eligible veterans and Service personnel. It would cost the Government nothing to do it, but would provide a considerable benefit to veterans and to defence personnel, who would then be able to insure their homes at a much cheaper rate. We always hear the insurance industry saying to the Government that it is very gung ho on free enterprise and very keen for competition. If a Government corporation can compete with private industry, I think that is good. I hope that the Minister will give consideration to extending this scheme to all eligible veterans so that they can participate in it. I thank the House for its time, and I congratulate the Government for its initiative in particular in bringing in the respite care provisions, which will be applauded by all those people who are doing their best to keep themselves in their own homes at present and who want to see out their years there. This will enable them to make that choice which is rightly theirs. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(11.54) —In 16 years in parliaments, both State and Federal, I have never seen a government which has been so heartless, so cruel and so vicious in its attack upon the elderly of Australia. Pensioners, superannuants and the elderly are a prime target of the Hawke socialist Government, which courted their votes with many promises in the run-up to the March 1983 Federal election. My colleague the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), in an excellent speech in this House last evening on the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill, pointed out how history shows the Australian Labor Party, or as I more accurately describe it the socialist Party, courts the votes of pensioners and the elderly and conned their support with all sorts of promises, which it then failed to deliver in government. It stands very much to the credit of the coalition parties that our record of fair treatment for the elderly and support for the aged is recognised as having been, since Federation, better than that which the pensioners ever received under the socialist governments led by Mr Chifley and Mr Whitlam and that now led by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). The Prime Minister paraded himself last year as the great champion of the pensioners. It was he who stood at the Sydney Opera House and said to the pensioners: 'We will not take any money out of pensioners' cheques'. It was the Prime Minister who said, with his distinguished father-I mean that sincerely-by his side: 'You can rest assured that we will not take any money out of the pensioners' cheques'. What will happen to the pensioners as of today? The fact is, as the honourable member for Mackellar pointed out, that we have had seven vicious attacks upon the pensioners of this country by the Hawke socialist Government. I remind honourable members that, before the ink was even dry on the Governor-General's writ appointing the Prime Minister and commissioning the Hawke socialist Government Ministry, this wicked and disgraceful Government decided it would move in an onslaught against the pensioners of Australia. It moved immediately to reimpose the income test which had been abolished many years before by a Labor Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam. It immediately broke its promise to lift the tax threshold, a promise upon which many pensioners were depending. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you know, if that threshold is not lifted to take inflation into account, thousands and thousands of pensioners who did not pay any tax under Mr Fraser will now have to pay tax under the socialist Prime Minister. What was the next thing the Government did? It moved down the track and announced last August that it would reimpose an assets test. Mr Goodluck —Shame! Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member for Franklin, a great champion of the pensioners, says 'shame', and how right he is! I was referring to an assets test which was abolished by the former Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser. I say in passing that Malcolm Fraser starts to look more and more like Father Christmas each day, when we compare his treatment of the pensioners with the treatment they receive from the socialist Prime Minister Hawke. What was the next thing the Government did? It said: 'We will tamper with the CPI'. It was the Fraser Government which brought in automatic indexation of pensions, recognising that, as the consumer price index rose, pensions should also rise to keep pace. Is that not fair enough, Mr Deputy Speaker? You are not yet of pensionable age and I say in fairness across this House that I hope you are not put on a pension in the short term. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Having experienced it once, I agree with you. Mr HODGMAN —Is it not a fundamental point that as the cost of living goes up so too should pensions? That was a Fraser Government initiative. We legislated to make it automatic. What happens under the Medicare racket? My colleague, the honourable member for Mackellar, calls it the 'Medicare fiddle'. I say it is the Medicare racket. If the Government were composed of a bunch of solicitors they would all be in gaol. Under the Medicare racket the CPI is tampered with because the Medicare element comes out. What will that mean to the pensioners of Australia? It will mean that as from November of this year the pension increase which would have been granted will be chopped by $2.15 a week in the case of single recipients and $3.58 a week in the case of married couples. That is a reduction of 2.5 per cent of the increase which would otherwise have come about. When we look at this change in terms of the total increase, the plain fact is that it is a cut of between 20 per cent and 40 per cent of the increase, depending on the level of inflation. As the honourable member for Mackellar said last night in his outstanding contribution on behalf of the pensioners of Australia, if we take it further to May 1985 and no adjustment is made by this wicked Government, the effect will be compounded and we will have an additional loss of $2.22 a week for single pensioners and $3.70 a week for married couples. So it goes on. As the honourable member pointed out, and I want every pensioner in Australia to realise this: Effectively, the pensioners of Australia will be making a contribution of $213m to subsidise the Medicare racket. If that is not bad enough, let us look at the assets test. I am conscious that the Bills in respect of that are not before us and my remarks therefore will be abbreviated. What sort of heartless, cruel and vicious government is it which says without any mandate-nothing was said about this in Mr Hawke's policy speech -that it will impose an assets test which, on its own admission, will cost the revenues of Australia $30m in the first year, which will persecute and terrorise not 25,000 to 50,000 but, I say, between 50,000 and 100,000 Australian pensioners, and which will require the hiring of an additional 1,500 public servants or, if you like, inspectors, or, as somebody said the other day, storm troopers, to check on the assets of the pensioners of Australia? That checking will not be done just in this country, because this cruel, wicked and vicious Government has not said whether it will include assets owned by pensioners overseas. Where is the justice in this situation? Three young Italian people ask their elderly parents to come out from Italy to spend their last years in Australia. The elderly parents come, leaving two of their children back home in Italy. The elderly couple depend on the pension. They have a small, modest home in Australia, which they have bought. They have in Italy a little home in their names which the two children living in Italy will be able to inherit. Is that little home in Italy in or out of the assets test? Does the Hawke assets test mean that we will send inspectors to Italy and Greece to check out the value of property left back home? Does it mean that if an Italian lady of senior years leaves some jewellery in Italy to be worn by her daughters and daughters-in-law somebody will get a trip to Italy to check it out? This is not to be laughed at. Let me remind the House that 500,000 migrants-it is my honour to be the shadow Minister responsible for immigration-fled to Australia from totalitarian regimes which expropriated property and assets both before and after death. They are petrified, terrified, by what is now happening in Australia under the Hawke socialist Government. On a lighter note, Mr Deputy Speaker, like you, I get around the electorate as soon as Parliament adjourns. Last weekend at, I suppose, seven or eight functions I would have been seen by and would have seen hundreds, if not thousands, of my constituents. An old age pensioner, a bit of a card, a man with a good sense of humour like yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker, said to me: 'I want you to put up a trophy for a competition'. I said: 'Fair enough, Bill. What is the competition?' He said: 'We want to run in every senior citizens club in Australia a competition'-for which, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will put up a $10 trophy-'Pick the pensioner who is going to vote Labor at the next Federal election'. Although I am putting up a trophy, I am very doubtful whether we will find a winner. Do not let it be said that my friend the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard), for whom I have a deep affection and who is trying to interject, is a party to this cruel, wicked and vicious attack on the elderly. Why does the Hawke Government not pick on people its own age? What a lowly government it is! Here comes the socialist Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) into the chamber. He still will not tell the pensioners of Australia, particularly migrant pensioners , how many weeks widows will have before they need to dispossess themselves of the assets they inherit upon the death of their husbands. Death in any family is a traumatic experience. All we can get from this miserable Minister is a mealy- mouthed statement in the House yesterday that it will not be less than 12 weeks. He should go to some of the Sydney suburbs, to Carlton and to other suburbs of metropolitan Australia where there are large ethnic communities. I have had phone calls at my office in Hobart from leaders of the Italian and Greek communities. 'What is going on?' they say. Mr John Brown —Have Asians contacted you too? Mr HODGMAN —Indeed. As a matter of fact I had a letter from the Fiji-Australia Association only in today's mail. Do not worry about that. These people are saying: 'What is going on?' What a cruel and heartless government it is which says that when a woman's husband dies she had better get out of the home she has been living in and divest herself of the assets the husband left her. It says: ' We will not let you keep his motor car valued at $11,000. You can walk'. In 16 years in politics, as a State and Federal parliamentarian, I have never seen a government so callous in its disregard of people whose votes it courted. It went out for the pensioner vote. This Minister carries a very heavy moral responsibility because he was no doubt the architect of the vicious attack on the pensioners of Australia which the Prime Minister and his colleagues have perpetrated since they came to office. The Minister sitting at the table has a lot to answer for. The plain fact is that for ideological self-satisfaction he presses on with an assets means test which he knows will be a cost to the revenues of this country-$30m in the short term. I challenge that figure. On the basis of information supplied to me by a senior public servant, I put it to the Minister that the figure will be closer to $50m. I repeat: I reject his claim that it will affect only 25,000 to 50,000 pensioners. When he failed to lift the tax threshold he claimed that that would affect only a small number of pensioners. The plain fact is that 280,000 pensioners are paying tax this year under the Hawke socialist Government who did not pay tax under the Fraser Government. I repeat: Day by day Malcolm Fraser starts to look more and more like Father Christmas compared with the present socialist Prime Minister of Australia. Mr Ruddock —A man of compassion and understanding. Mr HODGMAN —Indeed, as my colleague, who has worked so hard for the pensioners for so many years, would know. It will be very hard to find any pensioners in Australia who will vote for the Hawke socialist Government at the next election. One of the interesting things is that pensioners remember, and they remember the statement made by the former Prime Minister of Australia in the last fortnight of the election campaign last year. Mr Deputy Speaker, you might remember it, because you keep very keenly abreast of public affairs, particularly a campaign in which you were involved. What was it that Mr Fraser said? He said: 'Put your money under the bed'. Of course, many people laughed at that at that time. They are not laughing today. I suggest that around Australia pensioners are burrowing under their beds with their money before the Hawke socialist Government gets its mean and miserable hands on it. Last year I called this Government a bunch of granny robbers. This year, as it goes one further step down this disreputable path, I call it a bunch of granny robbers and a bunch of grave robbers, because this is not just a capital gains tax, it is death duty through the back door. The Government is in power today not only because it did not say it was going to do this but also because it said to the pensioners of Australia: 'We will not take anything out of your cheques'. But it has. This Medicare racket is a straight out fraud. The Government is stealing $213m in pension increases which the elderly of Australia would have received had it not brought about this Medicare fiddle. Those are 213 million reasons why the pensioners of Australia will never again trust this Prime Minister and this vicious and avaricious Hawke socialist Government. It will not pick on someone its own age. Why does it not have a go at the 45-year-olds like me? Why does it have to pick on the 70, 80 and 90-year-olds? Mr White —Don't encourage it or it will. Mr HODGMAN —We may be down the list, but at least we can make it a fair fight. This cowardly Government says to people coming up to pension age: 'You have five years to rearrange your affairs'. What about an 83-year-old man who is blind and his 81-year-old wife who is in frail health and who, under this assets means test, this Hawke assets test, will lose their entire pension? What will the Government say to them? Will they be told to live off their family? They do not have any. Will they be told to live off charity; that the Salvation Army or the St Vincent de Paul Society will look after them? These non-government aid groups will find themselves overrun with requests for help and assistance as a result of what the Government is doing. To add to it the Government has made the legislation retrospective. To add to it the Minister will not answer questions in this Parliament. He ought to have the award for 'Hedger of the Year'. The socialist Minister for Health has hedged ; he has backed and filled. When will he give an answer as to whether assets owned overseas by elderly migrant pensioners in Australia are in or out of the assets test? When will he print the details of this wicked Hawke assets test in every ethnic language in Australia so that the elderly migrant pensioners can read in-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member for Denison did say that he was touching on these matters. I suggest that he get back to the amendments that are contained in this composite legislation. Mr HODGMAN —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I accept your ruling and I thank you for your tolerance. I will just finish my sentence. When will the Minister print the details of this wicked Hawke assets test in every ethnic language in Australia so that the elderly migrant pensioners can read in their original language exactly what the Government is doing to them? I commend to the House and to honourable members opposite-honourable and honest members opposite-the amendment which was moved so eloquently by the honourable member for Mackellar and which I had the honour to second on behalf of the pensioners of Australia. Let us, on a bipartisan basis, do the right thing by those great pioneers of Australia, the elderly, the pensioners and the superannuants. Let us acknowledge the veracity in the amendment moved by the honourable member for Mackellar. Surely Government members cannot all be so hard -hearted and cold. Honourable members opposite such as the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) cannot be as hard-hearted, cold and cruel as the Prime Minister is. Surely this amendment can have bipartisan support. Surely the Government can recognise its truth. I conclude by saying, and the words are blunt but they will have to be said in this form for the point to be made: Is it not an extraordinary coincidence that in the very week that this Government legislates to permit the sale of hard core pornography video tapes, to permit people to buy tapes involving necrophilia- which the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) says is doing something with people who are dead-it is also attacking the elderly? The Government is a granny robber, it is a grave robber, and in my opinion and in the judgment of the overwhelming majority of Australians it is now exposed as a bunch of fiscal necrophiliacs because it is not just going into the grave, it is going after the bodies. I put it to the Government that there will not be a single pensioner in Australia who will vote for this rotten, wicked and disgraceful Hawke socialist Government at the next election. On this issue alone it is doomed. The Prime Minister has shot himself in the foot. In fact, he has shot himself in both feet. The Government will be thrown out of office and the sooner the better for the pensioners of this country. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(12.13) —I support the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1984. We have just listened to another fiery speech from the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) which was, as usual, full of wind, full of rhetoric but lacking in substance. To coin a phrase, it accentuated the negative and eliminated the positive because it did not pay attention to the contents of this Bill. There was no attempt to look at the Bill as a whole. No attempt was made to look at what the Bill is attempting to do. The Bill reflects the concern of this Government in improving the welfare provisions of those in need. This Government inherited a social welfare system which was failing to deliver adequately the level of income and other supports required by the disadvantaged, the handicapped and the aged. This point has been well made by the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay), and I will not traverse the comments that he made in that area. However, I will refer briefly to the comments made by the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) who, unfortunately, is not in the chamber at this time. I feel he adequately explained to the House-and I pay tribute to him-the problems of the aged. I support the tenor of a number of his comments relating to their concerns. I also concur with his comments about the role of the parliamentarian being that of a highly paid social worker. I suppose that as a social worker by profession it is for me a natural progression to be in this House and to be involved in this debate. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), in his opening remarks, paid some considerable attention to the effect of the cost of living on pensions and this is so. Certainly the cost of living has had its effect on pensions. Since this Government was last in office the single rate of pension has fallen relative to community incomes and it is now about 23.25 per cent of average weekly earnings. As a government we are committed to maintaining a rate of pension of at least 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. In contrast the disposable income of taxpayers has generally increased in real terms but these increases have been less for families with children than for families without children. Before discussing some of the issues raised in this Bill I would like to refer briefly to the issue of the welfare state as a random redistributive device. It is sometimes suggested by the Opposition-I do not include the honourable member for Mackellar-that income redistribution resulting from the welfare state goes at times to people who do not deserve to have those benefits. This, I feel, is an unfair representation of the Australian social welfare benefit system. Podder and Kakwani's 1975 pioneering study, based on the Macquarie survey of 1966-68, established that cash benefits and transfer payments had a much greater equalising impact on income distribution than the income tax system at that time . Kakwani, in a more recent study-1983-based on the 1975-76 household expenditure survey, estimates that cash benefits reduce income inequality by some 15 per cent and that benefits are far more redistributive than taxes. It is also estimated that an additional 10 per cent of the population would be below the updated Henderson poverty line if there were no transfer payments. It is against that background that I wish to address my remarks concerning this Bill. The Government, within a few days of coming into office, showed where its concern was by raising the unemployment benefit for some 312,000 single adult unemployed. This was stage 1 of lifting the unemployment benefit to parity with the standard pension and was indicative of a new and fresh approach by this Government which contrasts with the niggardly and negative approach of the previous Government. Since then a succession of measures has been aimed at redressing the inequalities caused by the substantial shift of wealth and tax benefits to the highest income earners. Not least of these measures to have redressed the balance has been that of Medicare. I now turn to the amendment to the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954. This will provide for special short term accommodation for frail aged and disabled people in subsidised hostels. The honourable member for Grayndler has already praised the scheme. I feel that the scheme must be praised in this House by members of the Government. The respite care program would increase the options of frail aged and disabled people who wish to live in the community rather than to go into hospitals and other institutions permanently. Under the program it is expected that some 1,350 respite beds will become available over the next three years, half of which-that is 675 beds-will become available in 1983-84. In our election policy we promised to introduce incentives for the provision of suitable short time respite accommodation for people being cared for in the community so that their carers may have a break from caring for elderly, frail or disabled people. Research has shown that many sick or frail aged people prefer to live in the community, either with relatives or alone. This is their choice which we as a caring community should accept. It minimises their dependency and provides a better lifestyle for them as they remain in familiar surroundings and with people they know. The 1981 Australian Bureau of Statistics survey of handicapped persons in Australia showed that more than three times as many severe to moderately handicapped people aged 65 years or older lived at home as lived in institutions. Many more would make that choice and be able to improve their quality of life if community services were more available. However , a heavy onus is still placed on carers under the present system, as it will be in any future system. It seems the heaviest burden will be placed on relatives and friends. The alternatives to these proposals, to these supports in the community, are permanent and premature admission to institutional facilities or acute hospitalisation, often to costly private hospitals. In order to qualify for the subsidy hostels must maintain beds for the purpose of providing respite care services. Hostels with up to 50 beds would be expected to keep one bed for respite care and hostels with over 50 beds would need to maintain two respite care beds. Hostels will be subsidised $10 a week for respite care provided for 14 days or less in a four-week period and $50 a week if care is provided for 15 days or more in the period. A number of other amendments in the Bill are worthy of note by the House. The first one is the supplementary rent allowance which will be paid to a sickness beneficiary without dependants who is hospitalised. This will assist such people to meet rent payments while in hospital and to secure continued tenancy. In the past I have known of persons coming out of hospital, finding that they are homeless and having to seek alternative accommodation at a time when they are not in a position to walk around the community in order to find such accommodation. Another amendment will remove the anomaly under the benefits income test where in the past the total benefit received by a married couple with private income- both of whom are entitled to benefit in their own right-can be significantly less than when only one spouse received the combined rate of benefit. The amendment will ensure consistent treatment for pensioners. In general, the amendments contained in the Bill are indicative of the attitude of this Government towards assisting those most in need. As I said at the beginning of my speech, this Bill reflects the concern of this Government to improve the welfare provisions of those in need. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(12.25) —In addressing the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill I think the first thing that should be said is that it does contain some very sensible amendments which will go some way to easing problems for members of the community. However, the Bill is fiddling around the margins to a large extent on the question of income support, particularly retirement income support. The question has to be asked yet again why the Government does not address this question as a whole. That is a matter to which I will come back in a moment. But it is ad hockery. What is happening, particularly with regard to the assets test announcement in the last few days, concerns old people. Old people do not know what is coming next. They are battening down the hatches and reaching out for advice and support. As an indication of that I mention that in one day before lunch time I had 40 phone calls to my electoral office from older people asking what was going on and what would happen next. I commend some of the provisions of this Bill. For example, I commend that clause concerning the supplementary rent allowance for those who are hospitalised with no dependants. This problem will be addressed. Such people have been penalised in the past. In the past they have had to maintain the accommodation in which they were living and to which they will return. Those premises still have to be secured. I think this provision is an equitable one. In regard to lump sum payments, people who received their lump sum superannuation in instalments have been penalised in the past. I think it is also a sensible amendment to put them on the same footing as people who get their lump sum superannuation in one go. It is a great pity that the question of lump sum superannuation, as a whole, is not addressed in such a sensible way. The tax on lump sum superannuation-the tax introduced by this Government-is discouraging people from looking after themselves. Why should there not be some choice in this area for people who want to enter into schemes which give them a lump sum payment or which give them a pension? The Government will insist on dragging everyone into the one mould. This is the philosophy that dictates the Government's approach to the lump sum superannuation question. There are members of the community, particularly servicemen, policemen and teachers, who move constantly during the course of their career. They need that lump sum to re- establish themselves in normal civilian life when they have to retire. Without that lump sum they will be grossly disadvantaged. The provision to change the existing legislation which denies people who leave a job, for one reason or another but without sufficient reason, benefits for six to 12 weeks is, I think, a mixed blessing. I understand why it is being brought in. No doubt many people in the past have been penalised because they could not get the unemployment benefit for a long period. My concern simply is this: Will it not encourage the irresponsible to leave jobs or to manufacture reasons for being sacked from jobs, maybe very frivolous and flimsy reasons, just because they are bored? Will they leave, knowing that they can get the unemployment benefit immediately if they tell a story sufficiently convincing to the Director -General of Social Security? There will be a lot of such people. There will be people who will manufacture those reasons. The Director-General of Social Security obviously, even with the greatest delegation, will not be able to address himself to all those people frivolously claiming the benefit immediately . I think that we will have to face up to that concern. The remote area allowance provision is sensible in that it will remove discrimination against people who live in remote areas. I particularly applaud the supplementary rent allowance, which will be given to those who live in caravans, of whom there are many, or houseboats. Some live there through choice and some because literally they have nowhere else to go. In the past they have been disadvantaged because they have not received a supplementary rent allowance . I am very pleased to see the introduction of a supplementary rent allowance because I know that so many constituents in my own electorate have suffered as a result of the lack of such an allowance in the past. Respite care, which the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard) and other speakers have mentioned, is to be commended. Keeping people in their homes as long as possible is something that we as a community should be encouraging. This Bill raises some other questions. One such question is the distinction between benefits given to married and unmarried women. The Government has made a lot of noise recently about and introduced many Bills to support the elimination of discrimination against women on the grounds of sex or marital status. We have a real problem, a social problem, whereby a man and a woman can live together and both be entitled to and receive unemployment benefit, for example, because there are not enough inspectors to go round checking-I suppose we do not really want it-to see exactly what are the circumstances under which they live. Yet when the income test is applied to a man and woman who are married where the husband only is working, the woman is discriminated against as she is not entitled to receive unemployment benefit. I am not seriously suggesting that all married women should get unemployment benefit, but there is an anomoly. One of the reasons more and more people are choosing not to get married is that they see themselves as being financially disadvantaged. It is not an easy problem to overcome. It is happening increasingly all over this country. Unfortunately, the effect is to downgrade-in many younger people's minds, anyway-the institution of marriage, which I think is a sad reflection on the sort of approach we are taking to marriage in this country. In some ways it is an attack on the family. This legislation, as good as it may be, is really only tinkering with the question of income and support, particularly retirement income. It is very difficult to understand why the Government rushes in, for example, with an assets test when the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare is examining the whole question of retirement income and is due to report in August on the very question, the broad question, to which the Government should be addressing itself. Why would the Government rush in with yet another assets test, having abandoned that which it introduced in September last year because it was unjust and unworkable, and put in place another scheme, the broad outline of which appears to be equally unjust and unworkable? If the sorts of questions that I am getting in my electoral office and that other members on this side of the House-and I have no doubt members of the Government as well-are getting from older people in the community are any indication of community feeling, why has the Government abandoned one unworkable test and put in another? The only reason can be that the arrogance of the Government has now become paramount. It believes that it can walk on water. It abandons one scheme, introduces another unworkable scheme and discriminates against the aged. The Government has the wind in its sails and does not give a damn. We are seeing an attitude that became predominant during the Whitlam years , and look at what happened to that Government! The same thing will happen to this Government if it continues to disregard the feelings of a significant and growing proportion of the Australian community. There are one and a half million age pensioners. That percentage of the community will continue to grow. There is widespread concern and confusion out there because of the arrogance of this Government. In simple terms, it seems to me that there are two ways to approach the question of retirement incomes. One way is to institute an income and assets test, which is proposed to be set in place. The other way is to look at a contributory scheme for people during their working lives so that everyone at a certain age and under certain conditions is entitled to some benefit without the hassle of inspectors and declarations and all that goes with the current income and assets test. It is not an easy question, but I put it to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the Government is going down the wrong path. Can we as a community afford to keep rummaging through the lives of elderly people, peering at and assessing their income and assets, at a time when they should be entitled to some peace, dignity and certainty that the income on which they have planned will be there? They should not have to pick up the paper and find that yet another test is being instituted with all the concern and confusion that that brings. On this side of the House we are often accused of being silvertailed Liberals who do not understand the problems of the aged. It is an accusation that I reject out of hand. People on this side of the House, as do people on the other side, know only too well the problems of the aged. But the difference in our approach is this: We are also concerned about the creation of wealth so that it can be redistributed to those in need, whereas the philosophy on the Government side is simply to redistribute the existing wealth. That is a dead end, because by doing that the people who create the wealth will eventually give up as it is not worth the candle. If the Government continues with its philosophy, it will be left to redistribute nothing because there will be nothing to redistribute. Let me turn to the matter of repatriation benefits. The Government is addressing this problem and we will be debating it later this week. I am very pleased that the Government is addressing the problem and I congratulate it for doing so. In broad terms, those who are in receipt of repatriation benefits or who are claiming repatriation benefits have to wait an extraordinary amount of time to receive them. I believe that the system which the Government is introducing will reduce that time. It is a major problem at the moment. At the end of March there were something like 1,205 outstanding new claims compared to March last year when there were 684, that is, double. This year appeals to the Repatriation Commission, assessment cases before the Repatriation Tribunal-one could go on and on-are almost double what they were last year. The waiting times are even worse. Let me take the most extreme example. The average waiting time for someone appealing to the Tribunal is 600 days. The reality is that many veterans, because of their age, die before their claims and appeals are heard. So it is a major problem. It has been growing. I am glad to see in the Bill that we are discussing that those repatriation beneficiaries are being brought into line in respect of the social security benefits which the Bill also introduces. For goodness sake, let us address this problem. If what the Government is proposing does not work, let us make sure that the legislation is amended to make it work. We cannot go on and on denying benefits to veterans because of the extraordinary delays being experienced in that Department. In conclusion, I congratulate the Government for some of the measures which are being introduced in this Bill which will help a lot of people. I urge the Government to take a broader look at the overall and broad question of income support, particularly retirement income support, to wait for the Committee to report and not to rush in with something as disastrous as the assets test is proving to be. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(12.41) —I support the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill before the House. The debate has been fairly wide- ranging. I would like to address a few of my remarks to some of the issues that have been raised by Opposition speakers and, in particular, refer to their frequent comments concerning the assets test. Yesterday the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) mentioned Medicare and the medifiddle. There is no doubt in my mind, in the minds of all Government members and, indeed, in the minds of many members of the community that members of the Opposition have, for some months, been embarking on a deliberate and premeditated campaign to create fear and anxiety amongst our elderly people and particularly amongst our pensioners. They have done that consistently throughout the whole of the debate on the assets test. We have heard some amazing claims by Opposition speakers in this debate that the assets test will have enormous effects on many pensioners. The simple fact is that the assets test that we announced last week will affect very few pensioners throughout Australia. In fact, in answers to questions yesterday, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) advised the House that it was expected that some 25,000 social security pensioners and some 15,000 veteran pensioners might be affected by the test. That is a very small proportion indeed of the total number of pensioners. The honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) in his comments just some moments ago suggested that he has had more than 40 phone calls to his electorate office in the past few days concerning the assets test. He suggested that this was experienced by Government members. I can assure him that it is not. If he were doing a proper job in his electorate, keeping his pensioners informed of the policy of the Government he would not have 40 pensioners ringing his office in a confused state. I am sure that the 40 pensioners after they rang him went away more confused than before. I have had two phone calls to my office in three days concerning the assets test. I am in one of these electorates which members of the Opposition said would be devastated in the next election because I have a lot of farmers in my electorate. I have never heard such rubbish! A total of 40, 000 pensioners throughout Australia might be affected by this test. Mr Ruddock —You are gone. Mr BRUMBY —We will see about that. It is worth putting in context some of the remarks that have been made about this campaign by the Opposition-a rather futile campaign I might say-to invoke fear and anxiety amongst our pensioners. Perhaps the most relevant comment on the assets test was made by Professor Gruen . He stated: . . . an unholy alliance of greedy, unrepresentative spokespersons for some pensioner organisations and of the Federal Opposition to frighten those Australians receiving pensions. That is Professor-- Debate interrupted. 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 for Bendigo will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. I refer to the Minister's answer yesterday to my question regarding how long the Government will give recently widowed pensioners to adjust their assets. Will the Minister tell the House when and why the Panel of Review of Proposed Incomes and Assets Test conceded that exemption of the home might justify a reduction of the period of compassion to less than 12 months after a pensioner is widowed? Dr BLEWETT —As I pointed out yesterday, the operation of the present income test provides a 12-week period for adjustment in relation to this matter. In our original assets test there were similar provisions in relation to assets. Yesterday I made the unequivocal declaration that we would not have a period of less than 12 weeks, that is, less than the present period for the incomes test, when this occurs. I did say that we would look at representations in relation to this matter before the Bill comes before the House. As the Bill is not even before the House I have, over the last week, done my best on the information we have at this stage to provide a broad outline of the assets plan. I said about this very point yesterday that the details would be provided in the context of the Bill being brought into the House. Let me say something else about the whole form of the attack of the Opposition on these proposals. The Liberal Party of Australia is the Party which, for seven years up to last March, believed in needs based welfare. For almost seven years that Party denied unemployment beneficiaries under 18 years of age any rise whatsoever in their benefit. When they were asked why, what did they say? They said that benefits and pensions should go only to those in need. Again, for almost seven years the previous Government refused to index the benefits paid to adult single unemployed beneficiaries. What did it say when we asked them why? It said benefits and pensions should go only to those in need. That Party devised the most intrusive test into the sexual relations of de facto couples, single parent beneficiaries and unemployment beneficiaries that this country has ever seen. What did it say when asked why? It said that benefits and pensions should be paid only to those in need. We know where that Party stands now. Of course it believes in a needs based welfare system, but only for the poor and the underprivileged. The poor and the underprivileged should be subjected to any tests that that Party believes desirable, but if it is suggested that asset rich pensioners, particularly asset rich farmer pensioners, should be tested, that is something that cannot be done. There is a term for those kinds of double standards. What we have on that side of the House at the moment is an Opposition which is simply a masquerade for organised hypocrisy. Mr GRIFFITHS —Can the Minister for Finance confirm that, since entering office, the Labor Government has increased spending substantially in a number of areas and that there is talk of more new programs for 1984-85 in addition to a promised tax cut? Can the Minister say how the Government has controlled growth in outlays to date and how it will continue to do so and avoid growing deficits? Mr DAWKINS —I remind the House that, since this Government came to office, it has set about the most thorough-going redirection of public expenditure which has ever been undertaken by a government. What we were confronted with at the time of the change of government was a very dramatic expansion in the growth of outlays. Indeed, in 1982-83 we had seen expenditures grow by 18.5 per cent during a desperate spending spree on the part of the Fraser Government, just before its death throes. So we were confronted not only with a prospective deficit of $9.6 billion in 1983-84 but also with the prospect of that growing even further in 1984-85 unless we took the action we decided to take in the 1983 -84 Budget. We were able to cut out and redirect $1.2 billion worth of program expenditure to reflect more accurately the priorities of this Government and redirect funds into the areas of housing assistance, community employment programs, health assistance and the like. At the same time we were able also to eliminate $0.6 billion worth of tax expenditures which had been provided mainly to the friends of the Liberal Party of Australia. As a result of this approach we were able to reduce substantially and bring under control the growth in outlays in 1983-84. As a result of this clear-sighted approach to public expenditure we are ensuring that the taxpayers will get value for money. We recognise and insist upon a creative and productive role for the public sector, but we want to ensure that there is an absence of waste and that public expenditures go into areas of greatest need and achieve important social and economic priorities. As we approach this Budget and as we approach the question of making our expenditure decisions for this year we will be taking the same kind of approach to expenditure priorities. In the 1984-85 Budget we will be aiming at not only a reduction in the size of the deficit and the provision of worthwhile tax cuts but also a reduction in real growth in outlays for the first time in four years. Mr PEACOCK —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security to the fact that over one-third of the members of this Hawke Ministry failed to correctly fill in their pecuniary interest forms and were not penalised in any way whatsoever. Will the Minister assure the elderly of this country that no pensioner who fails to correctly fill in his or her assets test form will be put in gaol, as is the current intention of the Government? Dr BLEWETT —Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I have complete confidence in the honesty of pensioners in filling in these forms. Under the present system in relation to income tests, where people make errors which are not deliberate, these are treated with complete tolerance by the Department of Social Security. We will adopt exactly the same procedures in relation to these matters. It is only where there are efforts to deliberately disguise information or knowingly to provide information that is known to be false that action will be taken. On the whole we are quite confident that the great bulk of pensioners will be able to provide the information and, having confidence in their honesty, we believe that in nearly all cases that information will be perfectly acceptable. Mr JACOBI —Will the Minister for Foreign Affairs inform the House of the action he took during his recent visit to Moscow to register the deep concern of the people of Australia at the inhuman denial of human rights by the Soviet authorities to the Nobel Prize winner and peace campaigner, Dr Andrei Sakharov, and his wife, Dr Yelena Bonner? Mr HAYDEN —I raised this matter in a quite unambiguous way with Mr Gromyko and in a much more public situation in Moscow a little over a week ago on the occasion of my recent visit. Before going to the Soviet Union I had made it clear through communication to the Soviet authorities, using our representative in Moscow, that I would be raising this matter. It was suggested that it was not desirable that the matter be raised and that there would be some objection to it. I made it clear that, as a matter of moral obligation, the people of Australia, including all members of this Parliament, would expect that I should raise the matter and that, frankly, I would find myself morally deficient if I were not to raise it. Accordingly, we proceeded with the intention to raise the matter. I raised the matter first in a quite public way in an address which I delivered at a luncheon which Mr Gromyko hosted for me. The address was rather extensively reported in Pravda. If I can observe, it was a much more extensive cover of an address by me than I have been able to achieve in Australia. However, I must also say that there was a delicacy of expression in the reporting that one does not usually discover here. For instance, it said, in truncated fashion: Further, Mr Hayden touched on the problem of human rights in the usual way of the Western countries. He set out the well-known Western position on negotiations on nuclear arms, claiming that the United States and Western governments wanted the achievement of an agreement on curbing the arms race and detente. I should add, in fairness to Australian journalistic standards, that although the coverage was somewhat more extensive than that which I usually enjoy here, little bits were left out here and there. The following is one of them. More pertinently to the matter the honourable member for Hawker has raised, I said: It may be difficult to put old disputes to rest, and new disputes will certainly arise. Competition between us will certainly go on. Then this was omitted in the report: But this must not be taken to mean that, when we raise with you the issues in dispute between us, we are challenging the very foundation of the Soviet state or Government. For example, I will raise with you during my visit certain matters relating to human rights. My reason for doing so is not to use human rights as an instrument of propaganda against the Soviet Union, nor to interfere in the purely internal affairs of your country. That would be wrong. Rather, I will do so as a reflection of our belief that human rights know no boundaries. For an Australian Foreign Minister to raise these matters is a reflection not of antagonism towards you, but of the deeply felt concerns and values of my countrymen and women. It is for that reason that I have raised such matters in a number of other countries whatever their governmental or social system. I have made it plain that, if a Foreign Minister visiting my country were to raise human rights matters on the basis of genuinely held conviction, I would not reject that as an interference in our internal affairs. I would not like it-I do not invite it-but I support the right of anyone to pursue, with vigour, the cause of human rights. That particular quote ends there, although the deletion goes on for another page and a bit. When I met Mr Gromyko I put to him directly the concern of this country, this Parliament and this Government. It was made clear to me on the part of Mr Gromyko that it was not a matter he wished to have pursued in discussion, that the Soviet attitude is that Soviet law applies to Soviet citizens, that it is the sovereign right of the Soviet Union to determine according to its laws how Soviet citizens will be dealt with and that it was an unwarranted and unacceptable intrusion from other countries for them to seek to raise matters relating to Soviet citizens. I equally firmly pointed out to him that in the matter of human rights there are obligations on all member countries of the United Nations incumbent from the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but that, more than that , according to the standards that we accept, the philosophy that guides us, there are things such as natural law and natural rights which rise above the codification of any laws by any sovereign country, and should a sovereign country codify laws which breach those principles we believe the natural law and natural rights rise above what has been done by government. That matter was persisted with quite firmly. I would have wished that the resolution of this House of Representatives had then been carried with unanimous support from all corners of the House. I would have conveyed that to Mr Gromyko. I understand that the Senate will be moving to discuss a matter similar to that which was discussed in this chamber on the matter of Andrei Sakharov and his wife, Madam Bonner. I have no doubt that the outcome there will be similar. I understand that the Prime Minister's attitude is that the unanimous attitude of both Houses of this Parliament should then be conveyed to the Soviet representative in this country to be passed on to the Government of the Soviet Union. I conclude by saying that there is no doubt as to Australia's attitude- not just my attitude but the attitude of all members of this Parliament and the Australian community-on this matter and related human rights matters so far as the Soviet Union is concerned. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. In view of his advocacy in this place as to the equity of the new proposals relating to the assets test, I wonder whether he would advise the House, in the light of the comments yesterday by the Minister for Primary Industry about the impact of the assets test on farmers, how the ability to deed property to family five years before pension eligibility and still obtain a pension will help those farmers who are seeking a pension now, how it will aid widows who suddenly find themselves with major assets which cannot be quickly disposed of and how he expects farmers and their wives who take this so-called option to live for five years after they have given away their only income- producing asset. Dr BLEWETT —As I pointed out earlier this week in relation to a similar type of question, there are very clear hardship provisions provided under the legislation. Those are designed to deal with some of the very specific problems that have just been raised by the right honourable member for New England. Let me point out that in relation to some of these hardship provisions-they particularly relate in this case to farmers-where a person is unable or cannot reasonably be expected to raise money on a farm or where selling the farm would cause hardship, consideration will be given to exempting all or part of the value of the farm from the assets test. Where a farm may be in a pensioner's name but worked by one or more of the farmer's children for little or no wages for many years on the understanding that the farm would be theirs on the farmer's death, again, all or part of the farm could be exempted from the assets test. Where a farmer wants to remain on the land but generates only a small income from the farm, then the hardship provisions may also be applicable. So, first, there is a series of hardship provisions which will be embedded in the Act. Secondly, as has been pointed out by my colleague the Minister for Primary Industry, there are a number of strategies which farmers can adopt, and with which many of them are very familiar. I am talking about legitimate strategies. As has been pointed out, that may not be completely comprehensible to the right honourable member for New England. There are clearly a number of legitimate strategies which are open to farmers. Finally, there is the provision that a farmer may take out a loan from the Department of Social Security against the property, which would be dealt with on the settlement of the estate. Despite all the noise on the other side, that is simply an elective option. It is not something which farmers are compelled to do . It is one of a wide number of options that farmers can take under this legislation. As the Prime Minister pointed out the other day, it is much better to have this option, for which a farmer can voluntarily elect, than not to have it in the legislation. Mrs DARLING —I direct my question to the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment as the Minister responsible for consumer affairs. Is the Minister aware of the serious potential danger to children associated with plastic novelties that are now available in shops? What action is the Minister able to take to protect consumers? Mr COHEN —I am aware of the potential inhalation and ingestion hazard presented by some plastic toys that are now available and can be purchased in Australia. I do not want to emulate my colleague the Minister for Science and Technology too much, but I have in front of me a small plastic crocodile, which is bought in an egg. Mr Hunt —Did Barry Jones give it to you? Mr COHEN —If the honourable member will wait and hear what I have to say, he will find that this is a very serious question involving a dangerous matter. These crocodiles, or items of a similar nature, when placed in water, can swell to a size of several cubic inches. If a child swallows one of those, there is a fair chance that it will choke to death on it or get it into the stomach, which will necessitate possibly a major operation to remove it. This is not a matter of humour; it is a matter of tremendous importance. The product is extremely dangerous. It has been banned in Great Britain, Sweden, Thailand and a number of other countries. I have declared this toy to be unsafe under the provisions of section 62(d) of the Trade Practices Act. The ban will take effect when the notice is gazetted, which I hope will be later today or tomorrow. My Department is pursuing measures to ensure that suppliers immediately withdraw these items from sale and to check that any items sold to children do not pose a safety hazard. The measures include a constant checking by the Trade Practices Commission and investigation by all State authorities and consumer agencies. Mr TUCKEY —I inform the House that I have withdrawn from the Notice Paper question No. 1353 standing in my name. I now address my question to the Treasurer. In the light of his answer to me yesterday, when he said that Robert J.L. Hawke committed no breach of the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations as a result of his possession of $1,000 in United States currency, subsequently stolen from his suite at the Boulevard Hotel in Sydney, is it a fact that section 5(1) of the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations forbids unlicensed persons buying, borrowing, selling, lending or otherwise exchanging or dealing with foreign currency in Australia? As Reserve Bank policy in 1982 required proof of immediate overseas travel for issue of foreign currency, what legal process was available for Robert J.L. Hawke to acquire the $1,000 in United States currency, so mysteriously stolen, and for which the Prime Minister does not want a prosecution? Mr KEATING —I have nothing to add to what I said yesterday. I made it abundantly clear yesterday that the regulations do not impinge at all upon the holding of foreign exchange. They relate to the buying and selling of foreign exchange. The current Prime Minister, then as a private person, registered the theft with the police because he was holding that foreign exchange. As I said yesterday, as the honourable member well knows, there has been no breach of the regulations in holding that exchange. If the honourable member has taken the question off the Notice Paper he will have saved me and my Department a lot of time in answering questions which have no basis whatsoever. Mr BEDDALL —My question is directed to the Treasurer. I refer him to the national accounts figures released yesterday and, in particular, to the 2.3 per cent figure recorded for the non-farm gross domestic product implicit price deflator. Does the Treasurer consider this to be a true reflection of the course of inflation during the March quarter? Mr KEATING —There has been some confusion with the national accounts. I noticed on radio today and in the Press that a number from the accounts has been quoted, quite correctly-the gross non-farm product deflator, at 2.3 per cent-implying that there is an acceleration in inflation over the quarter. Whilst that figure is correct, it is erroneous in the sense that the Statistician says at item 9 of his explanatory notes, referring to the deflators: Movements in the levels of individual implicit price deflators can be greatly affected by changes in the physical composition of the aggregates and their components. That has happened on this occasion. Because the deflators are not fixed weight indexes but can produce quite substantial distortions as a result of changes in composition-changes in composition, I believe, in this case, coming from changes in stock levels-the compositional effect is roughly one per cent. Looking at the accounts yesterday in respect of gross fixed capital expenditure deflators for dwellings, non-dwelling construction and equipment, we find that the figures are 1.6, 1.7, minus 1.2 and 0.4, and for domestic final demand, 1.3. That tallies with the fact that a correction which would be made, appropriately, for these compositional changes, would reduce the gross domestic expenditure deflator, or the gross domestic product deflator, or the non-farm deflator, at 2.3, 2.4, and 2.3, by roughly one per cent. That tallies when one looks at the consumer price index before the Medicare adjustment at 1.2, which lines up with the 1.3 on the domestic final demand deflator, and on the national accounts for the year to March the gross non-farm product deflator is 7.7, which compares also with the CPI at 7.6. While there are some details to comprehend, I indicate that the gross aggregate deflators, registering 2.3 and 2.4, are, I am advised, in compositional terms overstated by about one per cent. In fact, we are really looking at about 1.3 or 1.4. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Foreign Minister. I refer to the very eloquent declaration of concern about human rights which the Minister has made and which I think would have found an echo on both sides of the House. In light of that, I ask the Minister whether he raised with Mr Gromyko the continuing Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. If so, what was the response? Mr HAYDEN —No, I did not raise it directly with him. But I publicly declared our condemnation of it in front of him at the luncheon to which I referred. So there is no doubt about our condemnation of the invasion of Afghanistan. We did not soft-pedal on it. I raised many other matters with him. But if the honourable member is keen that the matter should be raised with the Soviet authorities, I will ensure that our representative in Moscow reminds them of the fact that our opposition to it was clearly and unambiguously declared at the luncheon. But there is no doubt that it was registered. Mr SNOW —Will the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism inform the House of the success or otherwise of the recently launched domestic tourism campaign featuring Paul Hogan? As I represent an important tourist region, I would like him to say what impact, if any, this campaign will have on the Australian economy and what growth, if any, will be generated. Mr JOHN BROWN —I am very pleased to inform the House, and particularly the honourable member for Eden-Monaro, who quite properly pointed out that he represents an electorate with a very strong tourist component, that the recently launched domestic tourism campaign has been an overwhelming success. It pleases me to note that this Government is the first Commonwealth Government ever to involve itself in the promotion of tourism within Australia. It says something about the lack of understanding of the previous Government of tourism generally and particularly of the very important factor that tourism within Australia- which, I might add, is by far our biggest industry, employing 400,000 people-is 95 per cent domestically oriented. It is absolutely beyond me why previous governments have not developed tourism within Australia, but it is no surprise to most people who traced the course of the previous Government's lack of any sort of economic knowledge. The campaign which was launched in April was jointly funded. The Federal Government contributed about $1.5m. The States made a contribution of $0.5m. An amount of $1.5m was garnered from industry, which is another innovation because the previous Government could never get industry to involve itself in this sort of scheme. We have implemented a tripartite system. Across the political lines the States have co-operated effectively with the Commonwealth Government in promoting this very important campaign. The results are quite stunning. Honourable members may have noticed this morning in the Australian Financial Review a survey of airline movements within Australia in the first three months of this year. Passenger traffic is up by 5 per cent, which says something about what we are trying to do. I inform the House that if we can improve domestic tourism by just 5 per cent, we will immediately create another $600m worth of gross domestic product and 20,000 new jobs. I am sure that all members of this House will be pleased to learn that on the best estimates available 20,000 new jobs have been created this year in the tourism industry. The campaigns which this Government has started have generated the investment of $6,000m in new resorts, hotels and motels around Australia. Mr Tuckey —That is not so. Mr JOHN BROWN —I know that it will not interest the honourable member for O' Connor. He would not care if the record of unemployment fostered by the previous Government continued. We have created almost 200,000 new jobs in Australia in 12 months; 20,000 of them happen to be in tourism. I can assure you, Mr Speaker, and the House that this campaign, the first domestic tourism campaign undertaken by a Commonwealth government, has been an outstanding success. Mr Carlton —What about the depreciation allowance? Mr JOHN BROWN —That comment is so innocuous that I will not answer it. Let me say in conclusion that it is nice to find one area of interest within the economy which is likely to grow and which has support across the political lines , although probably this has not seeped through to the Opposition. At the conclusion of the meeting of the Tourist Ministers Council the other day in Adelaide the Premier of Western Australia, Mr Burke, who has responsibility for tourism in Western Australia, without prompting moved a motion congratulating the Commonwealth Government on its initiatives and leadership in tourism. Opposition members interjecting- Mr JOHN BROWN —The Opposition has not yet heard the punch line. The motion was supported and seconded by the Minister for Tourism in Tasmania, the Minister for Tourism in Queensland and Paul Everingham, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. Mr SINCLAIR —Will the Minister for Defence assure the House that productive land will not be acquired for an infantry training centre, artillery range and manoeuvre areas for the Services in New South Wales? If so, will he withdraw the contract now let to Dames and Moore until other more suitable land is available for consideration? Mr SCHOLES —I find the question quite interesting, especially as the right honourable gentleman told people outside the Parliament today that he had rejected the proposals for the artillery range. I think the House is entitled to ask the right honourable member to provide evidence that he had done so, because there is no knowledge of his rejection of it in the Department of Defence or the Australian Army. Mr Sinclair —I will be very happy to respond. Mr Speaker-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Is the Leader of the National Party of Australia raising a point of order? Mr Sinclair —No, he was asking me to respond. I was giving him the answer he sought. Dr Klugman —It could be in his diary. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr SCHOLES —I also suggest to the right honourable gentleman that, as he was a Minister in the Government which initiated this process, he would know that the then Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, the honourable member for Bass , and the then Minister for Defence, Mr Killen, approached the New South Wales Government and informed it in the strongest possible terms of the necessity for this project. I also point out to the House that the right honourable member for New England recently, in a radio broadcast, advised that he had not published the details of the proposals which he had received in November 1982, and had sat on them for five months-- Mr Sinclair —Because I rejected them. Mr SCHOLES —He did not reject them and he cannot show any evidence that he did. Now that he is in opposition he has a different view of his activities from that which he had in government. He is frightened of his constituents, from whom, as the Minister, he deliberately withheld information. The information on the designated sites which were agreed by a New South Wales and Commonwealth working party was provided to the then Minister for Defence and now Leader of the National Party of Australia, Mr Sinclair, in November 1982. Mr Sinclair —And they were rejected. Mr SCHOLES —The Leader of the National Party has the documents. Let him table the documents which show that he rejected the proposed sites. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I call the honourable member for O'Connor on a point of order . Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, I was going to raise the point of order that there are hundreds of people deeply concerned-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. There seems to be a habit of raising frivolous points of order which have no relationship to the Standing Orders. Following the next incident of that nature, I will name the honourable member concerned without warning. I call the Minister for Defence. Mr SCHOLES —The House should be fully aware that this project was processed to the extent of identifying the areas under study by the former Government, and none of the areas was withdrawn by the former Government. It should also be pointed out that, despite the right honourable gentleman's protestations now, his answer on a radio program a few weeks ago in Tamworth was that the areas under consideration were not announced because an election was pending and it might concern the people that their homes were in the investigation area. The facts of this matter are these: There is an urgent and pressing need, identified by the former Government when in office and when displaying some responsibility on defence matters, for areas to be available for the training of personnel in the handling of artillery which can no longer be fired on the range at Holsworthy because of its capability and the urbanisation of the area. Mr Peacock —Why do you have to take productive farm land? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr SCHOLES —You do not want to make yourself cheap by getting into this sort-- Mr Peacock —You could do it somewhere else. Mr SPEAKER —I warn the Leader of the Opposition. Mr SCHOLES —A clear statement on this matter has been in existence for 12 months . The right honourable member for New England did not even know that I had made the statement a year after I had made it, until it became a political football. Suddenly he is running for cover on decisions that he and his Government fully supported. Mr Sinclair —We did not. Mr SPEAKER —I warn the Leader of the National Party. Mr SCHOLES —He may have convinced himself that he had rejected it and forgotten to tell anyone else, but he certainly did not seek or have the agreement of the Government of which he was a member. The fact is that there are three areas under consideration. A report will be made by consultants hired to do the specific job of identifying those areas which meet the requirements of the Australian Army for training and for the relocation of the School of Artillery. I should indicate that there is both opposition and agreement to the Army training facilities proposal. I have seen at least 10 groups in the last two weeks supporting and opposing it. This Government has no wish to continue the uncertainty any longer than necessary, and the matter could have been five months further advanced had the right honourable member for New England not sat on the proposal for that period. We cannot finalise an area for study until such time as the consultants' report on the suitabilities within the criteria already laid down is received. It is not the Government's intention, as I have said on several occasions, to acquire prime agricultural or highly productive land. Certainly densely populated areas would be unsuitable if for no other reason than that we could not afford to acquire them because just compensation will and must be paid. If the right honourable gentleman were not so concerned about short term political gain, he might sometimes take into consideration the national requirements and the requirements of Australian defence and the responsibilities which one might expect from a person who purports to be the alternative Prime Minister of Australia, albeit a very thin alternative. The Government will process this matter as quickly as possible and will not be totally irresponsible by playing cheap politics like the former Minister, who was quite prepared to process the matter provided nobody knew about it before the election. Mr GORMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Administrative Services. I preface the question, which concerns the strike by Commonwealth car drivers, by expressing my appreciation and, I am sure, that of all honourable members for the Minister's action in having in place at very short notice replacement transport arrangements. Mr SPEAKER —I hope that the honourable member is coming to his question. That seemed like a pretty ample prologue. Mr GORMAN —Will the Minister inform the House of the circumstances which led to the present strike involving Commonwealth car drivers, the likely duration and extent of that strike and action taken to bring the strike to an early end? Mr JOHN BROWN —The strike by passenger drivers is confined to the Australian Capital Territory, I am pleased to say, and involves not only the drivers but also the supervisors. With regard to the preface to the honourable member's question, that credit is due not to me but to the transport officers, John May and Frank Stewart, who achieved a very quick and capable solution to the problem facing us all. The strike arises from a demand made on my Department by a group of drivers representing the other members of the union that a written undertaking be given that all appointments of driving supervisors come from the passenger driving staff. That is something with which I would personally have sympathy as long as the applicants were of sufficient merit. There are five vacancies for transport supervisors at the moment and negotiations have been going on to fill those positions. The recommendation about those positions made by a committee comprising representatives from the Public Service Board and my Department is that four of those positions should be filled from within the passenger driver complement and one from outside. I think that is a fairly decent and generous proportion of drivers achieving an increase in status. I have been assured that the recruitment and selection processes were in accordance with the due process prescribed under the Public Service Act, which provides for selection on the basis of merit. The strike action breaches an undertaking reached with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, including the Transport Workers Union of course, over the implementation of a 38-hour week. The demand at the root of this strike-that is, for a written undertaking that all positions of this kind be filled from within the passenger drivers staff- would constitute a breach of the Public Service Act, and we are not about to accept that. At this stage the TWU has indicated that the drivers will return to duty on the first shift tomorrow morning. Meanwhile, my Department is consulting with the Public Service Board on the matter and the best contingency arrangements possible at this stage have been put into place to ensure that members, senators, office holders and staff will be catered for in the best possible manner. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Industrial Relations Bureau annual report for 1982-83, the final report of that body. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —Pursuant to section 12DD(3) of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973, I present the Academic Salaries Tribunal 1984 review, together with the report of an inquiry into the phasing in of increases in academic salaries. Both documents contain reports and determinations by the Tribunal. Motion (by Mr West) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of the House, I present the report of the Australian delegation to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation General Conference 1983, together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) relating to the report. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report entitled 'Looking Forward' , a report on consultations concerning the recommendations of the Committee of Review of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Hodgman) adjourned. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Committee of Review of Private Overseas Student Policy reports parts 1 and 2 and appendices, together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) relating to the report. A limited number of copies of the complete report is available from the Table Office and printed copies of the full report are expected around the end of the month and will be made available to all honourable members and honourable senators. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr Hodgman) adjourned. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —For the information of honourable members, I present the reports on the review of data on atmospheric fallout arising from British nuclear tests in Australia and a report entitled 'The Indoctrinee Force', a note on the radiation levels experienced by its members in the Buffalo series tests conducted in 1956 at One Tree and Marcoo in the Maralinga Range, South Australia, together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) relating to the documents. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr Hunt) adjourned. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the right honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SINCLAIR —I do, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —The right honourable member may proceed. Mr SINCLAIR —During Question Time the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) alleged that the whole of the process of Army acquisition and the process that is now in train with Messrs Dames and Moore, the consultants, investigating four sites- three for the purposes of infantry and artillery schools and manoeuvre artillery range and one for a manoeuvre range of an additional size-were instigated by the Government of which I was a member and by me. The study by Messrs Dames and Moore was not before me at the time of the change of government. The study was commissioned by the Minister after his election. No proposition regarding the appointment of those consultants had been submitted to me. As the Minister indicated during his answer, the matter had been submitted to me five months before and I did not act on it for I did not accept that for the purpose of the manoeuvre areas those lands which had been submitted were the only ones suitable . Any one of the areas would be suitable for an infantry or artillery school. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The right honourable gentleman knows that he should not go beyond correcting where he has been misrepresented. Mr SINCLAIR —I am doing that, Mr Speaker. I think it is necessary that it is understood that I did not sit on these proposals because of a precipitate rush to an election in the manner of this present Government. The Minister, in his answer, suggested that I had sat on these proposals because of an imminent election and therefore did not process them. The reason why they were not processed was that they were not accepted. The Minister also alleged that I made a comment on a radio station, apparently in my electorate, that the reason they had not been processed was that it was before an election and apparently I did not want to arouse the ire of my local constituents. That too is false. I have at no stage made such a statement. My comments relating to these areas have always been that with respect to the artillery range and manoeuvre area I did not believe productive agricultural land should be used. I believed consultations should take place between the Federal Government and New South Wales to determine further areas of investigation. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Defence) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SCHOLES —I do. Mr McGauran —You ought to resign. You deliberately misled the House. Mr SCHOLES —If I were as dumb as the honourable member I would resign. Mr Speaker, during the answer to a question I stated that the areas which are currently under consideration were known in November 1982 to the then Minister. They were received in a letter from the Premier of New South Wales following Commonwealth-State consultations. I indicated that it was not correct that the right honourable gentleman had rejected those proposals. I also said that in a radio broadcast in Tamworth he had indicated that he had received these proposals too late for their release as an election was imminent. That is a matter of record. The facts are that the terms and conditions-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I think the Minister is now going beyond a correction of where he has been personally misrepresented. Mr SCHOLES —Mr Speaker, I suggest that, if the right honourable member is genuinely claiming to be misrepresented, and if he has all of the documents relating to this matter, he should table the document which indicated that he rejected the thing as he claimed. He cannot table it because it does not exist. Mr Spender —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. We are simply seeking to get the Minister to abide by your ruling and to present the document. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister has concluded his explanation. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the right honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SINCLAIR —Yes. The Minister for Defence has just repeated his assertion that in a broadcast I made some reference to the fact that I had deferred the publication of these references to lands for investigation for military purposes because of an election. That is not correct. I have acknowledged that I was aware of the sites. I have confirmed today that I believed them all suitable for a school area. I did not believe those sites submitted to me to be suitable for artillery range purposes. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —by leave-On this day 40 years ago Allied forces landed on the beaches of Normandy to launch the final phase of the destruction of nazism. Within a year, those forces, Soviet forces to the East, and the resistance movements in the occupied countries had liberated the people of Europe and brought peace to a devastated continent. Shortly afterwards the Allies went on to achieve victory in the Pacific and so brought an end to the carnage of the Second World War. But that end was achieved only after the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had opened humanity's eyes to the existence of a new and uniquely destructive instrument of war-the nuclear weapon. Since the end of the Second World War we have witnessed great changes in international affairs, the most positive of which has been the virtual end of colonialism and the emergence to independence and nationhood of hundreds of millions of people, many of them in the Asia-Pacific region. Certain essentials of the post-war system, however, continue to form the basis of the present world order. The United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the two powers which emerged pre-eminent from the war, have gone on to achieve unchallenged status as super-powers. Moreover, the system has managed for four decades to avoid a further outbreak of global conflict or open warfare between the major powers. We can all be thankful that since 1945 nuclear weapons have not again been fired in war. But if the peace has been kept between East and West, the East-West relationship has been at the best of times uneasy and difficult, and frequently tense and dangerous. Stability in Europe has not been matched in many parts of the developing world, where local wars have caused great misery to millions of people. Repression and the denial of human rights persist in many countries. And for forty years the peoples of the world have lived with the nightmare of nuclear weapons, whose number and destructive power have grown enormously. East-West relations at present are at a very low ebb. Arms control negotiations between the super-powers are in great difficulty. Their relationship is permeated with suspicion. The rhetoric surrounding it is potentially very dangerous. At the same time, the international arms race is proceeding apace at the staggering cost of some $700 billion annually or well over a million dollars a minute. This represents a scandalous waste of resources and human ingenuity. None of us needs to be told how the world, particularly the poorer countries, could benefit from a redirection of this military expenditure into peaceful and productive development. Some 80 per cent of the expenditure on arms is on conventional weapons. In the thermonuclear age, we can easily overlook the horrifying destructive power which now hides behind that anodyne term. The bloodshed in the Gulf War and the destruction of sophisticated modern warships in the Falklands war should remind us of its sinister implications. But above all, it is the rapid technological development and build-up of nuclear weapons which, combined with the deterioration in East-West relations, has quite understandably created the current mood of anxiety and anger amongst ordinary men and women around the world as well as here in Australia. On Palm Sunday, a few weeks ago, some 250,000 Australians marched in our cities to support the cause of peace, disarmament and arms control. They marched to express the increasing concern felt about the threat of nuclear war. Those who marched in Australia joined the countless others who have marched recently in Western Europe and the United States. There is also no doubt that, if the governments in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe permitted genuine freedom of expression, there would be millions on the streets there, as well. The concern of the marchers for peace, the strength of their feelings, and the very weight of their numbers must be taken into account by all governments. I have made it clear that we see a very sharp distinction between nuclear weapons, which we abhor, and nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, which we support, and I shall return to this theme in the course of this statement. But we certainly understand and identify with the aspirations of the Australian people for peace and disarmament and these aspirations inspire our policies. Academician Andrei Sakharov, a key figure in the development of Soviet nuclear weapons, whose present plight was the subject of an important motion passed unanimously by this House last week, is an outspoken advocate of the need for arms control agreement between the super-powers. Pointing out that thermonuclear war cannot be considered a continuation of politics by other means, according to the Clausewitz formula, but rather a means of nuclear suicide, Dr Sakharov has identified the consequences of nuclear conflict in stark terms which will move concerned people on both sides of the ideological divide. He identified it as follows: A complete destruction of cities, industry, transport and systems of education, a poisoning of fields, water and air by radioactivity, a physical destruction of the larger part of mankind, poverty, barbarism, a return to savagery, and a genetic degeneracy of the survivors under the impact of radiation, a destruction of the material and information basis of civilisation. Although Australia might appear remote from the areas of the globe where any nuclear war might mainly be fought, it would be unrealistic to suppose that Australia would not be profoundly affected by such a conflict. The Government believes that it is therefore in Australia's vital interests, as a country which wants both to survive and to be a constructive member of the international community, to do all we can do to minimise the prospects for nuclear conflict. We have a modest and realistic evaluation of our influence on the super-powers and other major powers but we will use it whenever we can. The recent overseas visit by my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), who will follow me in this debate, is an effective example of what we are about. The nuclear weapons states alone do not have the right to determine the destiny of mankind. The fact that their calculations-or indeed their miscalculations- could have terrible consequences for the rest of us gives us the responsibility before our people to be heard on these fundamental issues. In approaching this re- sponsibility, the Government unequivocally rejects the attractive but unrealistic idea that unilateral disarmament would be an effective way to bring about an end to the arms race. We proceed from that fact that Australia is an aligned nation and that our security is supported by co-operative measures under the auspices of ANZUS. The Australian Labor Party takes pride in the fact that the foundations of our alliance with the United States were laid by the great John Curtin, when this country faced the greatest threat to its survival in 1941 . As an independent ally of the United States, Australia last year initiated a thorough and successful review of ANZUS. We are satisfied that the treaty continues to support our fundamental security interests, without absolving Australia from the primary obligation to provide for our own national defence. Honourable members will recall that Secretary of State Shultz commented that the review had been an excellent idea and most worth while. Our membership of the alliance in no way inhibits us from pursuing the issues of arms control and disarmament. On the contrary, as my colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs said on 18 January this year: We work unabashedly through international fora for arms control and disarmament , nuclear and conventional. Our involvement with the United States gives us much greater claim to be heard on these matters internationally. There is much greater weight behind our declarations on this subject precisely because we are sensible enough to support the only effective nuclear restraint system at the moment, deterrence, but intelligent enough to worry about the escalation, the excessive armouries, to want something better and to work for it openly and energetically. We intend to continue to pursue these issues vigorously with both super-powers. If allies of the United States do not press their concerns about arms control on the Soviet Union, Soviet leaders may be tempted to sit back and permit one-sided pressure to build up in Washington. Mr Hayden's vigorous advocacy of these issues in Moscow and the response he was given by Mr Gromyko demonstrate that our alliance with the United States is no barrier to Australia's voice being heard in the Soviet Union. I and senior Ministers of the Government have held discussions on these matters with President Reagan and other leading members of the Administration. We will take these discussions further with the Secretary of State Shultz when he visits Canberra next month. Arms control was a major item on the agenda of my discussions with Premier Zhao in Peking in February. I have raised the matter with President Mitterand and Mr Hayden has done the same in his recent talks with French Foreign Minister Cheysson. Since coming to power, this Government has given a priority to arms control and disarmament issues unmatched by any of its predecessors. We have done this, as I have indicated, because of our concern at the level of international tension in recent years, our appreciation of the difficulties bedevilling relations between the super-powers and our recognition of the very legitimate anxieties which these developments have aroused among the Australian people. The Government believes that we should not allow ourselves to be overwhelmed by a sense of global pessimism or imminent disaster. We are aware that the issues posed by the politics and technology of arms control and disarmament are extraordinarily complex. There are no 'quick fixes' available. Arms control and disarmament cannot be imposed on any nation, let alone the nuclear powers. Progress can be achieved only through agreement between the countries concerned. The Government believes that what is required are realistic, concrete and balanced measures that have at their heart a recognition of the national security interests involved. In these matters we are guided by three basic principles: Security for all states at the lowest possible level of armament; stability in the nuclear balance; and adequate verification arrangements. As a member of every global disarmament body, Australia is promoting treaties to end nuclear testing and to ban chemical weapons, and measures to prevent an arms race in outer space. We are also doing what we can to strengthen measures against the spread of nuclear weapons. For countries such as Australia, there is no substitute for the hard slog of multilateral diplomacy designed to engage the interests and support of the superpowers. The appointment of Australia's first Ambassador for Disarmament has significantly improved the effectiveness of our efforts in this regard. The Government's policy framework was laid down on 22 November 1983 when Cabinet took the following policy decisions on arms control and disarmament: (i) to promote measures to halt and reverse the nuclear arms race; (ii) to uphold the international nuclear non-proliferation treaty; (iii) to promote a comprehensive and verifiable ban on nuclear testing; (iv) to develop the concept of a nuclear free zone in the South Pacific; (v) to support the achievement of an agreement to ban chemical weapons; (vi) to support the process of negotiation and the achievement of balanced and verifiable arms control agreements; (vii) to take an active role in pursuing arms control and disarmament measures wherever possible; (viii) to affirm Australia's readiness to join a consensus to hold an international conference on the Indian Ocean zone of peace question. Since coming to office, the Government has taken steps to strengthen Australia' s public and private institutional capacity, to ensure that its commitment to peace and disarmament will be backed by a high degree of professional competence . I have mentioned our appointment of an Ambassador for Disarmament, whose role is to represent Australia in international forums, especially the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. Within the Department of Foreign Affairs there has been a major strengthening of capacity to handle disarmament issues through the deployment of additional personnel to the disarmament and arms control and the nuclear policy areas. The Government attaches great importance to the analytical and creative role of academic institutions. The Minister for Foreign Affairs announced in March this year that decisions had been taken to provide funds on a seven year basis to enable a peace research centre to be established at the Australian National University. Its purpose will be to provide a nucleus for serious and scholarly research into the whole field of peace, disarmament and arms control. Australia has also contributed financially to the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research which aims to raise the level of research into disarmament and arms control problems. In addition, the Government has made a voluntary contribution to the world disarmament campaign, the purpose of which is to inform, educate and to generate public understanding and support for the objectives of the United Nations in the area of disarmament. In 1986, which has been designated by the United Nations as the International Year of Peace, the Government intends to commemorate the year with a program of appropriate activities. Of the many initiatives we have taken in the field of arms control, I draw particular attention to our efforts on behalf of the Treaty on the Non- proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and a comprehensive test ban treaty. I stress again, as I did when tabling the Australian Science and Technology Council report, the particular and fundamental significance which the Government attaches to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. We regard the NPT as the most important multilateral non-proliferation and arms control agreement in existence . We will continue to do everything in our power to strengthen international adherence to the Treaty. In the House on 31 May, I drew attention to the ASTEC report's findings that, if international tensions are to be reduced and the prospects of a peaceful global environment enhanced, the importance of national and international energy security cannot be over-emphasised. The report noted that disruptions in the supply of resources of any sort have been a cause of international tension and, through human history, have led to war. The inquiry concluded that Australia, through being a reliable, long term supplier of uranium, is in a position to contribute significantly to international energy security. The report expressed the concern that we must all share that the prevention of nuclear war is of the greatest importance to all humanity. It also pointed out that, should a country decide to embark on a nuclear weapons program, it was most unlikely to use a civil reactor to do so for technical and economic reasons. It concluded that Australia would best be able to make a significant contribution to non- proliferation and world peace if it were actively involved in the nuclear fuel cycle. In this context, let me recall for all honourable members what academician Sakharov, whose credentials as an advocate for arms control and disarmament are, as I have said, exemplary, said in 1977 about the civil use of nuclear power: It is difficult to explain to a nonspecialist (although it is actually true) that the nuclear reactor of a nuclear power station is nothing like an atomic bomb . . . The development of nuclear technology has proceeded with much greater attention to the problems of safety techniques and preservation of the environment than the development of such branches of technology as metallurgy, coke chemistry, mining, chemical industry, coal power stations, modern transportation, chemicalisation of agriculture, etc. Therefore, the present situation in nuclear power is relatively good from the point of view of safety and possible effect on the environment . . . The House may recall that, when the great debate took place in this country at the beginning of the last decade on whether Australia should subscribe to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, opponents of the Treaty argued that we would need a nuclear weapons capacity to repel the survivors of an atomic war in the Northern Hemisphere. To the great credit and benefit of this country, that argument did not prevail. The coalition Government signed the Treaty in 1970 and the previous Labor Government moved rapidly to ratify it in January 1973. I now reiterate that this Labor Government categorically rejects any nuclear weapons option for Australia. Another of Australia's primary objectives in contributing to curbing the nuclear arms race has been to promote a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty- CTB-which would outlaw all nuclear testing by all states in all environments for all time. Australia has been active on this issue both in the United Nations and in the Conference on Disarmament, and in bilateral discussions with the nuclear weapons states. The conclusion of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty would help to put strong pressure on France to cease its testing program in the Pacific. A universally adhered to treaty would also help inhibit the spread of nuclear weapons by making it impossible to test nuclear explosive devices- including the so-called peaceful nuclear explosions. It would also help to limit the development of new nuclear weapons and the improvement of existing nuclear weapons. In addition to advocating the test ban in international meetings and in bilateral exchanges with other governments, Australia has played a major role in seeking to solve procedural obstacles to the re-convening of a committee of the Conference on Disarmament on this issue. To this end Australia and New Zealand sponsored a resolution at the United Nations General Assembly in 1983 with the aim of promoting a formulation for a mandate for the committee that would receive general agreement. This resolution achieved a large measure of support and, unlike competing resolutions on the same topic by Mexico and the Soviet Union, it attracted no negative votes. Our efforts had some influence in the encouraging development that the United States abstained on this resolution, after voting against a similar resolution the year before. Notwithstanding a number of major difficulties which have to date prevented agreement, we are continuing patiently and assiduously to pursue this objective and to seek to build on the modest progress already achieved. In further support of the test ban objective, an Australian expert from the Bureau of Mineral Resources is participating in the group of seismic experts which is considering questions relevant to a global scientific network to monitor a test ban. Australia's geographic situation means we have an important potential role in such a global network. A major purpose of our efforts in the multilateral disarmament field is to bring influence to bear on the bilateral relationship of the United States and the USSR. Australia has consistently urged the United States and the Soviet Union to seek agreements to limit and reduce their nuclear stockpiles and has supported their negotiations to this end: the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks, START, and the talks on intermediate range nuclear forces, INF. It was a great disappointment to the Government when these negotiations were suspended by the Soviet Union and the Government has expressed on many occasions its hope that they will be resumed as soon as possible. Australia is not, of course, a party to these negotiations but the Government is doing what it can to encourage resumption of these negotiations and to break down the barriers of mistrust and suspicion. In the Government's view, adequate and effective provision for verification is a crucial pre-condition for progress in arms control negotiations. Another fundamental requirement is the maintenance of effective and stable deterrence between the super-powers and the contribution which that makes to a climate of confidence. Without this there can be no progress. There are special reasons why our role in this is and will remain something more than modest. We contribute positively to verification and stable and effective deterrence. Our standing in these matters derives not only from our policy commitments and objectives but also from the presence of, and the important role played by, the Australian- United States joint defence facilities on our soil. At its highest levels, the United States Administration has been consulted on and has acceded to issuance of the following statement: Australia-United States Joint Defence Facilities Since coming to office the Government has determined to act upon its undertaking to provide the public with a statement on the general purpose and functions of the defence facilities we operate jointly with our American ally. Successive Governments have maintained secrecy about the facilities at Pine Gap and Nurrungar. This sometimes arouses concern about the sorts of activities we might be becoming involved in, and about possible dangers to our security. Our Party's platform, therefore, calls on the Government to make known to the public the general purpose and functions of the facilities and any change to these. When the Ministers for Defence and Foreign Affairs were in Washington in July last year they took the opportunity to raise these matters with the US Secretary of Defence, Mr Weinberger, and relevant authorities in the Pentagon. We are concerned that such a statement should not damage our own and our allies ' interests and accordingly the Government does not intend to act unilaterally and in disregard of international assurances about preservation of secrecy given by our predecessors for over a decade. Nevertheless, there is a good deal that can be said to provide reassurance to the Australian people. The facilities are not military bases. There are no combat personnel or combat equipments there, no military stores or workshops, no plant or machinery or laboratories for research, development, production or maintenance of any weapons or combat systems of any type. Timely knowledge of developments that have military significance is very important and can be critical for the security of the US and its allies, including Australia. Effective deterrence and hence avoidance of conflict depend on this. Similarly, effective measures for military restraint and for the control and reduction of armaments depend upon reliable assessments of military developments. Arms limitation arrangements between the United States and the Soviet Union specifically provide for verification. The general purpose of the facilities that we operate at Nurrungar and Pine Gap with the Americans is to contribute to all of these objectives. Among the functions performed are the provision of early warning by receiving from space satellites information about missile launches, and the provision of information about the occurrence of nuclear explosions, which assists in nuclear test ban monitoring and supports nuclear non-proliferation measures. Disclosures of other technical functions of the classified facilities would involve damage to both US and Australian interests and cannot be justified. The purpose and functions of the joint defence facility at North West Cape have already been made public. It is a communications relay station for ships and submarines of the United States Navy and the Royal Australian Navy and serves as a key element in a complex system of communications supporting the global balance. As indicated in the statement which the Minister for Defence tabled in Parliament on 3 November 1983, agreement was reached with the United States Government on new arrangements to ensure that the Australian Government would be able to make timely judgments about the significance for national interest of developments involving North West Cape. These new arrangements are now in force. The Government is satisfied that Australia's sovereignty in the operation of the joint defence facility at North West Cape is now adequately protected. Some people express concern about possible risks to our security from these facilities. The Government takes the view that the joint facilities directly contribute to the security that we enjoy every day and that this tangible benefit outweighs the possibility that risks might arise at some future time from our hosting the facilities. For many years our intelligence and defence authorities have assessed the risk of nuclear war as remote and improbable, provided effective deterrence is maintained. Australians cannot claim the full protection of that deterrence without being willing to make some contribution to its effectiveness. It is important to support stability in the strategic relationship between the super-powers and our co-operation in the joint facilities at North West Cape, Pine Gap and Nurrungar does this. As to the specific risk of nuclear attack on these facilities in the event of nuclear war, it is not possible to be categoric; we cannot enter the minds of possibly hostile foreign military planners. The Government believes that hosting the facilities does bring with it some degree of added risk of nuclear attack. But the maintenance of effective deterrence including through early warning has as its purpose the avoidance of war between the nuclear powers. Such a war would inevitably affect all nations, including Australia, and its avoidance is essential for the security of the Australian people. The preservation of peace between the nuclear powers has for many years been dependent upon a situation of stable deterrence. Maintaining, and where possible enhancing, the stability of that deterrent relationship is the objective of this Government in these matters. Deterrence can be pursued through any means of convincing a potential aggressor that he would face unacceptable costs, but stability requires discrimination and restraint. We do not believe there can be a winning side in a nuclear war. The notion of a nuclear first strike designed to disarm an adversary would be destabilising were it to gain credence. Nor can there be any assurance that nuclear conflict between the super-powers could be limited. This Government's voice on such matters will be directed towards supporting doctrines which eschew moving beyond the requirements of stable deterrence towards postures more appropriate to waging nuclear war in some limited and controlled way. While we recognise that in present global circumstances a unilateral move away from a policy of maintaining stable deterrence is not a realistic option, the Australian Government is committed to working for measures to stabilise the strategic balance, on which stable deterrence depends, and to curb arms competition. Through equitable and verifiable measures for arms control and reduction, we seek to limit qualitative improvements in arms and to reduce the forces involved. The Government does not intend to comment further upon speculation or assertions about the joint facilities at Pine Gap and Nurrungar. Enough has been said, however, to correct some serious misunderstandings and to provide the reassurance that people properly seek. Finally, let me emphasise again that these facilities are jointly managed and operated by the Australian and American governments. All functions and activities require, and have, the full knowledge and concurrence of the Australian Government. We monitor this and we are satisfied that the operations of the facilities in no way derogate from Australian sovereignty. As I have indicated, the United States Administration has been consulted on the statement I have just made and has acceded to its issuance. The Government's wish to make this statement met with understanding and co-operation from the United States Administration. This has enabled me to make today to this Parliament the most comprehensive public statement on the facilities yet made by an Australian Prime Minister or Minister. The lack of public information until now on the purposes of the facilities has not assisted public understanding of the vital issues involved. It is to be regretted that the previous Government did not make the necessary effort to see that the Australian people were properly informed. This has helped build up an unwarranted mystique about them and encouraged a tendency in certain sections of the media and elsewhere to discuss Nurrungar and Pine Gap in a speculative and provocative manner. Some Australian groups and individuals call for the closing of the joint defence facilities. The Government recognises many of such calls as being sincerely made. We regard them as misguided but not hostile in intent. I do not expect that such calls will now cease. But I ask those making them to consider very seriously the implications of what they are demanding. As I have indicated, the removal of the joint facilities would hinder United States efforts to maintain effective and stable deterrence and would damage the capacity of the United States for monitoring and verification, so striking a very serious blow at the prospect of arms control agreements between the super-powers. Such a development would dash the hopes of ordinary men and women around the world for peace and disarmament. Moreover, I draw particular attention to the early warning function mentioned in the statement I have just made, and to the significance of that function for the avoidance of nuclear war. In an uncertain and suspicious international climate, no action should be taken which would reduce stability or increase the risk of war through miscalculation. As we contemplate the momentous events of 40 years ago, we can be profoundly thankful for the efforts and sacrifices of those who participated in D-Day. They fought for a cause which was incontrovertibly right. They helped create a world which has managed since to avoid the horror of global conflict. We might also think for a moment of those who had fought with equal bravery in the Great War, believing that that would prove to be the war to end wars. The bloodshed at Gallipoli, in particular, has left an indelible impression on the Australian national consciousness. We may also recall the indignation and pity which the horrors of that war aroused among the young men who went to fight on the Western Front. The great English poet, Wilfred Owen, notwithstanding his winning the Military Cross a month before he died in battle in 1918 at the age of 25, was a passionate opponent of war. The title of one of his poems, 'Anthem for Doomed Youth', sums up the tragedy of that generation. In letters to his family early in 1917, Owen wrote: No Man's Land is pockmarked like a body of foulest disease and its odour is the breath of cancer . . . No Man's Land under snow is like the face of the moon, chaotic, crater-ridden, uninhabitable, awful, the abode of madness. He described it as: the universal pervasion of ugliness. Hideous landscapes, vile noises . . . everything unnatural, broken, blasted; the distortion of the dead, whose unburiable bodies sit outside the dug-outs all day, all night, the most execrable sights on earth. That was one poet's vision of the First World War. Should there be a nuclear war , the whole world will be a No Man's Land. There will be no one to sing the anthem for our young generations, if we are unable to prevent global conflict. Such a conflict, which God forbid, would indeed be a war to end war; it would threaten the extinction of humanity. It is precisely to prevent such a catastrophe that so many Australian people have taken up the cause of peace and disarmament. And it is precisely to achieve the same end that the Government has , from its perspective, developed its policies on arms control and disarmament to which it will continue to devote its highest priority. I present the following paper: Arms Control and Disarmament-Ministerial Statement, 6 June 1984. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition speaking for a period not exceeding 42 minutes. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.40) —It has to be said at the outset that, despite the claims by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in his statement to this House today, the statement was entirely predictable. It contained nothing new. Its sanctimonious platitudes and the absence of substance from this man are becoming all too familiar. Unfortunately, so too is the motivation. His statement today was not to inform the Australian community nor, of course, this Parliament. As with so much else of the Government's foreign policy activities, the statement was an attempt to manipulate and placate disaffected elements within the Australian Labor Party itself, to get them to accept the principles and interests which have governed in the past and which still, I trust, govern Australia's foreign policy-principles which honourable members on this side of the House accept as common sense and, above all, as in the national interest. This exercise, like last week's exercise on uranium, and indeed last September' s excercise on the ANZUS review, is not for the benefit of the wider Australian community but is directed solely towards the dissident elements within the Australian Labor Party. The reason for all this colour and movement is the Labor Party's annual conference in July, at which two of the more contentious issues will be uranium and the United States defence facilities. This man is nothing more than a human embodiment of sanctimony, seeking through sanctimonious statements to create a smokescreen of the facts that are fogged behind. The reality is that it is known that the uranium policy will pass, and he is petrified of what the Left will do after that. Of course, these men of the Left were almost theological in their views on disarmament, uranium and the like year after year. They do not have the numbers, so the numbers override theology. The honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand), for example, as the acknowledged new leader of the Left, sees himself, should the Government unfortunately be returned, perhaps making the Ministry. Mr Howard —Taking Tommy's place. Mr PEACOCK —Making the Ministry in the place of the Minister for Territories and Local Government, (Mr Uren). So the numbers become paramount, and they will need a focal point of pressure after the uranium debacle at the conference, when the Australian Labor Party will adopt our attitude to uranium and properly espouse the cause of mining and export of uranium under tight safeguards. When the Government adopts the coalition's policy the Left will have to direct attention elsewhere. These sanctimonious men who hope that they can suck people in, get re -elected, and then get themselves elected to the Ministry, earn even greater contempt than this contemptuous man who is Prime Minister today. The fact is that they will fail at an election and they will be seen by their own supporters for what they are-men of straw who no longer stand for all these principles avowed over the years. They know that people in their droves-men and women, current branch members of the Australian Labor Party-will desert that Party week after week because of the humbug and the sanctimony adopted by this Prime Minister today. It is nothing but a charade, seeking to hold in the Left, with members of the Left allowing themselves to be sucked in because they have to cultivate their own branch members to whom they go home week after week. As I said, the reason for all this colour and movement is the Labor Party's annual conference in July, at which the two contentious issues will be uranium and the United States defence facilities. On matters unrelated to foreign policy and defence, we know we have capital gains, death duties and the like which the Left can espouse in the hope of somehow keeping their fans within the Labor Party on side. Last week the Prime Minister presented the Slatyer report on Australia's Role in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle. It was an excellent report which endorsed the coalition's consistent stance on uranium. Hopefully, it will also inculcate some rational thinking into the members of the Australian Labor Party who are responsible for the current illogical and emotional uranium policy, which today is costing Australia badly needed jobs and a credible and influential position in the disarmament debate. The problems for the Labor Party with the Slatyer report, apart from the fact that it recommended the adoption of the coalition's policy on uranium, is that it is a scientific and clear headed analysis of the nuclear fuel cycle issue. The Labor Party has always been infuriated by the tendency of facts to get in the way of its theories. One could argue that the history of the Australian Labor Party, and certainly its left wing, has all the hallmarks of a twentieth century Don Quixote, except that its lunatic fringe tilts at political realities and not at windmills. The left wing's response to the Slatyer report will doubtless be to call it unscientific, shallow, not worth the paper it is written on, and to oppose it vehemently. However, as I have indicated, members of the left wing understand the realities of the numbers. They do not appear to have the numbers on the uranium issue, so what will they do? I have referred to it earlier. They are turning their attention to the question of the United States defence facilities in Australia, and hence the sanctimonious nonsense today from the current incumbent of the prime ministership, which told us nothing that we did not already know. Of course, I am sure that to the Left these defence facilities look at first glance to be a pretty safe target for their emotionalism in the guise of ideology. We are talking about political allegiances, history and national interests, not about the in-fighting and the ambitions of members of the Australian Labor Party. If we are talking about political allegiance, history and national interests, scientific facts are less likely to present an overwhelming stumbling block to their arguments within the ALP. They would seek to appeal to a sense of fear, a sense of ignorance allegedly, in the Australian community on nuclear matters. The defence facilities question has serious political and strategic implications. The status of these facilities is inextricably linked with the status of ANZUS and the health of the relationship between Australia and the United States of America. If the Labor Government were to proceed to dismantle United States defence facilities it would fundamentally weaken the status of ANZUS itself. The Government is well aware that any decision to undermine ANZUS, apart from having security overtones, would also have electoral overtones, which undoubtedly would be uppermost in the mind of the Prime Minister. The Australian people will not tolerate the Government fiddling with national security and undermining a treaty such as ANZUS. That is why we are subjected to this long statement of motherhood by the Prime Minister today. It is nothing but an internal political party operation dressed in the guise of a statement on national security. The Opposition is in the position of being able to reiterate without any dissent at all its commitment to the ANZUS alliance. We do not have the lunatic Left seeking to tear that alliance apart. We are united in our attitude of reiterating without dissent our commitment to the ANZUS alliance, and we had been members of the Western alliance, over and above the ANZUS alliance, before we even signed the ANZUS pact in 1951. The commitment of the coalition to the ANZUS alliance is firm and unequivocal and it is not dependent on some backroom debate or a bar room debate among delegates to the policy- forming division of the Australian Labor Party. In two important respects the alliance is absolutely vital to us. First, it offers the ultimate guarantee of our security should a direct threat to Australia ever eventuate; and, secondly, it is a necessary instrument for maintaining the global strategic balance and in this respect it ensures a measure of stability in international affairs. The maintenance of this deterrence has been a major cause of the continuing state of peace which exists today between the two principal antagonists. It should be pointed out that Australia's commitment to the Western alliance and ANZUS is not based in the end on historical ties, on ideology or on cultural links, significant as each of these things is. It is rooted in an appreciation of what Australia's national interests are. This is the fundamental reason why we provide facilities for the United States of America and it is also why we concern ourselves with the condition of the alliance. ANZUS never was and never has been seen as a substitute for national security effort on Australia's behalf. Rather, it has been seen as being, and it has the effect of being, a catalyst for the national security effort. It is important to remember that Australia has acted internationally in support of a security interest outside the framework of ANZUS. We accept the wisdom in the proposition that we should not base our defence strategies and forces on the assumption of ANZUS alone or indeed on the assumption of any allied assistance alone, important as that is. Nevertheless, we believe it mandatory that our self- defence capability can support wider allied commitment to the region and the Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean where necessary. Our position is and always has been marked by its abundant clarity on the question of ANZUS. There is no need for me to stand in this Parliament and make a speech on the importance of the ANZUS alliance to shore up some wavering support by ideologues in my Party or in the National Party of Australia. Our support is firm and unequivocal and it is deeply rooted in our sense of national security which is fundamental to our foreign and defence policies. It is not some exercise in the massaging of one's own ranks in the hope of being able to hold some lunatic Left in a sensible position at a Party conference in a month's time. Today, what did the Prime Minister actually say which is new? Frankly, it takes the reader or the listener considerable time to wade through these pious generalities which could be mouthed by any individual-whether he be a babe, or an incompetent in this area, such as the Prime Minister is-before coming to the point of the statement. At last, on page 10 of this closely typed statement that was delivered to honourable members, we find the phrase 'defence facilities' mentioned. But the reader or listener searches in vain for something new. The Prime Minister says that this is the longest or the most comprehensive statement on the ANZUS alliance or the bases ever made by a Prime Minister. I take the simple view that the significance of a prime ministerial statement is never measured by the column inches, but rather by its actual content-and in its content there is a smokescreen of generality. All of the information contained in this statement today is common knowledge to anyone who has had even a passing interest in the field of foreign policy or defence. Anyone, whether he be a member of this Parliament serving on the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, taking a passing interest in the matters in which those members indulge , or whether he be in academic or professional circles-under this Government he has only to be a reader of the National Times-will have a clear appreciation of all that was said today by the Prime Minister. If I touch on some of the matters to which the Prime Minister alluded, I do so with the background of what I have mentioned-a firm belief in the ANZUS alliance and Australia's commitment to the Western alliance and our commitment to the joint defence facilities in Australia. The Prime Minister mentions Nurrungar and Pine Gap. They are specifically linked with verification measures, and the necessity of such measures in monitoring arms limitation arrangements is well known. There is nothing new in that. Among the functions performed, the Prime Minister states, are the provision of early warning by receiving from space satellites information about missile launches and the provision of information about the occurrence of nuclear explosions, which assists in nuclear test ban monitoring and supports nuclear non-proliferation measures. The Prime Minister then states that a disclosure of other technical functions of the classified facilities would involve damage to both United States and Australian interests and cannot be justified. He then goes on to discuss the purpose and functions of North West Cape. He states it as a: communications relay station for ships and submarines of the United States Navy and the Royal Australian Navy and serves as a key element in a complex system of communications supporting the global balance. How new! He acknowledges that this information is already public knowledge. No other information, including the new arrangements to ensure that the Government 'would be able to make timely judgments about the significance for the national interest of developments involving North West Cape' is given, and in my view quite properly. But why come in here and pretend to the contrary? Why come in here and talk about the most comprehensive statement ever made by an Australian Prime Minister? He might just as well have come in and read four pages of previous issues of the National Times. It is quite proper that a Prime Minister not go on and develop the detail to which I have just referred. But this last statement is extraordinarily vague and tells us nothing whatsoever of substance. Mr Hodgman —Hawkespeak. Mr PEACOCK —Hawkespeak, as the honourable member for Denison says. If the Prime Minister comes in here and acknowledges that all that he is saying is public knowledge and goes on to say that it is the most comprehensive statement, one is forced to ask why on earth he bothered to put it down. He put it down simply in that same stream of the phoney rethinking of ANZUS last year and the Slatyer report on Australia's Role in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle last week-which we commend, although it was a selling device to the Left-and so the opportunity has been taken today to go through the motions to try to hold the Left in at the next Labor Party bun-fight. Actually, I note that the Prime Minister implicitly criticises previous governments for the maintenance of secrecy regarding the defence facilities. Yet at the same time he is trying to take an equally responsible attitude to secrecy on these strategic matters. He stated: We are concerned that such a statement should not damage our own and our allies ' interests and accordingly the Government does not intend to act unilaterally and in disregard of international assurances about preservation of secrecy given by our predecessors for over a decade. That endorses all that we have done. So why play politics, even on that point? The Prime Minister, in that part of his statement on defence facilities, correctly emphasised their role in the preservation of peace between the nuclear powers by saying: 'This has for many years been dependent upon a situation of stable deterrence'. That is a view which the coalition has constantly held, both in government and in opposition. To say that the preservation of peace between nuclear powers is dependent on a situation of stable deterrence might be a new discovery for this Prime Minister, but it has been a truth long stated by members on this side of the House. This constancy of view simply does not apply to major elements of the Hawke Government. But I wish the Prime Minister well in his efforts to establish some degree of consistency in the policy of his Party towards the Western alliance, ANZUS and defence facilities. When it comes down to it, the real issue at stake is not the precise functions of the facilities; it is not whether they could be used in some scenario to facilitate a nuclear war; but rather, whether Australia is prepared to play its part in the Western alliance by assisting in the maintenance of a nuclear deterrent. It comes down to the value we place on the alliance as a nation and as a government both as to our regional security and, more significantly, in assisting the Western alliance to avoid nuclear conflict by helping to preserve a stable deterrent. In criticising the Prime Minister for the lack of substance in his statement- and I am impelled to do it because of the sheer hypocrisy that appears throughout the statements that he is increasingly making in this Parliament-let me say, nevertheless, that I do not in any way detract from the importance of the disarmament question. It is quite rightly a matter of vital concern and interest to honourable members on both sides of this House and to the community. I only wish that members on the other side would have a unified view, a coherent view and a view which did not seek to undermine those who are working in the best interests of mutual disarmament and did not simply promote unilateral disarmament. One of the developments that concern me and, indeed, members on this side of the House, is the growth of neutralism and pacifism in Australia today. I regret to say that it is linked inexorably to an anti-Americanism and opposition to our role in the Western alliance. Such ideas not only are held on the periphery of our society, but also regrettably dwell in the hearts of some members of the present Government, from the Ministry down to the lowliest back bencher, through to the most miserable member of the Left on the periphery of the Labor Party. This degree of neutralism, pacifism, anti-Americanism and opposition to Australia playing an effective role in the Western alliance is endemic in many members of the Australian Labor Party. The tragedy is that these attitudes- though I presume they stem from a fear of nuclear war and a fear of involvement- are also fanned by an antipathy to the United States. This blatant anti-Americanism that resides in the bosom of many members of the Australian Labor Party has been both extraordinarily venomous and totally irrational. The public ought to be reminded that these attitudes do not belong to a Labor Party of the past, but are still endemic in many sections of the Party which is now in government in Australia. They are venomous, irrational and not attributable, as some would make out, simply to some historical legacy of Vietnam or to the specific policies pursued by any particular United States administration, whether it be the current Reagan Administration or not. One reason that America is attacked so much is its extraordinary propensity for self-criticism, and, a more fundamental reason, that the United States of America, as a great power, represents the principles of individualism over collectivism, free will as opposed to determinism, a belief in competition and the effective use of technology. So many of these concepts, particularly, would be rejected by the collectivists in the socialist Australian Labor Party. This propensity which flows through American society is the antithesis of so much of what they claim that they stand for. This criticism is in part an alienation of the values and institutions of the Australian community. The concept of pacifism or unilateral disarmament is, to me, an appalling notion propagated by people who think so little of themselves that they believe in nothing except mere existence. That is an admission of moral and philosophical exhaustion. Yet it represents the stated expression of many honourable members opposite and the ragtag mob that would go with them on the question of pacifism, appeasement or unilateral disarmament. Let me say that the preservation of peace should be this generation's principal concern and prime objective. No one will be more vocal than any individual member on this side of the Parliament. It is particularly a matter for the young in the community, but it is not confined to them alone. In pursuit of that goal, however, we must not forget that there are other issues at stake, that the Western alliance is not only a grouping of powers, but also the embodiment of ideas, ideals and principles enshrined in the attitudes of the majority of Australians. What needs to be stressed is that what is important in the pursuit of the goal of peace is an avoidance today of nuclear war. Nuclear disarmament itself, while it promises the best long term solution to this problem, is only one part of the answer. The other is the continuing necessity of a viable deterrence policy. Deterrence and disarmament are complementary concepts. Though the concept of deterrence has recently been assailed-particularly by the Left, but in some instances by extreme groups on the Right of the political spectrum-it is still highly valued. I understand the concern and sometimes the confusion in the public's mind over the nuclear debate. The notion of deterrence is very difficult to understand as, in a way, it pursues its own perverse logic. While criticisms of deterrence are not quite groundless, many of the conclusions that have been drawn from the criticisms certainly are. Indeed, the alternatives proposed to deterrence are less moral and less rational, be they the notion of winning a nuclear war or one of unilateral nuclear disarmament. The most menacing thing to Western security is nuclear weakness. Any scheme for dealing with the nuclear balance that would disarm, even in part, only one side or upset the balance between the two sides would leave us more exposed, not less , and our own security is intimately bound up with the security of the Western alliance and the viability of deterrence. It is fashionable, I suppose, to exaggerate the risks incurred by the United States alliance. It is equally fashionable to downgrade the benefits to Australia in international security that accrue from that alliance. Even a statement that American facilities in Australia would be nuclear targets in the event of war is not provable in advance of war. More significantly, however, the notion dismisses the very important proposition that the existence of these facilities increases the United States deterrence and therefore makes nuclear war less likely. The American and Western alliance is also denigrated by certain elements in the context of regional security. Again, this criticism is unfair and misunderstands the nature of the ANZUS alliance. It has been said so often-one would wish it did more-that the Treaty does not guarantee that any party will do anything other than consult. That is the only actual guarantee within it. Nor is Australia committed under ANZUS to support any sort of American policy. What happens in any situation will therefore depend on a whole range of factors. Included in those will be the status of the defence and strategic relationship between us. That is why we have worked so hard at consolidating the American relationship over the years. This idiotic fringe on the other side of the Parliament which sits on the left of that party and which would tear this alliance apart and remove the bases would directly affect the reservoir of goodwill between Australia and America and therefore call into question the possibility of the United States engaging in effective consultation at any time of great crisis for us, for any American attitude will obviously depend upon the standing of the Australia-America relationship in economic, political and defence terms. Clearly the existence of important United States facilities in Australia will make the United States far more sympathetic in its attitude than if we told it to remove those bases. That is axiomatic and obvious. As I stated earlier, the coalition's acceptance of the Western alliance and ANZUS is based on a realistic calculation of the benefits and risks and forms the foundation of our defence and foreign policies. This commitment to the alliance imposes certain rights and duties on the Australian Government. By assisting the United States in the maintenance of its deterrent threat, of course, we have a right, as we have shown in the past, to speak to the United States on a full range of defence and foreign policy matters and, in this day and age, in particular on the subject of disarmament. Let there be no mistake. The Liberal and National parties in the past have involved themselves vigorously in the disarmament process. The rational conclusion, it seems to me, to be drawn from any perceived shortcomings in what I mentioned earlier, namely, deterrence, is not that that concept should be rejected but that it is not sufficient and should be complemented by disarmament. The complementary nature of the two doctrines can be illustrated as follows: The need of deterrence for disarmament is obvious and has been accepted, I would think, by the majority. Equally important, though less obvious, is the need of disarmament for deterrence. Deterrence, however, serves as the proper regulating principle for arms control. It determines how many weapons and what kind may be limited or reduced without upsetting the balance, therefore avoiding tempting one side to think that there may be greater advantage in using force than in controlling it. There follows from deterrence the ideal for disarmament, that is, a symmetrical reduction of nuclear stockpiles so that the two sides may continue to deter each other as the stockpiles are diminished. This may not be very exciting and it certainly does not take up Jonathan Schell's summons to us 'to rise up to cleanse the earth of weapons'; but it is highly responsible and is in our view the only approach that can be adopted. Anyone genuinely concerned about nuclear danger should acknowledge that the world will be no safer if cuts are unilaterally made in only one arsenal. Nuclear superiority on one side would not lessen the possibility of nuclear use. The only real disarmament is mutual disarmament. There is a place for Australia in this debate in the international scene, as I have said. We have a distinguished record of accomplishment in working for international peace and security and a credible place in the Western alliance. This involvement in the Western security system gives us a position from which to speak and the advice we offer needs to be common sense and practical. Nuclear weapons, after all, are practical problems requiring practical solutions. If only people would see how important it is to comprehend that simple statement that nuclear weapons are man -made and create practical problems and that man can solve the problems with practical solutions. This extraordinary overemphasis on eloquence, sanctimony and sentiment would be self-defeating and would reduce our views to total irrelevance if we overlooked that practical element behind it. What is necessary today is a comprehensive and consistent approach. We should probably be advocating to the great powers in the world a continual process of communication and negotiation on nuclear matters. This should include a transparency about intentions on nuclear weapons matters. Disarmament is not something that can be achieved by mere words or by posturing. Proposals have to build confidence. They need, in the jargon of the disarmament profession, to be transparent; that is, they have to be devised in such a way that their participants can be confident that the agreement they entered into would also be honoured by treaty partners. If agreements do not contain proper verification and compliance measures and therefore build up confidence, they will be ineffective. Arms control disarmament measures must always take full account of the need for states to be confident that the arrangements do not impair their basic national security. The negotiations between the United States of America and the Soviet Union have at present been halted by the Soviet Union as a result of the United States deployment of Pershing and Cruise missiles in Western Europe. This is a matter of considerable concern, although, as I am always pointing out to people, the United States has been deploying those elements there only because the Europeans requested them. That has to be understood by those who campaign against them. It was only as a consequence of the request that the United States acted. Flowing from that action, the Soviet Union has called off talks. That is a matter of considerable concern. It is obvious that the two powers should keep talking, for the consequences of miscalculation as a result of mutual distrust and the current level of tension are far too great for them not to try to maintain the lines of communication. I have said that we have always given great emphasis to nuclear arms control matters. We need to continue to press for a comprehensive test ban treaty. Of even greater concern is next year's scheduled review of the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty. We should do all we can to shore up this Treaty. The five nuclear weapons states have to be encouraged to strengthen their side of the non -proliferation bargain. Then the Treaty supporters would be better placed to convince those who have not signed to do so. Serious consideration also has to be given to the prohibition of all weapons for use in outer space. I wish time permitted us, even after this lengthy period, to go further through the importance of using our pressure in this area. There is a need obviously, beyond nuclear weapons, to give close attention to conventional weapons. As retiring Prime Minister Trudeau recently asked rhetorically: Is it the purpose of nuclear arms control to make the world safe for conventional weapons? Clearly it is not. There is obviously a need to encourage an equilibrium of conventional arms and forces balanced at lower, rather than higher, levels. In conclusion, international arms control agendas cannot ignore the facts that I have been addressing earlier. Only when states are able to feel secure and have confidence about the intention of other states will reliance on arms and their use be reduced. I restate the commitment of the coalition to pursuing every responsible path leading to reduced world tension and disarmament. These are objectives which we consistently pursued in government and will pursue in government again. It ought to be recalled that it was the previous Government which achieved Australian representation on the international committees of disarmament and that the then Prime Minister, Prime Minister Fraser, as well as myself addressed United Nations special sessions on disarmament because we believed Australia had to take a high profile in this arena. We had a coherence and a credibility in the stance that we took on so many international issues. In pursuing a more stable world the coalition remains consistent in its belief that a strong deterrent is absolutely essential. We believe that playing an active role in the Western alliance and remaining a strong partner in ANZUS are essential to Australia's security and to world peace. In this respect we differ from the Australian Labor Party, for there are no schisms, no differences of view regarding the defence installations at Nurrungar, Pine Gap and North West Cape and no deals and bargaining to be done at some party conference in a month' s time which will be the ultimate determinant of what Australia's foreign policy and defence policy will be. Our policy is predicated on principle and an assessment of national security and not on the bar room bargaining between the Left and the Right of the Labor Party. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable gentleman's time has expired. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs)(4.22) —Nuclear war would represent the ultimate calamity of mankind. Then the countdown on civilisation would be complete. That great final nuclear flash would be the terminal flame out of this living globe. All of the millennia of evolutionary aspirations and achievements of this universe would be buried beneath a radioactive tombstone standing over a poisoned and strickened world. A nuclear war should not be fought because it is without victory or victors, just total and final desolation. Accordingly, this Government has worked zealously and intelligently for peace through arms control . It does all it practically and responsibly can to avoid nuclear war. Our commitment cannot be less. In the context of these sentiments the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is welcome and is highly relevant. It is in the same context that the joint statement of the governments of Australia and the United States of America , released by the Prime Minister today, is desirable and ample in the provision of circumstances under which these facilities operate. It is desirable because it responds to a growing concern in the community as to what the general purposes of these facilities are. It is a growing concern that has been fostered and developed because of the way previous conservative governments have concealed and, in some circumstances, blatantly misrepresented the general nature of these facilities. It is ample because it provides sufficient general information as to the purposes of these facilities. To go beyond that would be to concede too much to those who would seek to disadvantage the circumstances of the association of nations in what is loosely described as a Western alliance. I wish to refer to five major points in the statement: First, the timely knowledge of developments and their military significance which arise from the services that these facilities provide; second, reliable assessments of military developments; third, the verification functions of the facilities; fourth, the early warning capabilities that they can contribute; and fifth, the information on the occurrence of nuclear test ban monitoring and support for nuclear non- proliferation measures. Not one of these conditions has been acknowledged by a conservative government. It is therefore nonsense for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) to claim as he did today that there was nothing new in these statements. He asserted that he had known all the time of the general conditions of the functions of these facilities outlined by the Prime Minister. One would hope that, when Minister for Foreign Affairs, he would have been briefed on the details. However, the undeniable fact is that at no stage did he seek in even the minutest form to convey to the Australian community the general functions of those facilities. The way in which conservative coalitions in government sought to apply secretiveness to an extraordinary and unjustifiable extent and at times to misrepresent the general functions of those facilities has created unnecessary suspicion in this community which, in turn, has led to substantial questioning of the facilities being based in Australia, not just by extremists as the Leader of the Opposition would define them but by people of considerable eminence and respectability, justifiable eminence and understandable respectability, in this community. I will give one small vignette of the way in which secretive, nasty and dishonest diplomacy took place under conservative governments in respect of facilities operating in this country. Honourable members will recall the public agreement between Australia and the United States of America in respect of the North West Cape communications facility. What they did not know about until more recent times was the secret letter between the then Foreign Affairs Minister Barwick and Ambassador Battle of the United States in which Sir Garfield Barwick effectively declared: 'Do not take any notice of the conditions which are written into the public agreement. We are prepared to go along with anything you want to do and we will not ask any questions'. It is the nature of that dirty, secret diplomacy which has undermined people's confidence in agreements between governments of this country and the United States in respect of these facilities . That is why the Prime Minister today gave a desirable and ample account of the general functions of the facilities. It is behaviour like that from previous conservative governments and the general tenor of the way in which they have regarded the alliance between Australia and the United States which have debased that alliance because of the crude political misuse to which it was subjected. Today the Prime Minister lifted the relationship beyond that and addressed himself to matters of great moment, not just to people in the Australian Labor Party but to eminent citizens-scientists, writers, intellectuals and an army of ordinary people who, as far as I am aware, have no party affiliations but are increasing in their numbers and expressing concerns about the unfettered arms race taking place between the nuclear powers, the consequences of that and what is Australia's function in these sorts of developments. Let me move on. The simple undeniable fact is that, regardless of what functions Australia might contribute, it cannot escape the consequences of nuclear conflict. In the event of nuclear conflict, limited nuclear war is not an option. Once an attack commences it will immediately escalate into total nuclear war. In those circumstances the so-called ark effect described by Jonathan Schell in his book Fate of the Earth would be one of the effects which would come into play. After the first round of nuclear exchanges between the super-powers they would, in succeeding rounds, seek to eliminate countries such as Australia no matter how much immunity we might try to establish for ourselves . The aggressor countries would seek to do that to countries such as Australia for the simple reason that they would not wish to leave any immune areas which could be built up as enclaves for the regroupment of their opponent. There would be also the nuclear winter effect which has been written about at considerable length and rather disturbingly. The whole environmental balance of the world would be catastrophically disturbed and ecologically the world would eventually be destroyed. Going beyond that, the simple fact is that today the Prime Minister acknowledged, as I have acknowledged on earlier occasions, going as far back as several years ago when Leader of the Opposition, that it is undeniable that in certain circumstances these facilities could be nuclear targets. Some would be high priority nuclear targets. I told the Foreign Minister for the Soviet Union, Mr Gromyko, exactly that when I met him last week. I did not want to be subjected to any of the bluff or bluster directed to Australia by spokesmen of the Soviet Union from time to time in an effort to frighten Australians, when they have made this claim in circumstances aimed at intimidating us. The point I want to make is that the first question to be addressed is not whether the facilities are nuclear targets but whether Australia has a role to contribute in maintaining peace in the world, in curbing the nuclear arms race, and in working for arms control and disarmament. If she has a role to fulfil within the context of those things, are the facilities key elements in fulfilling that role? There is no doubt in my mind that they are key elements. If the facilities were removed the consequences would be these: We would cease to contribute a key role in verification; we would end a role in support of deterrence; we would disengage from early warning arrangements. What must be recalled is that national verification procedures are the basis of all earlier agreements designed to restrict the nuclear arms race, not on-site verification but national verification systems. That is what these facilities contribute. That is what has been acknowledged today for the first time ever in the statement of the Prime Minister. Deterrence is the only thing we have in place which brings some sort of balance and restraint between the nuclear powers of the world, in particular the super- powers. It allows us to negotiate about arms control, to propose lower levels of nuclear armaments, and to work in that direction. In the absence of deterrence there is no such restrictive influence at work. Do we aim-for those who say we should not be involved in these facilities-at tossing out any support and participation in the only effective system working to curb any propensity towards nuclear conflict? The early warning function is an essential one. We want to avoid a nuclear Pearl Harbour occurring anywhere on this globe. In that sense these facilities have an important role to contribute. The role of deterrence links all these things together. Its role is to discourage an adversary from aggression and to reassure one's own people and allies about their safety. There is also the issue of morality. Is it moral to have these facilities in Australia when they have these clearly described functions? There are those who argue that the only moral position for Australia to adopt is to eliminate them, not to participate at all. But moral choices in a very imperfect world are not between pure, uninfected alternatives in a perfect environment, rather they are choices often between lesser and greater evils. In that respect it is a matter of our being able to choose not that which we believe to be the most desirable but that which most desirably we can work towards and achieve practically. In that sense it would be immoral for us, in my view, to bail out of any commitment and involvement in processes which guarantee deterrence. There are those who express concern that these facilities would have some sort of war-fighting effect. I neither confirm nor deny those sorts of assertions. That is the proper course of conduct which has been adopted by previous governments, and is followed by this one. Let me, however, address myself in principle to that sort of concern. It sometimes happens that there is more than one purpose available from a particular facility or service or from the implementation of particular purposes, in relation to a wide range of things in our society. For instance, the scissors and the hammer have rather mundane but very important practical purposes within the household, but they can be converted into lethal weapons and have been so converted. That is not a justification for declaring a total prohibition on such implements. Radar is used for defence but it is also applied for aggressive measures. It would be desirable if we could get something in place to prevent its use for aggressive purposes; then it would not be needed for defensive purposes. The important thing is to work towards the objective that makes these prohibitions unnecessary , in this case, effective arms control moving towards disarmament. What I am talking about is known in Catholic theological circles as the principle of double effect. In creating circumstances for good effects, one often creates the potential for bad effects. The question is whether the good effects more than desirably compensate for the potential bad effects. Our clout in the area of arms control and disarmament arises because we are actively involved in the areas I have mentioned. We host these facilities and we propose and ensure that they work for peaceful purposes and fulfil functions which are regularly described as necessary ones by international agencies if verification and arms control measures are going to be meaningfully put into place. This means very simply that when we speak on these matters internationally we do not do so just as hand-wringing moralisers, we do so as people with a very direct stake in these matters. Accordingly, we are taken seriously. We have been more active than any previous government in the area of arms control and disarmament-for example, the comprehensive test ban, the Nuclear Non -Proliferation Treaty review, the Threshold Test Ban Treaty, the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty, chemical warfare. We have taken consistent initiatives in connection with all these things. We have appointed a full time disarmament ambassador so that there is full time attention to all those matters . We are in the process of completing the arrangements for the establishment of a peace research institute at the Australian National University. We have beefed up the arms control and disarmament section of the Foreign Affairs Department. It had been woefully neglected before. This is some evidence of the genuineness of the credentials of this Government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(4.37) —I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) for his contribution to this debate. What he and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) have done, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) said, is really to direct their remarks to the lunatic Left of the Australian Labor Party. The Foreign Minister outlined a very coherent argument in his remarks to the House today. As the Leader of the Opposition said, there is nothing new in this statement. I guess it does provide us with the opportunity for debate. We all start from the point of a strong desire for peace. All political parties in Australia support that proposition, none so much as the coalition parties. We are, and always have been, strong supporters of this desire for peace. The issue is not whether peace is desirable; the issue is how to attain it and how to preserve it. Senseless arms build-ups are undesirable and dangerous. They squander precious resources which should be used for the betterment of mankind. This afternoon the Prime Minister has taken the step of coming out roundly in support of the view that the security of Australia is linked with the security of the Western alliance. I am very glad he has come out and taken that line because it supports the coalition's attitude. The Prime Minister's utterances on D-Day and its significance demonstrate that when the basic existence of free and enlightened societies is threatened the world has to pool its resources to rescue the attainments of civilisation from being eradicated from human experience. This was the issue that Nazi German strength posed. History taught the unhappy lesson that the absence of strength offers no basis for guaranteeing peace. Historians reveal that if Neville Chamberlain had negotiated with Hitler at Munich, with a demonstrable strength of political will and a visible military strength, events would have taken a different turn. We all remember that Hitler emerged from Munich with enhanced status and Stalin was moved to do a deal, which was to leave Hitler free to attack in the West. These lessons are comprehended by the ambit of the Prime Minister's statement and constitute argument for maintaining a position of underlying strength. These are the lessons which have guided North Atlantic Treaty Organisation diplomacy during the difficult period since 1977 when the Soviets first installed the SS20s in Europe. In Australia, there has been considerable misunderstanding of the sequence of events which have brought East-West relations to their low ebb, if I can draw on the Prime Minister's phrase. It is a central issue to the current arms control debate and is an important part of the context. Crucial to the world issues we as a nation face is the relationship between the super-powers. Politically, the relationship encounters the unpredictable and volatile characteristics where both the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics face leadership uncertainties. The USSR has a leader who is new in his job and is clearly contesting the policies and appointments of his predecessor; and in the United States, President Reagan faces the electorate this year. For the first time in a very long time we see the Soviet policies attempting an intervention in the American political process by raising public concern in the United States about Soviet-American tension. This is the effect of walk-outs from the disarmament talks, personal attacks on President Reagan and the effort to project the Pershing cruise missile issue into the United States by basing an additional nuclear submarine off the United States coast. Australian public opinion reflects these uncertainties. It has, therefore, been somewhat easy for unilateral disarmament arguments to be given a credibility, which in a more rational environment would be more carefully treated. The case against unilateral disarmament is the case for Australia. We have built here, with its many and observable weaknesses and inequities, a humane society which maintains that a free society based on a free vote is precious in a world where totalitarianism is still powerful and authoritarianism most prevalent. Clearly, our security is joined with those like-minded countries which place a high value on a respect for human values, even if our political systems differ. We join our strength with the great democracies of Europe and with Japan, Canada and the United States. But, having said that, I do not share the view that we are committed to a process of confrontation and inevitable conflict. On the contrary, the very essence of the Australian experience is that Australia does not know government by fear and we as a people do not, therefore, live to be easily frightened or offended. But we can be confused and we can, in our confusion, make mistakes, the chief of which is to under-estimate the value of a non-belligerent strength. Wars are not caused by defensive strength. They are caused by aggression, and aggression most frequently results from a one-sided weakness. Central to the current disagreement between the Soviet Union and Europe is the issue of the SS20s. It is not generally realised that the SS20s employ a revolutionary technology. The SS20s are deployed against Western Europe, China and Japan. Each missile carries three warheads which can be targeted. Each launcher has a reload missile. The year 1977 was a hopeful year in arms control. Relations between the super- powers were flush with arms limitation proposals. The Carter Administration in the United States sharply reduced funding and development of the MX missile. The B1 bomber project was cancelled in mid-1977 and serious negotiations to limit strategic nuclear forces were advanced by the United States. Moreover, 1977 was an active year for negotiations to limit naval arms in the Indian Ocean. But alas, 1977 turned out to be the year in which the Soviet Union chose to target Europe with the new missile, the SS20. So, I remind the House, at the very time the new Carter Administration was totally committed to a nuclear arms limitation diplomacy, the Soviet had chosen to unveil its new threat to Europe. At first, the United States was disinclined to react. But the socialist Government-and I repeat that: The socialist Government-of Germany, under Helmut Schmidt, feared that the US might disengage the issue of European security from US security. He clearly felt that Europe and, in particular, a Germany which possessed no nuclear arms, could be subject to aggressive diplomacy and diplomatic blackmail. It was not until December 1979 that the United States reacted, that is, some two years after the Soviet deployments had commenced and when some 140 SS20s with 420 warheads had been deployed by the Soviet Union. The United States then proposed that the Soviets reduce their deployments and thereby obviate the need for the United States to respond by installing a counter-force of ballistic and cruise missiles. The offer was dramatised by President Reagan as an offer for both sides to have no deployment of intermediate missiles. Honourable members will all remember the so-called 'zero option proposals'. The United States went into negotiations with flexibility of mind but clearly with a commitment to secure a removal of the Soviet SS20 missile threat to Europe. The Soviets at that stage withdrew from the conference table. During the negotiations, the Soviets expanded their deployments by 300 warheads. It seems almost certain that the Soviets will complete the deployment of 400 missiles with 1,200 warheads. This, then, is the balance of the issue. But I believe that some additional points need to be borne in mind. The first is the proposal to counter the Soviet nuclear build up by SS20s with notified deployments and to wind down Western deployments as the Soviets move to halt and wind down their deployments. That proposal is a NATO proposal, not a personal initiative of President Reagan. As the Belgian Foreign Minister explained late last month: Some political leaders in Europe think that if we could convince more European public opinion that the decisions are taken not only by the United States, but also by the European member states, and very often asked for by the European member states, as was the case for this INF, public opinion would accept more easily the measures and efforts necessary to deploy them. That is a very important statement and it was, in fact, referred to by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) in his speech to the House this afternoon. The fact of the matter is that the deployments of the Pershing and cruise missiles in Western Europe were not on the initiative of the United States, but have come about as a result of a direct request from Western European governments. It is quite wrong for people to suggest and to propagate the view that it was the United States which was responsible for this move; it was not. It was as a result of a direct request from Western European governments. The problem of NATO is one which argues the case that we must negotiate from strength. The alternative to that is to negotiate from weakness. I do not believe that to be a reality at all. The reality is that there would have been no negotiation at all because none would have been necessary if the program of Soviet deployments commenced in 1977, at the height of optimism about arms limitation, had been left unquestioned and unchallenged. But if there had been no action by NATO, the consequences for stability in Europe would be graver than they are today. If the United States had accepted a policy of allowing massive nuclear superiority in Europe to the Soviet, the full weight of policy-making would have been transferred from NATO to Washington and the full weight of countering Soviet policy would have been transferred to the strategic nuclear force. It is quite obvious that such a situation would allow for far greater political miscalculation to arise and precipitate the crises we most seek to avoid. Consider, just for a moment, the temptations open to the Soviet Union when faced with a Europe weak in conventional arms-for that is the reality of the situation and also wholly inferior in nuclear capability; great temptations indeed. The peace movement's misunderstanding of these issues has been fuelled by Soviet arguments. The greater the strength of the movement for unilateral disarmament, the more the Soviet Union will feel encouraged to stay away from the negotiating table. I remind all honourable members that these issues must be resolved at the negotiating table. It is important to sustain a public expectation that every effort should be made to bring the super-powers into dialogue. In that objective, the Opposition shares in and supports the Government's actions and the Minister's personal efforts to do this. Concerning the nuclear free zone in the Pacific, which was mentioned by the Prime Minister in his statement, I merely draw to the House's attention the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) in the debate last week on the Slatyer inquiry. I hope the Government will read that statement and heed to a more cautious policy, and allow the Parliament to look at it in advance of a commitment. The proposal endangers the arguments he espouses for joint facilities in Australia. The significant thing the Prime Minister's statement underpins is the interlocking obligations that the ANZUS Treaty engages. It is not a security arrangement isolated from all the other major contributors to Western security, such as NATO, the Japan-US Security Treaty and others. In contributing to the security of the United States, we contribute to the security of the Western Alliance which has to contest those policies of the Soviet Union which we regard as inimical to our freedom, peace and security. This is the concept we, on this side of the House, have always sustained. I am pleased the Government has now concurred in it. The Prime Minister's statement clearly demonstrates that the US facilities make a vital contribution to the technology of verification, which is the key to firm agreements. The reality is that the people of the Soviet Union want peace and we know we seek peace. There is a need for frank argument, but the processes of peace can be served only when aspirations for peace are realised at the conference table. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —by leave -I am indeed pleased to have this opportunity to make a statement to the House on progress to date in the implementation of the community employment program. The CEP is the largest and most ambitious labour market initiative ever undertaken by an Australian government. It was established as a three-year program through legislation in May 1983, and was formerly launched by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on 1 August of that year. The program was devoted primarily to creating job opportunities for people most seriously affected by unemployment and least likely to benefit from economic recovery-specifically the long term unemployed, Aborigines, migrants with English language difficulties, and the disabled. The special difficulties faced by women in the labour market were also acknowledged by the setting of a broad objective of equal participation in the program by unemployed females. Federal funds of $250m were made available in 1983-84 for worthwhile job creation projects to be sponsored by State departments and authorities, local government, and community groups under the States-Territories component of the program. A further $50m was allocated for projects run by Commonwealth departments and authorities. The aim during 1983-84 was to create 40,000 jobs of an average duration of six months. The developmental and administrative task of implementing such a large and important program has been immense. It involved the establishment of broadly-based consultative committees in all States and Territories to assess project submissions and make recommendations for ministerial approval. It required a substantial co-operative effort between Federal and State-Territory governments to establish an adequate structure of administrative support. And most importantly, it relied on the creative response of government and community at all levels to the challenge of developing new employment and training opportunities for the most disadvantaged in the labour market. I am pleased to be able to advise the House that, in less than 10 months, the CEP has been implemented successfully. After a necessarily gradual introduction, it is now fully operational, with a rapid acceleration in the number of people being placed in jobs. Before outlining in detail the progress made in implementing CEP, it is important to make quite clear to members the economic and social context in which the program was introduced, the relationship of the program to the Government's overall employment strategy, and the essential role and functions of the program. When this Government took office in March 1983 the Australian economy and labour market were in a parlous state. The economy was in deep recession, the worst for 50 years. Employment has plummeted by 187,000 over the previous year, almost three quarters of a million Australians were unemployed, and long term unemployment had escalated alarmingly. The Hawke Government came to office with a firm commitment to reversing this unacceptable situation as its top policy priority. Our basic approach has been to generate sustained economic recovery through the pursuit of expansionary macroeconomic policies in the context of a voluntary and equitable prices and incomes policy. The success of this strategy is already clearly evident. Strong economic growth is underway, with real gross domestic product likely to increase by more than 10 per cent over this financial year. Such a spectacular growth rate is the highest in the Western industrialised world. Over the past year, 225,000 new jobs have been created, which means that in its first year in office the Government has achieved 45 per cent of its target of at least half a million new jobs in its first three years in office. We will, of course, be happy to exceed that target by a very substantial amount. Unemployment in seasonally adjusted terms has been brought down by 33,000 over the past year, and by 52,000 since reaching its high point in September last year. Despite this impressive performance, however, the Government recognises that the task of making substantial inroads into the level of unemployment will not be easy. The modest improvements in the unemployment situation can only be consolidated and substantially improved upon in the context of sustained economic growth over a number of years. We are confident that such growth can be achieved as long as all sections of the community are committed to the policy strategy currently being pursued by the Government. The problem of long term unemployment, however, has always been of particular concern to this Government. We are currently witnessing the tragic legacy of the rapid increase in unemployment during the last year of the Fraser Government. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures for April 1984, more than 291,000 people have been out of work for at least six months, with 193,000-or almost 29 per cent of all unemployed-having been jobless for more than a year. As well as the appalling social stress and waste of resources involved, such people are also the least likely to benefit from increasing employment opportunities associated with general economic expansion unless additional policies are also in place. The long term unemployed-and other disadvantaged labour market groups such as migrants with English language difficulties, Aborigines, and the disabled-find themselves facing an increasingly difficult situation in the job market. The longer they are out of work, the greater their loss of work skills and self- confidence, and the more reluctant are employers to take them on. Recent research clearly indicates that the probability of gaining employment declines noticeably the longer a person is out of work. This vicious circle of long term unemployment means that the problems faced by these people in getting into the labour market cannot be addressed through economic recovery alone. It was in recognition of this situation that this Government gave priority to introducing the community employment program-as an integral part of its overall policy strategy of reducing unemployment across all sections of the labour market. The fundamental purpose of the CEP is to assist the most disadvantaged groups of unemployed in obtaining permanent employment in the general labour market. It aims to do this by providing work experience, and where possible training, on worthwhile projects, and thereby acting as an important 'stepping stone' for these people to get back into the general work force. The CEP is thus not intended to be a direct source of permanent jobs. This is not to deny that some CEP projects will have the potential to be self-sustaining and create ongoing employment. Indeed, priority is given to such projects, but there is no intention that Federal funding would be made available to employ individual participants on a continuing basis. Given the magnitude of the problem confronting us, it is imperative that the priority objective should be to assist as many of the disadvantaged unemployed as possible through the CEP, rather than support a much lower number of people in permanent jobs. Similarly, CEP is not designed to provide ongoing funding for community services or other activities, or to enable sponsors to develop services or facilities using the best labour available. While the provision of worthwhile community services and facilities is an important element of the program, the primary objective is to provide employment opportunities for those most disadvantaged in the labour market. The Government is, of course, concerned to create permanent long term jobs, but this goal is more appropriately pursued through general policies of economic stimulus, together with specific measures aimed directly at encouraging new forms of permanent job creation. The Government is currently giving consideration to various options in this latter category. The CEP will, however, remain essentially a short term transitional employment program, and the Government is confident that it is proving effective in this role. The recent evaluation of the Victorian Government's employment initiatives program has clearly demonstrated the value of this type of program in improving the employment prospects of those who participate. I am confident that the evaluation of the CEP, to be undertaken by the Bureau of Labour Market Research in my Department during 1984-85, will produce similarly favourable results. I turn to the progress to date in the implementation and operation of this important program. While getting the program on the ground so quickly and effectively has been a major achievement in itself, the actual operational results of the program to date have also been impressive: More than 16,360 applications for funding have been received. Over 6,570 projects have been approved at a total cost of $567m and involving a Federal commitment of some $ 428m over the course of the projects. Our 1983-84 job target under CEP has been achieved. In all 40,381 people are to be assisted as a result of approvals to date, and already more than 2,300 projects employing in excess of 19,200 people have actually commenced. This rate of commencement will accelerate over the remainder of the financial year. The program is also reaching its key target groups: Over half of all those who have been placed on CEP jobs have been unemployed for nine months or more, and the average duration of unemployment previously experienced by participants is almost 12 months. Almost a third of all placements involve women, although this proportion increases to over 38 per cent when roads projects are excluded. I remind the House that the jobs on local roads component of the program, which is $70m of $300m, was excluded from the 50 per cent female objective because of the nature of the projects involved. Aborigines have received 8 per cent CEP jobs, disabled persons 10 per cent and migrants with language difficulties 4 per cent. It is also worth noting that the labour intensity objective is being met, with some 54 per cent of total project budgets on average being devoted to the direct wage costs of the program's target groups, the average duration of jobs approved is 26.5 weeks, the average cost per job approved is currently just over $14,000, of which $10,600 represents the Commonwealth's contribution. I would like to outline briefly some of the main features of progress to date within each of the main components of the CEP. A substantial majority of jobs have been created under the broad States-Territories component of CEP. By mid- May, 6,402 projects had been approved, creating 36,740 jobs at a total cost of $ 519m and attracting $380m in Commonwealth funds over the life of the projects; that is, in the States and Territories component. This impressive rate of progress reflects the efficiency of the administrative and approval structures in place. The level of sponsor contribution-almost $140m-also indicates a strong community commitment to tackling the problems of unemployment. Honourable members will be aware that, under this component, specific allocations were made for jobs on local roads-JOLOR-and country town water supply improvement projects, as well as for general projects sponsored by State and Territory governments, local councils, and community groups. Under JOLOR, more than 1,000 projects have been approved in consultation with my colleague the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris), providing work for over 6,600 unemployed people on the repair, maintenance and construction of local roads throughout Australia. Many small country towns are benefiting from improved water supply systems through 166 projects approved under the country town water supply component, which are providing jobs for over 1,400 unemployed people. The Federal Government is also committed to pursuing the major goals of the CEP through its own involvement in sponsoring job creation projects. Under the Commonwealth component of CEP, 172 projects had been approved by mid- May, creating 3,641 employment opportunities for disadvantaged job seekers in various departments and authorities, and involving full Federal funding of almost $48m over the life of the projects. The objective of equal female participation is being actively pursued. Under the $20m repairs and maintenance program, which is currently employing 1, 686 people, almost 22 per cent of employees are women, which compares with only 10 per cent in the building and construction industry as a whole, which is certainly a non-traditional industry for female employment, and reflects the Government's conscious attempt to promote female employment in these non- traditional areas. A specific allocation of $8.5m was also earmarked for women's projects under Commonwealth CEP. Almost $5m has so far been committed under this initiative, involving 17 projects and 385 female employees, and further projects providing jobs for 412 unemployed women will soon be considered for approval. The Federal Government has also demonstrated a direct commitment to ensure that Aborigines participate in Commonwealth CEP projects by setting aside $7m for projects targeted at unemployed Aborigines, mainly in outlying areas and Aboriginal communities. To date, I have approved about $6m worth of projects in conjunction with the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), providing jobs for 591 Aborigines. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard two tables which provide broad details of program approvals to date by State and program component, and which clearly indicate the outstanding overall progress which has been made in implementing CEP. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- COMMUNITY EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM: PROJECT APPROVALS BY PROGRAM COMPONENT 18 May 1984 Number of CEP Total projects Number funds project Program component approved of jobs granted value $m $m JOLOR (a) 1,029 6,643 59.79 79.60 COWSIP (b) 166 1,422 29.79 44.22 State Govt (c) 1,909 11,856 113.27 159.93 Local Govt (d) 1,474 9,056 87.55 125.16 Community Groups (e) 1,824 7,763 89.50 110.11 Total: State/Territory Component 6,402 36,740 379.91 519.01 Commonwealth CEP 172 3,641 47.90 47.90 Total CEP 6, 574 40,381 427.81 566.91 (a) Jobs on Local Roads Programs. (b) Country Town Water Supply Improvement Projects. (c) Projects sponsored by State Government Departments and Instrumentalities. (d) Projects sponsored by Local Government Authorities. (e) Projects sponsored by Community groups. Note: Due to rounding, totals may not equal the sums of components. COMMUNITY EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM: PROJECT APPROVALS BY STATE/TERRITORY 18 May 1984 Number of CEP Total projects Number funds project State/Territory approved of jobs granted value $m $m N.S.W. 2,439 11,989 120.24 160.71 Vic. 1,194 7,741 105.70 137.98 Qld 960 7,533 66.10 94.52 W.A. 710 3,607 38.45 53.52 S.A. 480 3,267 28.09 42.30 Tas. 413 1,534 10.84 14.89 N.T. 58 454 4.15 5.42 A.C.T. 148 615 6.34 9.66 Total: State/Territory Component 6,402 36,740 379.91 519.01 Commonwealth CEP 172 3,641 47.90 47.90 Australia 6,574 40,381 427.81 566.91 Note: Due to rounding, totals may not equal the sums of components. Mr WILLIS —Now that the initial development and implementation of CEP has been successfully achieved, it is appropriate to review the possibilities for further development of the program. It is for this reason that over recent months I have consulted extensively with State Ministers, local government and community groups on the changes that may be necessary to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the program in 1984-85. There are a number of specific guidelines which have caused concern amongst various sections of the community involved in CEP. I refer in particular to the sponsor contribution and labour intensity requirements of the program. As I announced in the House yesterday, the Government has decided to make some changes in this area for 1984-85. While the Government is still strongly committed to the principle of sponsor contributions, it is also keenly aware of the difficulties experienced by some areas of local government and the community in meeting the current requirement for a minimum sponsor contribution of 30 per cent of total project costs. Accordingly, I announced that the following changes will be made: A reduction in the minimum sponsor contribution for local government and community groups from 30 per cent to 20 per cent of total project costs; a removal of the right of exemption from this level of contribution for local government sponsors; and a more consistent and realistic approach to the use of non-cash contributions by local government and community groups, up to a limit of 10 per cent of total project costs. Under these new arrangements, sponsors in the local government and community sectors will also be obliged to ensure that 65 per cent of the Commonwealth grant is devoted to the direct wage costs of the target group. This requirement will ensure that the employment creating impact of the program will be maintained, while at the same time offering more flexibility for sponsors in terms of the labour intensity of individual projects. These new arrangements, which will apply from 1 July, will provide greater consistency and equity across Australia and will allow a more realistic basis for the continued participation in the program by the local government and community sectors. Another key issue for the future will be to ensure that the program is targeted effectively to the groups in most need of assistance. This is particularly important in view of the magnitude of long term unemployment and the fact that applications are far exceeding the level of Federal funding available. The objective should be to ensure that the most disadvantaged groups participate in the program at a level greater than their proportion of unemployment. Although women are participating substantially in the program, we obviously have to intensify our efforts to achieve the overall objective of equal participation. There are, of course, broader issues of relevance in considering the future development of CEP, such as the role of training and other support services. In particular, I am keen to consider program developments which cater for a more structured integration of relevant training activity and which ensure that employment opportunities are closely linked to the emerging structure of the broader labour market. Mr Deputy Speaker, now that the program is being effectively implemented, it would be tragic if it were to be disrupted by the industrial action of Commonwealth Employment Service staff members as a result of a national ban proposed by the Australian Clerical Officers Association on all new CEP vacancies after 15 June. Such an action would represent a devastating blow to the employment aspirations of the most disadvantaged people in the labour market . I find it difficult to believe that CES staff, whose dedication and effort I have admired in my period as Minister, could undertake such a callous and unconscionable action. This is particularly so when the Government has responded in a reasonable manner to the staffing needs of the CES to this point, and remains concerned to ensure adequate staff levels in 1984-85. To this end, the Government has acted to increase staffing levels for the CES by almost 5 per cent during 1983-84, which means that CES staffing levels have risen by 27 per cent over the two years to June 1984. As part of this increase- and contrary to the assertions of the ACOA-the Government specifically provided for 256 staff to implement the CEP program through CES offices. Furthermore, the Government has twice invited the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and its staff associations, to participate in discussions on staffing levels throughout the Public Service in the context of the 1984 Budget preparations, during which the Government will be implementing a process of human resource budgeting in conjunction with financial budgeting. Such discussions would, of course, provide the ACOA with the opportunity of being involved in consideration of CES staffing levels for 1984-85, as well as staffing levels for all other areas of the Public Service. This is the first time any Australian government has made such an important opportunity available to the staff associations. It would be a tragedy for the unemployed and a setback to the achievement of a more rational approach to public service staffing issues if this offer is rejected in favour of callous industrial action. In concluding, I reiterate the important role the CEP has to play in the Government's policy strategy for reducing unemployment. I also commend the positive role that honourable members on both sides of the House have played in ensuring the success of the program. Members have been given the opportunity to be involved in the development, assessment and announcement of projects in their electorates, and I am pleased that many honourable members have participated in these activities. Through this program the Government has clearly demonstrated its commitment to directly tackling the serious problem of long term unemployment. I trust that we will continue to receive broad community support and involvement, as well as the bipartisan support of this House, as the program goes into the next financial year. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava) —by leave-The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), in his closing remarks, referred to the general bipartisan approach to this problem. I refer to his earlier analysis of the economy, with which I agree, which referred to the difficulty which long term unemployed and other disadvantaged labour market groups have in getting any employment at all and the fact that the longer they are out of work the greater their loss of work skill and self-confidence and the more reluctant employers are to take them on. We acknowledge the other remarks of that character. It is one reason why we have not been critical of some aspects of the administration of the community employment program. But, without departing from that bipartisan analysis and concern about the state of the labour market and the problems of the long term unemployed and some of the other disadvantaged people, it is fair to point out that the community employment program is suffering from serious maladministration. I hasten to add that I do not believe it is maladministration on the part of the Minister's Department. Nonetheless, that Department must accept a great deal of the responsibility for the oversight of the program. I shall return to that matter in a moment. From what the Minister has said today, it is very clear that this program is failing to meet its objectives of providing much needed short term employment and work experience for the unemployed, especially those disadvantaged people to whom we have referred. The Government introduced the CEP through legislation brought into this House more than a year ago, in fact on 19 May last year. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) officially launched the program on 1 August. That was a huge lapse, presumably for administrative reasons, but I think the occasion is well remembered. The publicity occasioned by the launching by the Prime Minister was that the project was funded by the previous Government's wage pause employment program. Today, more than 10 months later, we hear the Minister say that the CEP is now fully operational. The tenor of his remarks was that this was a matter for congratulations of the Government. He said that the Government was getting the program off the ground. That is not an occasion for congratulations by the Opposition or the community, because the program was, as a wage pause employment program, under way with essentially the same guidelines. It seems to us that if it is off the ground it is in a state of stall and is in danger of serious crash landing. I remind the House that following an agreement of 7 December by the then Federal Government and the State Premiers to introduce the wages pause it was agreed that there would be an employment program of this character funded from the money saved by the pause, saved from salary increases which had been allocated but which would not be actually granted. In the short time between the making of that agreement on 7 December 1982 and the election on 5 March 1983 a great deal of progress had been made in getting in place essentially what the Minister now says is safely launched. In fact, the wage pause program led to some 4,000 projects and of the order of 22,000 jobs which lasted a little less than six months. An interim report was produced by the Bureau of Labour Market Research confirming that the wage pause program substantially achieved its objectives. I remind the House that those objectives were essentially those of the community employment program. So it is very disappointing to hear the Minister saying that this program is now off the ground. He said: . . . the actual operational results of the program to date have also been impressive. They are far from impressive, and that is very sad indeed for those who had hoped to benefit from the program. The fact is that the Minister will have to provide a good deal more information about the progress of the CEP if the House is to believe his statement. Such information as the Opposition has been able to assemble indicates that, far from being a success, the CEP is in the throes of major breakdown. Nothing the Minister has said today does anything to allay those fears. Indeed, the lack of information tends to corroborate them. The House will note that virtually everything the Minister said was in terms of applications lodged for CEP grants and approvals given. The Minister states that he is confident that the CEP will achieve its aim of providing 40,000 jobs lasting an average of six months in the financial year 1983-84, but we are now within one month of the end of that financial year and the results are far from encouraging. The Minister has stated today that 16,360 applications for CEP funding have been received. I do not doubt that figure, but what evidence is that of the program's success in creating employment? I submit that it is none at all. The evidence is that the community recognises the value of a program of this nature, properly administered. That is the number of applications; that is not successful projects for a program that is a year old. The Minister further says that 6,570 CEP projects have been approved. Again, I do not dispute that figure. Projects are easily approved. I understand that the State CEP committees are under considerable pressure to approve them. But of those 6,570 projects approved, the Minister admits that, after 11 months, only 2 ,300 have actually commenced. With one month of the financial year to go, only 35 per cent, just over a third, of the Government's target number of CEP projects have actually begun. Forty thousand people are to be assisted by the CEP projects already approved, but with one month to go fewer than half that number of people have actually benefited through receiving employment and work experience. So it is one thing to talk about applications; it is quite another thing to talk of approvals and commencements. The Minister says that this rate of commencement will accelerate over the remainder of the financial year; but of course, that remainder is only a matter of weeks. There is very little of the financial year left, so one would have to say that the community is entitled to be disappointed with the first year of operation of this scheme. I should like to ask about a number of matters of administration. I say at the outset that my personal regard and liking for the Minister, both as a person and as a Minister, is very well known. Mr Cohen —You are only human. Mr MACPHEE —Yes, the Minister is only human. I understand the complexities of his administration only too well, especially when it involves State bureaucracies; so I hasten to make it quite clear that I am concerned to identify-as I am sure the Minister is, but he did not wish me to do so-the problems of administration which are obviously revealed by this statement and the figures that have been tabled. Therefore, I ask the Minister whether it is true that, under the CEP, New South Wales has been allocated $85m, has committed $150m, but in fact has actually managed to spend only $11m. Is it also true that the situation is almost as bad in other States? As I am informed, in Western Australia, for example, there has been an allocation of $23m in CEP funds, a commitment of $40m, but a spending of only $6m. The Minister will need to explain that to the public before long. We really need to have a proper examination of why it is that this program, which so many people wish to see successful, is not being administered appropriately at a State level. How does the Minister explain those figures? It seems to me that they represent a breakdown, caused, no doubt, by a lack of co-ordination and supervision by the Commonwealth and certainly some very strange administration at State level. Is it, for example, true that the Western Australian CEP Consultative Committee has not even met for two months, as I am informed-since 9 April-because of a serious rift between the State and Federal governments? That is my information. The House has the right to know the answers to these questions, and so do the taxpayers. According to the Minister, they will have invested $400m of their funds in this program. Also, of course, the 670,000 unemployed, many of whom had hoped to benefit from this program, have a right to expect better than they are getting. It appears very clear that the State bodies charged with approving CEP projects are being pressured to do so without sufficient guidelines or supervision from the Federal Government. In particular, they are approving projects without first assuring themselves that there are sufficient target unemployed in the places where the projects are being approved. So jobs are available in certain places, but target unemployed under this program are not necessarily where those jobs are, and the projects are not being approved in places where the targeted unemployed would be able to benefit from them. The Minister has rightly pointed out that the CEP is not designed to provide ongoing funding for community services or other activities or to enable sponsors to develop services or facilities using the best labour available. He goes on to say: While the provision of worthwhile community services and facilities is an important element of the program, the primary objective is to provide employment opportunities for those most disadvantaged in the labour market. Of course, we fully endorse that, and that was the purpose of our funding under the wage pause program. But this objective is not being met, and while projects continue to be approved without a prior profile of the local employment or unemployment market, including the targeted unemployed, the program will continue to fail in its objective. Nothing that the Minister has said today has allayed the fears of those who believe that that is one of its major shortcomings. The fact is, as well, that the CEP is being widely abused. I do not doubt that there are some successful programs, but from all over Australia one hears stories of how local councils and some of the community organisations are using the CEP as a soft touch for funding. It is widely known that, if a local organisation approaches a local council or State government body for funding for a particular project, the council or the government body replies: 'Put in an application under the CEP'. I am not suggesting that the matter has reached the proportions of rip-offs under the regional employment development scheme, but I am saying that, support the objectives of the program though we do, we shall have to ask increasingly, and increasingly aggressively too, some questions about the administration of it. Organisations are getting around the requirement of 30 per cent funding by project sponsors. The Minister has announced a further reduction of that, but in the past they have successfully applied for an exemption or, in some cases, have contrived to fulfil the requirement by providing volunteer labour to the so-called value of that 30 per cent. In either case, they are avoiding committing any finance and they are able to spend the taxpayers' funds with minimal accountability. I repeat that we praise the objectives, but we really believe that the CEP is not proving effective at present. The Minister and the Government must pinpoint the reasons why and must account, on their next presentation to this House in the Budget session, much more fully for the maladministration at State level and, therefore, Commonwealth supervision of it, which is quite evident from what I have said today. Apart from requiring a much greater level of efficiency and supervision from the Government, the public will also want to be reassured that its funds are being prudently spent for the purpose for which they have been allocated. On 4 May I asked the Minister some pertinent questions raised in the second progress report on the prices and incomes policy. He has not answered them, so I shall refer briefly to them again. That report records that over 20,000 jobs were created under the previous Government's wage pause program, at a cost of $223m. It further estimates that under the CEP program 23,000 jobs will be created by projects approved as of February this year, at a cost of $379m. Given that the average duration of jobs under both programs is six months, I believe that the Minister ought to explain why the jobs created under the current CEP program are costing 43 per cent more-almost half as much again-than the jobs of a comparable character and for a comparable duration created by the previous Government's wage pause program. Moreover, the Minister ought to justify to the House-he has not done so-the expenditure of an additional $156m to create an extra 2,600 jobs . That figure works out at about $60,000 for each additional six-months job. I wish to refer to a couple of other matters of detail. One matter is that complaints have been received that, in South Australia at least, before people are enabled to participate in CEP projects they must join the relevant union. I trust that the Commonwealth will inform State governments administering this program that that is not a feature of the guidelines and that that practice-if the allegations are correct, as I am informed-ought to cease. Another matter to be raised is in respect of the Minister's statement that the jobs on local roads component excludes the 50 per cent female employment objective because of the nature of the project involved. I ask why that is so, particularly in light of yesterday's discussion on the Green Paper on affirmative action for women, and particularly in light of the Minister's statement today when he referred to the growth in employment of women under the repairs and maintenance program. As he rightly observed, this compares very favourably with the traditional practices of the building and construction industry. I put it to the Minister that the nature of modern road construction is such-it is so capital intensive, with a great deal of equipment-that what was presumed to be male work in that respect is now no longer so, and that the objective of 50 per cent female employment ought to apply. Another matter of importance relates to the Commonwealth area. I think the Minister was silent on this matter. But in the area of Commonwealth employment, if one looks at a breakdown of the grants allocated last year, the Government allocated $19.2m on general projects and about $20m on housing and construction. Eighty-one per cent of all jobs were funnelled into electorates held by the Australian Labor Party and only 19 per cent went to electorates held by the Opposition. I think the Minister owes an explanation to the House in that regard as well. The difference is even more marked in the general projects area. Eighty -seven per cent of general projects went to ALP-held electorates and only 13 per cent to seats held by the Opposition. I believe that an examination of these figures suggests that the Government has engaged in pork barrelling of a very blatant kind. The Minister will have an opportunity to clarify those figures. They are identified from figures which the Minister tabled on a previous occasion. I raise one further matter relating to the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association's threat to ban community employment programs. I endorse fully the Minister's condemnation of the ACOA. I also join him in his remarks about the dedication of the Commonwealth Employment Service staff. I believe that the CES must consider very carefully what the Minister has said. The Minister is correct in recording that CES staffing levels have risen by 27 per cent over the two years to June this year and, on that basis, CES officers do have an obligation to consider the plight of the unemployed. What their threatened ban-and, indeed, what their existing ban on some of the other employment programs-amounts to is a strike against the unemployed. The Minister has expressed his views very strongly and I trust that when he, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the ACOA and other staff associations examine the staffing requirements for the next financial year-and when, as is inevitable, they disagree-the Government will then take a very firm stand with those unions and that those unions will see the importance of standing by the plight of the unemployed. The Minister, in his opening remarks, spent quite a bit of time on the so- called 'legacy' which he inherited from the previous Government in respect of the economy. Let me say three important things: We all know that this Government has been astonishingly lucky in the way in which the drought ended; the way in which it got the benefit of the wage pause program; and the way in which there has been some recovery in the world economy. But we also know that in its management of the economy, in its implementation of the accord with the ACTU, it is squandering the benefits that were provided to it. It is doing so in a way which will lead to no growth in employment such as can absorb the growth in the work force, let alone offer prospects for those who are intended to benefit from the program under discussion today. Participants at the National Economic Summit Conference held in this chamber talked about jobs, jobs, jobs. Yet the policies which this Government is pursuing are designed to inhibit sustained economic growth. Today the Minister said: . . . the Government recognises that the task of making substantial inroads into the level of unemployment will not be easy. The modest improvements in the unemployment situation can only be consolidated and substantially improved upon in the context of sustained economic growth over a number of years. But the policies being pursued are against the features that guarantee that investment will be made by the private sector to bring about that sustained economic growth. The growth in jobs matches the growth in the work force only for the time being and the prospects are that the growth in costs of employing people will outstrip the capacity of industry to invest and therefore there will even be a stalling in the growth of jobs which will fall behind the inevitable growth in the work force. But the important thing is that the people who stand to benefit under this program not only are not benefiting to the extent that they should, but also will not benefit while the Government pursues policies which seek to give a great deal to those who have secure jobs at the expense of those who do not have jobs. This Government must work out its priorities with the trade union movement for the benefit of the employed. It cannot, every time it makes a major statement, say that it inherited a mess and point to how well it is doing in creating jobs. It is not creating jobs as fast as the work force is growing; it has reduced unemployment by only 0.5 per cent in its period in office. It must tell the trade union movement and those who have jobs what the priorities are. It cannot have low productivity, which is what we have; full wage indexation, which is what it has now imposed; tax cuts, which is what it promises; increased government services, which is what it is also promising; increased public sector employment, which it has carried out; and generous employer funded superannuation schemes for everyone, which is apparently now the arrangement. The Government owes it to those who do not have jobs, and especially to the long term unemployed people at whom this program is directed, to take that into account. Those who have a job must consider those who do not. Job security is important to those with a job. Retirement security is important to those with a job. The maintenance of real wages is something that we cannot afford. A return to high levels of employment requires the Government to work out its priorities. The Opposition, while supporting anything which will lift the confidence, skill and employability of the long term unemployed and those who are otherwise disadvantaged, and at whom this program is directed, is extremely anxious that in the handling of overall economic problems the Government takes the lead and tells the trade union movement what those priorities ought to be. Otherwise the people for whom this program is designed cannot benefit; labour costs can only rise; investment can only fall; jobs can be further lost. It is not very long ago that the Minister said that we were on the way to becoming the poor relation of the Asia-Pacific region. Sadly, I think that is so and, sadly, the policies being pursued, of which these people are the victims, will guarantee that that is so. It is time to call a halt. If we want support for the long term unemployed, let us get the overall priorities right in general economic policy. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) — Mr Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The dominant and privileged position of the ACTU in the Government's decision- making, at the expense of the rest of the community. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(5.40) —We bring this matter of public importance before the Parliament today because there is unquestionably widespread concern in the community about the restrictive and elitist way in which this Labor Government is going about framing its Budget, its tax policy and the overall economic policy for Australia. Earlier this year the Government unilaterally decided that the Economic Planning Advisory Council, not the Government, would receive Budget submissions from the community, despite the fact that the majority of EPAC members were against this. Then, on 16 May the Hawke Government effectively shut out EPAC and the community groups making submissions to it. We now know that the calling of economic summits and the establishment of bodies such as EPAC are little more than a facade, a mere window dressing behind which the real business is done. When the crunch came and the horse trading began EPAC, along with a majority of the Australian community, was shoved to one side. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) replaced them with a single interest group, namely, the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Let us make it abundantly clear: We believe that the ACTU should be consulted about economic matters. That is not at issue. But why should the Hawke Government slam the door in the face of all other groups? Was the ACTU elected to this Parliament? Of course it was not. Does it represent the wide range of community interests which are normally consulted? Of course not. It does not represent business, the ethnic community, the organised taxpayers, the 2.4 million pensioners, agriculture or large sections of the work force, to name just some. So why has this Government effectively said that some Australians are more equal than others? Why has it gone behind closed doors with trade union officials to decide matters of concern to all Australians? Mr Hodgman —It is a pay-off. Mr PEACOCK —It would have to be some sort of pay-off beyond the linkage between the Australian Labor Party and the trade union movement. It involves not just consultation; as we were told yesterday, it involves negotiation. What right has the Cabinet to slam the door on the rest of the community, to consult with Mr Dolan and Mr Kelty and then to negotiate the nature of the Budget, tipping the whole process of our parliamentary system on its head? It is an absolutely unprecedented departure from our democratic process. Neither Mr Dolan nor Mr Kelty is responsible to this Parliament. Yet they are now in a position of influence which outweighs that of most Labor Ministers. Let us put it bluntly. This will not be Paul Keating's second Budget. It will be Cliff Dolan's first Budget and Labor's last. Of course, there is a lot more being settled than the forthcoming Budget. That is bad enough. Unlike this evasive and untruthful Government, at least the ACTU has made quite clear its objectives for 1984-85. It has set them out in a document called 'The Way Forward'. It has recommended radical changes which the Hawke Government will have to accept if it wants continued co-operation from the ACTU. While the Prime Minister and Mr Dolan are deciding how much tax Australians will have to pay, they are also looking at matters such as, firstly, a broadly based wealth tax; secondly, a capital gains tax and death duties; thirdly, an excess profits tax to further disrupt business investment decisions; fourthly, a radical income maintenance system supported by higher taxes; fifthly , an expanded public sector, including the socialisation of other key areas of the economy; and, sixthly, continued Government intervention in the finance sector in direct contradiction to the Campbell and Martin reports on Australia's financial system. Of course, it matters little to this cynical Prime Minister that he was elected on a platform which mentioned none of this. He said that he was going to bring Australians together. But he shuts the door on them. He brings in only trade union representatives Mr Dolan and Mr Kelty, to negotiate the Budget! He claimed that he would pursue a program of broad consultation. In view of the way that he has gone behind closed doors with the ACTU, it is no wonder that a number of the groups which have participated in EPAC are now reviewing their options. As the President of the Australian Council of Social Service said in the wake of the last meeting of EPAC, the contributions of the ACOSS representative to that meeting were deemed 'irrelevant'. I well understand the feelings of Mr McKenzie in seeking to deal with this double-dealing Government. ACOSS was not going to endorse a document drawn up by the Prime Minister which said that pensioners were better off under the Hawke Government because the truth is, as everybody in this nation knows, that pensioners are worse off under the Hawke Government. They have been repeatedly attacked by the man who says: 'Trust me'. Trust him? Age pensioners have been persecuted by this Government through the superannuation slug, through the means test for the over-70s and now through the intrusive and discriminatory Hawke assets test. The truth is that pensioners have already learned the true definition of Labor' s consensus approach. To this Prime Minister consensus means: 'You agree with me , or else'. The sorry fact is that EPAC is being grossly misused by the Prime Minister to pursue objectives which bear little or no resemblance to the EPAC charter. Decisions about the Budget, about taxes and about the recasting of the Australian economy are being made between two people-the Prime Minister and Mr Dolan. This puppet of a Treasurer who sits in here with the writings that he will give verse to when I have completed today is nothing but that-an abject puppet on a string of the Prime Minister and of Mr Dolan, President of the ACTU. He is quite unable day after day to answer the questions put to him by the shadow Treasurer. He set up a dorothy dixer today, reading line by line; and I assume that it was written by none other than Bill Kelty or Cliff Dolan. The Prime Minister and Mr Dolan are the architects of the next Budget and they are carrying on that clandestine relationship which first bore fruit with the plot to stab the previous leader of the Labor Party in the back, with Dolan playing Cassius to Hawke's Brutus in that passage of play. At that crucial time Mr Dolan held back the release of Labor's economic policy so that the honourable member for Oxley, now the Minister for Foreign Minister (Mr Hayden), had no weapon with which to fight back against the challenger to his leadership. But this time they have broadened their operations. Instead of knifing a colleague they have killed the consultative process which is so important to producing a responsible Budget, and it is just not good enough to explain it away, as the Prime Minister does, by referring to a so-called special relationship. This Government was not elected by the ACTU, yet Mr Keating and Mr Hawke dance to the tune of Mr Dolan. After all, it was the ACTU which exerted pressure on the Hawke Government and the discredited Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) to cut back the skilled labour immigration category by nearly 80 per cent and therefore contributed to this Government's upsetting of the balance of immigration categories. It was the Hawke Governemnt which caved in to the ACTU demands that ACTU affiliates be allowed to act as repositories of superannuation funds without satisfying normal prudential requirements. Trade unions do not even have an obligation to reveal their financial position, let alone have any prudential safeguards. The scope for blackmail by trade unions to force members leaving one job to place their deposit funds with the trade union if they wish to remain in the trade union is evident. The scope for unions to charge enormous fund management fees, the proceeds of which could end up financing Labor Party election campaigns on a non-disclosure basis, is clearly there. It is the wider Australian public who are paying the price for Labor's so- called special relationship with the ACTU, and that price is too high. The ordinary Australian now knows that Labor is not governing in his or her interests. The Hawke Government is not interested in what ordinary people have to say. It could not care less. As long as it locks itself in with Mr Dolan and Mr Kelty it feels that it has done its duty, not to consult but to negotiate. It is trade union concerns and aspirations, in dealings with the trade union bosses , that are uppermost in the minds of this Government. It will not get away with it because, apart from disregarding the desires, needs and aspirations of the broader community, it is also another anti-business step. Already it has imposed a resource rent tax. Already it has proposed changes to the Trade Practices Act, another example of the Hawke Government bowing to union pressure. The wage fixing system, with full indexation, has further eroded our industrial and export competitiveness. Despite what the Prime Minister claimed in this Parliament, the chances of minimal wage rises over the next year are non- existent. There have already been several successful attempts to avoid the prices and incomes accord. The Hawke Government abjectly supports the superannuation ploy, an absolute phoney, in the building industry. The Prices Surveillance Authority will further interfere with the market-place. As well as harming business, this cosy arrangement between the Prime Minister and Mr Dolan excludes the most vulnerable in our community from direct representation in the budgetary process. Of course, we have already seen how this Government deals with Australia's 2.4 million pensioners. It does not deal with them at all. It just dumps it on them. Why should the pensioners be ignored in the framing of the Budget? Perhaps they do not have the sort of industrial muscle which makes the Prime Minister jump. Perhaps they cannot intrude into the New South Wales Right and exert pressure on Mr Keating, with all his cohorts with their chequered backgrounds and current devious activities. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable gentleman will refer to the Treasurer by his title. Mr PEACOCK —Perhaps pensioners do not have the clout that the New South Wales Right has with the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and his chequered associates in that motley mob. Perhaps they do not have the voting power within the ALP but they have the voting power from which the Prime Minister will suffer and learn about when he calls his premature election. Cutting off the great majority of Australians from having a hearing on the economy is totally wrong. Mr Howard —They certainly don't have any foreshore land. Mr PEACOCK —No. I noted the Treasurer's difficulty in answering the honourable member's questions on interest rates. Perhaps we could ask him, when he is speaking, whether he can tell us the current interest rates on foreshore land. The cost to Australia of the Hawke-Dolan special relationship-I emphasise ' special relationship'-will be enormous in areas such as overall economic management. The bottom line on the surrender of wages policy to the ACTU and now the handing over of a major part of fiscal policy to it. Is that the development and implementation of a long term economic policy for Australia is now virtually impossible. The Government has sold out Australians and their prospects of long term prosperity in exchange for a short term, back door political deal. It is the sort of deal in which the Treasurer has been involved in his grubby political life. Throughout his political career there have been back door, nefarious deals and they are on again now, but not on behalf of the Australian Labor Party. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will remember standing orders 74, 75 and 76 and not impute motives. Mr PEACOCK —I speak of nothing else, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know them well. I would recite them for you but there is not enough time. I do recall them well. The fact is that the nefarious, dirty-handed dealings that have gone on under this man in his operations with the Australian Labor Party are just what is happening to the Australian community now. There is a deal with the unions but no deal with the Australian people. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer claim a special relationship with the ACTU and say that it will result in three benefits -wage restraint, the ability to pursue an expansionary fiscal policy and low industrial unrest. When one examines those three benefits one sees that they all fall to the ground. This is a sectional government which puts the interests of a minority ahead of the majority, and Australians will not stand for it. The Government must stop misusing EPAC. It is time all Australians, and not just the ACTU, had a say through the consultative mechanism on taxes and the Budget. If the Government continues this sort of conniving with the trade union movement, the Government might do its deal with it but a deal will be done against the Government by the Australian people. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(5.55) —It is precisely because of that sort of inane contribution that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) is now rating as low as any Leader of the Opposition has ever rated in the polls. If we want to see a bumper issue of a poll which rates the Leader of the Opposition low we have only to see today's Bulletin poll, which will confirm it more than anything else. The ridiculous charge in this matter of public importance is that the Australian Council of Trade Unions has a dominant and privileged position in the Government's decision-making. The Government rejects that proposal out of hand. The only decisions which are taken by this Government are taken appropriately in the Government processes in the Cabinet room. I reject absolutely the claim that the Economic Planning Advisory Council is shut out of negotiations or discussions about the Budget processes or the economy. When did we ever see the Liberal Party of Australia consult business about a strategy behind a Budget, about an economic situation, as the Government did at the National Economic Summit Conference last year and as it does now in discussions with EPAC? This alternative government never had that as a government. The best it could do was have single, narrow sectional interests arriving for their handouts after the Budget strategy, so-called, had already been fixed. It has no idea of running an economy and it never had. What we have now is a consultative process and the consultation, of course, extends beyond the economy. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, had consultations with the motor vehicle industry about the car plan. I have had extensive consultations on the report of the Martin Review of the Australian Financial System with various elements of the financial sector. The same applies to the insurance industry. I have had extensive consultations with the insurance industry on the insurance legislation amendments. The Government has had consultations on the economy with many groups. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and I have had extensive discussions with the Business Council of Australia in session. There have been discussions with the Confederation of Australian Industry and the National Farmers Federation. Right across the board there has been that consultation. Of course there has been consultation with the ACTU. The ACTU gets the respect which it warrants because of the close and co-operative relationship it has with the Government. Two major flaws in the Opposition's attack are that it has misrepresented the purposes of the working party which has been established between the Government and the ACTU in respect of taxation and it misunderstands the ACTU's role in the prices and incomes accord. The Leader of the Opposition talked about horse trading. Who is the beneficiary of the horse trading, as he calls it? The beneficiaries are all of the corporate interests across Australia which will no longer be facing a wages bill which will chop off their profit growth and chop off the recovery. What the last Government gave them was an increase in average weekly earnings of 45 per cent in three years, an 8 per cent increase in real terms, and a 4 per cent increase in real unit labour costs. That is what the previous Government gave them and they know it. The Leader of the Opposition and his Party are held in such low esteem in the public opinion polls and by business because they know they had no policy. It is all right talking about wage restraint in a recession, but what about wage restraint in a recovery? The former Government has never had an incomes policy and it is incapable of having an incomes policy because it always attacks the one group with which it must speak to secure some agreements on incomes, and that group is the ACTU. The Leader of the Opposition, who is leaving the chamber now, has never taken any interest in the domestic economy. In the years when the Fraser Government was in office he, as Foreign Minister, was swanning around the United States of America with Shirley MacLaine or trying to crash one of Ted Kennedy's parties on the east coast of the United States. That is what he was all about. He was trying to play statesman. When he came back he stayed away from the hard subjects. He spat out the dummy before he even got it into his mouth. He was quite happy to allow the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) to front up in this place year after year in a recession, while he swanned around, and then he made a cowardly attack upon the former Prime Minister before slinking back into his Cabinet, taking up the portfolio of industry and commerce. When did we ever see any deregulation from the Leader of the Opposition in industry and commerce? It is a joke. The car industry was in a shambles when he left the portfolio, as was the steel industry. What about industrial relations? As I have said, the Leader of the Opposition spat out that dummy quickly. There was no way that he would stay in industrial relations. That is one of the reasons why he resigned. The pressure was too much. He has never had any experience. If the honourable member thinks that in Australian business there is a morsel of confidence in his capacity to deal with economic problems he is mistaken. What we have here is an intellectual rust bucket. The bucket might be painted up , but there is rust underneath the duco. That is well understood by everybody in Australian business. Everybody of significance in Australian business takes the Leader of the Opposition with a grain of salt in terms of the serious contribution which he could make in running the economy. He dares to compare himself with the honourable member for Wills (Mr Hawke) as the potential Prime Minister of this country. Of course, that is simply a joke. The fact of life is that we now have in place an economic and incomes policy which can guarantee this country growth at the same time as a decline in inflation-a pick-up in profits and a pick-up in spending and investment. Of course, the Australian Council of Trade Unions played a principal role in that historic accord between this Party and itself. Of course, the ACTU has an honoured role, but it is not a privileged role. It is no more privileged than the role accorded the Business Council of Australia, the Economic Planning and Advisory Council or any other group to discuss these issues. What about, for instance, the ACTU's role in respect of superannuation? If the Government was so compliant, as the honourable gentleman suggests, obviously we would not be passing the superannuation tax amendments, because they did not meet with the favour of the ACTU. Of course, it is just a phoney suggestion that in some way this Government is at the beck and call of the ACTU. We consult the ACTU, as indeed all governments should. Indeed, I believe that even in 1982 the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee), who is sitting at the table opposite me, consulted with the ACTU about tax reform in that year's Budget. Well he might have done so. I do not cavil at that at all. I think that is entirely reasonable. In fact, what we are doing is to look at the options which are available in the economic area. The decisions in respect of tax, the shape of the Budget and its parameters will be determined by the Government, as is entirely proper. There will not be any determining of those issues outside of government. Of course, all the coalition knows about is division. All we saw in the Fraser years under the leadership of that gentleman and the members of his front bench, many of whom are now in opposition and who will remain in opposition for much longer, was division. That is all we ever saw. Even now when in opposition we see the Liberal Party of Australia relying upon the divisive issue of racism, as it relied on other divisive issues in the past to divide the Australian community. It is a disgrace that the Opposition, after so many years of bipartisanship even on that policy, should have abandoned its position and sought to retreat to that issue of racism for some sectional advantage. What we have here is misrepresentation and mock indignation about the basis of the Government's relationship with the ACTU. What underpins this is a fear of the operation of the prices and incomes accord. The Opposition fears that because it knows that its success will guarantee Australia a non-inflationary recovery which will restore Australia to reasonable levels of economic growth and ameliorate those high levels of inflation. Of course, that is what Australia has never been able to do. In the years since the scourge of inflation touched this country-particularly in the years of the coalition governments-we never saw any attempt to look at economic policy in the longer term. There was no attempt to consult the major players in the game, whether it be business or the unions. What we had was policy handed down from on high-an expedient policy at that- designed for the next election only, with no consideration of the longer term. It was all about the next election. Of course, it is a joke that the Leader of the Opposition is talking about the ACTU's role in Budget policy. In the 1982 Budget the Treasurer never even had a role in Budget policy. Neither the honourable member for Bennelong nor the Treasury had a role in Budget policy in 1982. The Budget was determined by the then Prime Minister who went for the most sleezy changes in fiscal policy to try to secure his re-election as Prime Minister, to look after his miserable political hide. Consequently we saw things such as payment of an interest subsidy to home owners who had had mortgages for years when the real cost of those mortgages had declined. That was a disgraceful measure put into the 1982 Budget. I know that that was against the wishes of the former Treasurer. That is how consultative things were in those days. Not even the Treasurer got a look in on the shape of Budgets. We all know that. In fact, I think the honourable member for Bennelong found out about the 1982 Budget in one of Laurie Oakes's columns. That is the way consultation took place in that Government. Now we have a government sitting down with EPAC. It has discussions as good as any this nation has ever had. At each of its meetings it looks at all the ramifications of economic policy. The Government is sitting down with trade unions, small business, local government, consumers, the Australian Council of Social Service and the farmers, talking about the problems which confront this country and trying to find consensus through that. At the same time we have that information and those views permeating the major business groups and the ACTU. It is unbelievable that the Opposition should cavil at this process. It is unbelievable that the Opposition should cavil at having these major bodies brought into discussions on economic policy. It would be quite easy for the Prime Minister and me to sit back and say: 'We have been elected to power. We will consult nobody. It is our right to hand the tablets down from the mount and just read out the Budget in August and let everybody find out about it that way' . Of course, we consult because we want a strategy that will stick together in a recovery. When we see the growth coming up we want to ensure that it is not frittered away and aborted in another round of prices and wages increases. We do not sit back, as the Opposition did when in government, and say: 'Here comes a mining boom; we do not have to try any more. Let us have market determined wages'. Under that Government we had a wages explosion and another bout of massive inflation. We had 11.5 per cent inflation when the rest of the world had 5 per cent and we had unemployment rocketing by another quarter of a million people. That is why the Opposition was turned out of office. That is why the Opposition will stay out of office. The Opposition will not deter this Government at all in its discussions with the ACTU. It is an honourable relationship which we have with it, but it is a relationship with a clear understanding that the prerogatives of government reside with the Government and that the decisions are taken in Cabinet and not in any other body. To add insult to injury, we have this Leader of the Opposition, the leader of a divisive party, who stands for nothing. He does not even stand by some of the things he said when he was in government. He represents nothing and nobody. People in business know it; the public knows it. That is being registered in the opinion polls. The Leader of the Opposition has never been near the economy. We would think that in all the years the Leader of the Opposition was the show pony of the Liberal Party he would have accepted an important portfolio in the economic area. The only portfolios he had that related to the economy were those concerning industrial relations and business which, of course, he gave up very quickly because they were too hard. They were not for him. They were not for the show pony. He wanted to get back on the 747 to hightail it to Washington to check into the cocktail party circuits-that is when he was not standing at the mirror running a little dye through his hair. We are not interested in the views of painted, perfumed gigolos. We are not interested in the Gucci image and the rest. We are interested in making Australia work. We are interested in making this economy tick over. We will do it with business, the ACTU and every other group. We will not be deterred from our magnificent obsession which is to consult with every group in this community that matters to try to get a consensus approach to policy, including economic policy, to restore this country to the greatness it once knew, before the Liberals. We will not be deterred from that course. That is why we reject this matter of public importance absolutely and out of hand. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava)(6.10) —The coalition parties believe very strongly in consultation. When in government we consulted, prior to the preparation of the Budget, with all of the interested parties, but we did not give anyone a position of privilege. That is the purpose of this matter of public importance today. The prices and incomes accord does not represent consensus. It is an understanding, in fact, between the political and industrial wings of the labour movement. That is not consensus, that is an expedient political accommodation. Why is the Australian Council of Trade Unions camped outside the doors of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating)? The reason is found in the accord. Page 7 of that document states: There must be continuous consultation and co-operation between the parties involved. That is, of course, the Government and the ACTU. No other party in the community is interested in the outcome of the Budget. The document also states: Government policy at all levels should be accommodating and supportive. I repeat that: It is Government policy which must be accommodating and supportive of the trade unions and not the other way round. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) said, the community elects the government to provide the leadership; it does not elect the trade union movement. If any good is to come from the accord and if anything ought to be accommodating and supportive, it is the trade unions which should be accommodating and supportive of government after they have given advice. We believe in consultation. The Treasurer is right that as the Minister I practised that with the ACTU, as I did with the employers. However, it is one thing to take its views into account and allow them to express strongly and considerately their views on policy. It is quite another thing to give them a position of influence which is different from that of others. That is demonstrably what is happening at the moment. Currently, the ACTU is being heard to the exclusion of the interests of other Australians, and that is dangerous. It is also undemocratic. It is a question of unions having a greater degree of influence with governments than we have ever had in this country before. Saying that is not indulging in union bashing, it is merely criticising the accord, and validly so. Consultation by governments with a view to gaining consensus is obviously commendable and is desired by the community, but consensus is not always possible. What happens when consultation identifies the areas of disagreement and governments then have to make decisions? Under the accord, the Government is to be accommodating and supportive of the trade union movement and not the other way round. In the previous debate I observed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) that when inevitably he disagrees with the ACTU and the Australian Clerical Officers Association over staffing levels in the Commonwealth Employment Service, the trade unions, in the interests of the unemployed, will have to lift their bans on the unemployed and accept the Government's decision or the Government will have to make a decision and abide by it in a way that protects the interests of the long term unemployed. That means that it will not be accommodating and supportive. In fact it will have to lead, and that is what the community expects of it. Consultation is one thing; leadership where disagreements occur is another. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has admitted defeat on unemployment. A document released by his Department last week speaks of unacceptable levels of unemployment being a fact of life for the next decade at least. In the presentation he gave today on the community employment program he repeated those sentiments. That is not the view the Opposition takes. All the assumptions which are held across the range of the labour market and the management of the economy have to be re-examined in order to get policies that create the maximum level of private sector investment and the maximum growth in the economy and, therefore, employment opportunities. That is not the advice or the influence coming from the ACTU to the Government today. I recall the present Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, when he was only the honourable member for Gellibrand, saying on occasions that Labor had a good chance of not being elected as long as the trade unions were difficult and militant. The way of overcoming that problem seems to have been to form the accord, which was then sold to the public on the basis that it represented consensus. Because of the obligation to be accommodating and supportive, what is given in the name of consensus is at great cost to all. Some of those not involved in that consensus, some of those not with that privileged opportunity-the long term unemployed and the investors of capital, who are the only means of really creating permanent employment-are not consulted. They are expected to pay for it. In the preparation of this Budget, in spite of what the Treasurer has said, the Business Council of Australia, the Chamber of Automotive Industries and other bodies are not being given the same access to information and the same privilege for advice. The business representatives on the Economic Planning and Advisory Council are certainly not able to go back and discuss with their organisations the information they get from the Government at EPAC. Yet the ACTU Executive can receive that information from its advisers. So the ACTU is in a privileged position and has even canvassed publicly those areas of tax cuts that will be acceptable to it. There is one more area in which the Government has bowed to pressure from the ACTU in a way that is demonstrably not in the interests of the public. I refer to industrial relations policy and, in particular, the repeal of section 45D of the Trade Practices Act. An undertaking was given by the Government, even though members of the Government are aware that the Business Council of Australia, the CAI and the other employer bodies are very strongly opposed to it and have been advising the Government not to repeal that legislation. The Government itself has misgivings, and both the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and the Prime Minister have indicated those misgivings on occasions. What sort of consensus is it, what sort of consultation procedure is it, when the employers of this country, who have been very co-operative with this Government in a responsible way, are saying: 'Do not repeal this legislation'? Not only is the Government planning to repeal that legislation, which is the only effective legislation protecting industry and commerce against secondary boycotts, but also it is planning to appeal all rights under the common law. That is the direct result of representations by the ACTU. Those are the reasons why we say that the ACTU holds a privileged position. The proposal in the Government's discussion paper to outlaw common law remedies in this area is really a denial of natural justice. It is an unwarranted attack on the right of employers to protect their businesses and the jobs of their own employees. The Opposition will do everything in its power to see that this pernicious proposal is resisted and defeated at every turn. The important point to know is that section 45D has provided businesses with prompt and effective protection against the abuse of monopoly power by unions in the areas of secondary boycotts. That means that people who are not involved in a dispute with their employees are the victims of disputes because of the power of certain unions to impose secondary boycotts. No other means have worked in Australia. By their very nature, secondary boycotts are really beyond traditional employer- employee relationships. Therefore, it has been seen to be appropriate that they should be administered under the Trade Practices Act. There have been quite a number of examples of the success of that legislation. One remembers that during the last election campaign the scissors lift dispute was resolved because of the pressure of section 45D applications. One of the reasons why a greater level of peace has been returned to the transport industry is the existence of this legislation and its potential to break secondary boycotts. The Government's case for removing section 45D is false. There is no case for removing it, apart from the Government's agreement with the ACTU to be accommodating and supportive on all occasions. The ACTU says: 'We want 45D repealed. We want the common law repealed, in spite of what that does to innocent third parties or the people who are employed by them. We want that out. We don't want curbs on the unions.' That is accommodated and supported by the Government. It says 'Right, out it goes', in spite of the consultation and the advice it gets from the employers. The Government has provided no evidence whatsoever to support its claim that sections 45D and 45E are, in its words, ' potentially highly disruptive to Australian industrial relations'. Nowhere has it demonstrated that. On the contrary, the experience of the existence of that section, plus the common law right, is that it is potentially in the interests of Australian industrial relations, unit labour costs and our international competitiveness and, therefore, our capacity to employ people. So on the contrary, the Government admits again, and I quote its own paper on section 45D, that penalties have never been imposed', 'damages are not the principal objective', and 'in virtually all cases the matter is settled without an interim injunction being made absolute'. It is the very fact that the legislation exists that brings that result about. That is the very reason why it should be retained . The assertion by the Government that sections 45D and 45E do nothing to resolve disputes is nonsense. In fact, they prevent those disputes arising. They prevent the boycotts of innocent parties who are not involved in disputes. Therefore, they help to save their businesses and the jobs of the people. That is what we are concerned about. The commitment of the Government to be accommodating and supportive when the Australian Council of Trade Unions asks for something, such as repealing penalties for industrial action, is not in the public interest, is not consensus and is not, in fact, a question of fair consultation. It lifts that body to a position of privilege never before seen in the history of this country. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(6.20) —The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) ranged far and wide in his contribution. The degree of relevance to debate can quite accurately be gauged by his bringing in the matter of immigration. When he did that, of course, he simply parroted the local variation of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) of Enoch Powell's 'rivers of blood' approach to immigration policy. That is an approach to immigration policy that will rightly condemn him at the next election. He touched, very briefly, on wages policy and so, to some extent at least, he made a contribution that was, at the margin, relevant to the matter before the House at the moment. The honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) was more relevant, but equally misplaced in terms of his contribution. The Opposition Leader's current approval rating with Liberal-National Party voters is something in the vicinity of 34 per cent, as indicated by today's Bulletin poll. It is quite obvious that the Opposition Leader is under some considerable stress as a result of that. Of course, that is understandable. There are many things that might happen to individuals under stress. For example , it is not unknown for some people to hit the bottle. In this instance, the Opposition Leader has hit the dye bottle. That is a novel approach to these sorts of problems but, nevertheless, an approach that is widely known by all honourable members in this chamber who have noticed the significant change in hair colouration of the Leader of the Opposition. Let me simply say that hitting the dye bottle will not reverse the polls; he is going to have to do something far more fundamental than that. He is going to have to address the great issues that confront this nation; indeed, the great difficulties that confront this nation, in a constructive way. His whingeing and quibbling is not going to gain the support of the Australian people. This morning he indicated in terms of his rather rattled response to those polls how he had been battered by the polls when he indicated that the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand), of course a well-known and good member of the Government, would be in the Ministry after the next election, as a Minister. He was totally oblivious to his implied concession that Labor would be in power after the next election. But certainly whilst his colleagues looked somewhat horrified he continued with his silly grin and his lack of contribution . In light of these polls, he has shown all the calm serenity of a hen laying a brick. Members of the Opposition have attacked the National Economic Summit Conference , the Economic Planning Advisory Council and the prices and incomes accord and now they attack the Government-Australian Council of Trade Unions working party. What is the Opposition's record? What has it done? Under the Opposition there was an inflation rate of 11.5 per cent in the year to March l983. Under the Hawke Labor Government, inflation-excluding the Medicare effect-was 7.6 per cent to March l984 and falling. The Opposition's record on unemployment to the year ending March l983 was l0.3 per cent and there was a reduction in employment of 250,000 Australians in l982. Of course, under Labor we have arrested this tragic decline and, in addition, created 225,000 jobs, that is, in the first l2 months. Despite the increased work force and the increased participation rate, we have significantly decreased unemployment. This is in the very short period since March l983 when we were elected. Under Labor so far the average growth rate is plus 6 per cent and increasing. Why would members of the Opposition want to attack the prices and incomes accord and our consultation with the trade union movement? The reason why they want to attack that relationship is that they are totally barren in terms of what their contributions would be. What was the Opposition's policy? It rejected a comprehensive incomes policy; it embraced a market forces philosophy that resulted in the wages explosion of l98l-82; and it tried restrictive monetary policies and the overvalued exchange rate technique to suppress wage rises. This could not ensure that wage pressures were minimised, but it did end up in the wreckage of the Australian economy. Under the Opposition, each time unemployment plateaued wages took off again. It simply did not have a workable policy. What of the current policy in terms of the Opposition's approach to industrial relations and wages policy? Let us have a look at that. The Opposition's policy is a recipe for economic and industrial chaos, abandoning rational and concensual arrangements for the worst possible mix of industrial confrontation and the so-called free market approach to these issues. By comparison, the prices and incomes accord is not the inflexible straitjacket that the Opposition would make it out to be. For example, it was conceived in the resources boom, it was finalised during the conservative recession and it has been a massive contributor to the current recovery. The accord's anomalies provisions permit variations in wage relativities and provide , where needed, an adjustment that must be substantiated before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The accord is supporting a process of wage determination that is achieving real moderation in nominal wage increases and is contributing to a significant decline in real unit labour costs. The major contributor to the current record profitability levels indicated in current reports is, of course, the prices and incomes accord. Under the prices and incomes accord, salary rises will be at a minimum for the rest of this year and that will contribute significantly to the recovery that is currently under way. The Opposition's policy, by comparison, will take us back to the obvious break-out in wage increases and increasingly high level of industrial disputations; the sackings in industry that were prevalent under its old policy; the creation of ghetto industries whose workers will be required to forgo national wage increases; and greater inflation as strong industries with labour shortages pass on cost increases. These defects in terms of the Opposition's approach are known and accepted by the Government, but they are also accepted as severe limitations by a whole range of commentators, including the Australian Financial Review editorial writers who, on 17 April 1984, described the Opposition's policy as the 'wages policy you have when you are not having a wages policy'. Further on they stated: What is missing from the Opposition wages policy is a robust recognition of the fact that wages are not just a problem but the central issue in a modern industrial economy. That point is worth stressing. The working party is simply considering options, it is not making decisions. This Government will not forgo consultation with business, it will not forgo consultation with community organisations and it will not forgo consultation with, for example, pensioners. One of my colleagues asks me to indicate what the Opposition's approach to pensioners is. Let me just indicate what the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) interjected while the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) was talking of the assets test. As recorded at page 2779 of the Hansard of Monday, 4 June, he said: At least the farmers have produced something. It is better than half the pensioners who sit on their backsides and do nothing. This disgraceful and gratuitous insult to the people who worked hard to create this great country will not go unnoticed by pensioners. Mr Hand —Repeat that. Mr GRIFFITHS —The honourable member for Melbourne has asked me to repeat it. I will. The honourable member for Maranoa said: At least the farmers have produced something. It is better than half the pensioners who sit on their backsides and do nothing. What an absolutely disgraceful approach by the Opposition. I see that the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) is here. Will he dissociate himself from that comment? No, he will not. He refuses to do so. The Leader of the Opposition has scurried out of this chamber. Once again he refuses to dissociate himself from those comments. Mr Ian Cameron —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. That was an interjection which I made yesterday. It is not entirely as I interjected. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr GRIFFITHS —This Government will continue consultation with a wide range of community groups and we will continue to deliver. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(6.30) —by leave-I move: That, unless otherwise ordered, for the next sitting- (1) government business shall take precedence of general business; (2) so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the routine of business being as follows: 1. Giving notices. 2. Questions without notice. 3. Presentation of papers. 4. Ministerial statements, by leave. 5. Presentation of petitions. 6. Matter of public importance. 7. Notices and orders of the day, and (3) the sessional order relating to standing order 107 be suspended. This would mean that first thing in the morning, after notices of motion, we would have Question Time, ministerial statements and the matter of public importance. Hopefully this would leave the maximum amount of time necessary for debate should the National Crime Authority Bill 1983 and cognate Bill come before the House tomorrow. Order of Business Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(6.32) —The Opposition recognises the necessity for the change in Government Business tomorrow and consequently will not oppose the motion. However, I point out that as a result of this motion the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), whose notice of motion would normally have been debated tomorrow will lose that opportunity. We would expect that his motion would be allowed to proceed when the House resumes in the Budget session. We agree to this motion because we are concerned that there should be adequate debate of the National Crime Authority Bill 1983 and cognate Bill which, I understand, are scheduled to be received in this place from the other place tomorrow. It is important that it be given full and adequate consideration. As I understand it there are a couple of consequences. Just so that honourable members in this place can be advised of them I understand that it means, for example, that if there is to be a matter of public importance it will need to be submitted by 9 a.m. tomorrow. Question Time will be earlier, at the beginning of proceedings. Apart from that the order essentially is changed only to the degree that, while we will sit during the lunch period, we will not have the general business debate which normally takes place on the second sitting Thursday. There is a particular problem, though, which I draw to the attention of the Leader of the House (Mr Young). I trust that during the lunch period honourable members will be able to have some lunch and that there will not be divisions. If there are divisions it might be necessary for us to call quorums or whatever. Dependent on whether any controversial business is being passed at that hour the Opposition might feel it is necessary to call divisions. On the basis that the second reading debate is continuing we would be prepared to give the Leader of the House our assurance that there will be no interruption during that meal period. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(6.34) —in reply-I would think that by lunchtime tomorrow we would be only at the commencement of the second reading debate. I think both parties are faced with the same problem. We will not really know what we have before us until the Senate finishes with the National Crime Authority Bill this evening. Until we know whether further amendments will be moved in this House we will not really know whether there will be a Committee stage debate. I would think that at lunchtime tomorrow, 12.45 or 1 p.m., we would be only at the second reading stage. There would certainly be no voting. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That, in accordance with the provisions of section 10 of the Archives Act 1983, this House appoints Mr Hollis as a member of the Advisory Council on Australian Archives for a period of three years from 6 June 1984. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters)(6.35) —I move: (1) That, in accordance with paragraph 8 (1) (d) of the Public Service Accounts Committee Act 1951, this House refers to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts for investigation and report as necessary from time to time, the proposed purchase of automatic data processing facilities by the Commonwealth, or any department or authority of the Commonwealth staffed under the Public Service Act 1922, notification of intention of which is to be conveyed to the Committee by the Minister responsible for the intending purchaser. (2) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of the resolution and requesting its concurrence. The passing of the motion now before the House will enable revised procedures to be introduced that will not only provide a mechanism for independent scrutiny of major individual ADP acquisition proposals by the Commonwealth but also remove the timing and other practical difficulties that currently arise in enmeshing the detailed consideration of these often complex proposals with the Budget process. There has, of course, been some change in recent years in the procedures governing computer acquisition. In particular, the fairly severe and time consuming central controls that applied to all computer and related purchases have been relaxed to a degree. Authority was given for acquisitions costing less than $2m to be approved by individual Ministers or for those costing less than $1m to be approved by departmental permanent heads subject always, of course, to funds availability. However, purchases over $2m currently have to be submitted for approval as new policy in the Budget context and so receive attention by Ministers at the same time as a host of other proposals coming forward and competing for allocation from a restricted supply of funds. This really pinpoints the problem with the present acquisition policy. Given the extent to which computers have become an essential tool in the administration process, some relatively routine purchases can exceed $2m. However, from time to time some very large acquisition proposals come forward which are of such complexity and raise such important related issues that they cannot be dealt with adequately under existing procedures, which require proposals to be considered under the severe pressures imposed by the Budget timetable. There may, for example, be global factors involved in such proposals which may not be adequately addressed in the necessarily brief format of submissions considered in Budget deliberations. The Government proposes therefore to address this difficulty by enabling such issues to be scrutinised at an earlier stage and well before the commitment of financial and other resources. For example, some major issues which need further and independent scrutiny include the following points: Employment Employment considerations are a matter of serious concern. This applies not only to the redundancy issue but also to potential effects upon the structure of the job market, identification of the need for new skills and the provision of appropriate education and re-training facilities. Australian Industry Participation I have seen projections which suggest that the information sector is likely to become one of the largest sectors of employment in the economy by the turn of the century and that the computer industry may well be the largest in the world by that time. Clearly in these circumstances we should make every effort to ensure that the Government's purchase of hardware and software encourages significant Australian industry participation. Industrial Issues Apart from employment considerations and encouragement of local industry there are industrial issues which need to be considered, including due attention to the working environment, ergonomic factors and so on which are of concern from an industrial relations/occupational health viewpoint. Additionally there are specific matters which must be addressed to determine the extent to which an individual proposal is likely to achieve worthwhile objectives commensurate with the financial and other resources applied to it. Any objective scrutiny of proposals must include an assessment of the following: Needs ADP objectives and work programs must be aligned towards the attainment of authorised departmental programs and objectives. Each individual proposal should be assessed in this context and even though a proposal may have merit in its own right, it is important for comparison purposes to assess the relative merits of alternatives in order to ensure that the proposal presents the most effective and productive solution to a particular problem. In this area, independent and impartial assessment is of particular value. Cost Effectiveness In many instances it is difficult to attribute dollar amounts to qualitative benefits. It is nevertheless important to assess the effectiveness of a proposal in terms which readily convey a sense of value. Public money should not only be spent effectively but also be seen to be spent effectively. Risks As well as the consideration of risks and constraints associated with introduction of technologically advanced products, independent scrutiny will provide an appropriate means of assessing the viability or otherwise of proposed implementation timetables and resultant expenditure programs. A major factor considered by the Government was the potential for delay which might be introduced into the acquisition process by protracted scrutiny. It is necessary for the right balance to be achieved between the need for careful examination and the timely implementation of worthwhile projects. In this context the relationship between consideration of proposals and the timing of the Budget process is most important. The new procedures are designed to ensure that departments and authorities apply themselves assiduously to the planning process. The early submission of a proposal arising from that planning and the consideration of the proposal will be early steps along a path leading to the eventual acquisition of computing facilities. The essential review and independent scrutiny processes will thus be completed before any major commitment of public moneys is made, thereby safeguarding the interests of the taxpayer and, at the same time, conserving the resources of the computer industry. I am confident that the ability to bring forward submissions at any time, not just in the Budget context, will offset the time spent on independent scrutiny. Against this background and after careful consideration of alternatives by the Government, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts is considered the most appropriate and well placed body to undertake review function. The JCPA is well established and has in the past conducted investigations in the automatic data processing field. It has a current role in oversighting the Department of Social Security's ADP project. In making this proposal the Government is not asking the JCPA to review Government decisions. The objective is to allow Parliament, through its Committee, to form a judgment and provide advice before the decision is taken. The Government recognises the additional work load this will entail for the Committee and requests that the House provide adequate additional resources necessary to ensure that the important task of scrutinising proposals involving significant public expenditure may be conducted efficiently. I commend the motion to the House. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(6.41) —I welcome the statement by the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins). As he has indicated, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts is perfectly content to go ahead and examine the purchase of computers by the Government. The Committee is experienced in this area and has presented substantial reports to the Parliament on data processing. The Minister's remarks in regard to the role of the Committee warrant only two brief comments. The first is that the Committee must never be put in the position of actually carrying the can for Government or Executive decisions and must be seen to be absolutely remote from that process. It would be most regrettable if the Committee became a tool or an agent of the Government. That is not its role and neither is it envisaged that it should be at this stage. The second point that I would make-I know that the Minister understands the difficulties here-is that it will be impossible for the Committee to undertake this work unless there are additional staff. The arrangements made to supply that additional staff may be a matter for negotiations but I do not believe that the sole financial responsibility for that can be thrown on the departments of the Parliament. The financial responsibility must in some way reflect the Government's wish that this work be done, so the government itself, the Executive, should make the additional funds available to the Parliament so that staff can be supplied. It is an obligation of the Government and not of the Parliament to see that this work is carried out in the way that it wishes. I reiterate that this work will not be undertaken unless that staff is made available to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(6.44) —I move: That the following orders of the day, government business, be discharged: Medical Benefits and Hospital Benefits Organizations-Paper-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Australian Water Resources Council-Papers-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. Tertiary Education Commission-Triennium 1985-87-Papers-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. Special Broadcasting Service-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. National Occupational Health and Safety-Interim Commission-Report and Ministerial Statement-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. Budget Reform-Paper-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. ACT Self-Government-Implementation-Report of Task Force-Ministerial Statement and Paper-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. Williamstown Dockyard-Commitment to Continuation of Reforms-Papers-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. Homeless-A Capital Problem-Report of Committee of Inquiry-Publication of paper- Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Commonwealth Schools Commission-Reports-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. Middle East-Ministerial Statement-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Road Safety-Standing Committee-Report on the Impact of Advertising Standards on Road Safety-Government Response-Ministerial Statement-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Committee on Overseas Professional Qualifications-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Telecommunications (Interception) Act-Information communicated to Mr Justice Cross-Papers-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. Aviation Industry-Outlook-Paper-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Attributable Aviation Costs: Review of Valuation Methods-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Trade Practices Act-Proposals for Change-Papers-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. Migration Program 1983-84-Progress and Developments-Ministerial Statement- Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Australian Citizenship-Annual Return-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Special Funds for Government Programs-Papers-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. Printing and Publishing Responsibilities-Charter-Papers-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. Commonwealth Laboratories-Report of Independent Committee of Inquiry-Papers and Ministerial Statement-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. Tape Recordings of Telephone Conversations-Papers-Motion to take note of papers : Resumption of debate. Transport Services to the Northern Territory-Report of Independent Economic Inquiry-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Drug Trafficking-Royal Commission Report-Government Response-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Foreign Policy-CHOGM Meeting-Ministerial Statement-Motion to take note of paper : Resumption of debate. Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act-Radiation Safety for Uranium Mill Operations, Jabiru, NT-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Advance to the Minister for Finance 1982-83-Statement of Expenditure: Consideration in committee. Broadcasting and Television-Supplementary Licence Scheme-Ministerial Statement and Paper-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. Broadcasting System-Development of Satellite-related Services-Ministerial Statement-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Schools for the ACT-Report of the Committee of Review into the Impact of Radford College-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Grain Harvesters-Report by Industries Assistance Commission-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. This arrangement was made after discussion with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). Matters which the Opposition wanted to retain on the Notice Paper have been retained. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(6.44) —The Opposition agrees with the motion moved by the Leader of the House (Mr Young). The only comment I would make on it is that it is obviously a matter of concern that some of these papers have not been available for debate in this chamber until now. However, as they would be standing on the Notice Paper until the Budget session there seems to be little point in leaving them there as I have little doubt that circumstances will have changed between now and then. The Opposition therefore does not oppose the motion. In speaking earlier I did not refer specifically to the notice which also appears on the Notice Paper and which will not now be debated, in the name of the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Hunt). It concerns a matter that is of very real concern and, as with those other orders of the day, is one that we would like to have had an opportunity to debate. I refer to page 6168 of the Notice Paper and the notice for General Business, Thursday No. 6 which relates to uranium policy. I can well understand why the Leader of the House does not want that particular matter to be debated prior to the biennial conference of the Australian Labor Party. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(6.47) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to establish procedures for assessing and, where appropriate, authorising biological control programs in Australia. Complementary legislation will be passed by the State and Northern Territory Parliaments to establish a uniform and equitable system, applying throughout Australia, which will ensure that biological control programs that have been identified as being in the public interest can proceed in accordance with law and without interruption by litigation. The need for this Bill was recognised in June 1983, when an injunction was obtained which prevented the release of insects to control Echium, a plant commonly known as Paterson's Curse or Salvation Jane. Echium has long been perceived as a noxious weed in south-eastern Australia and is commonly declared as such. Its control by biological means was considered both desirable and possible by the agencies which have responsibility for these matters, and whose integrity and expertise have never before been questioned. Two beekeepers and two graziers who believed the plant had beneficial qualities obtained the injunction on the grounds of the common law of private nuisance, which is concerned more with the rights of the individual than the question of public interest. It became clear that there were two related problems. First, there was no provision in existing legislation which authorised the release of control agents, such as insects or rusts, into the environment. Secondly, it was clear that there was no equitable means of resolving a conflict of interests concerning biological control programs with a view to establishing public benefit. In developing the legislation to resolve the legal status of biological control, it has been necessary to address both of these problems. Before I advert to specific features of the Bill, I would like to make a few general points about biological control and the purpose of the Bill. Biological control has had a long and honourable history in Australia. In addition to its well known successes in controlling rabbits and prickly pear, biological control has also helped to account for numerous agricultural pests, for environmentally unacceptable plants such as water weeds and for vectors of disease such as mosquitos. The Bill will not affect the existing basic scientific, technical or safety procedures and standards applying to biological control. Decisions concerning proposed biological control programs will continue to observe these fully. The Bill does not in any way reduce the effect of relevant Acts, which include the Quarantine Act, the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act and the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act. The Bill is not directed against any particular weed or pest, but rather provides the means of deciding whether or not the control of individual weeds or pests would be in the public interest. There is no requirement for all proposed biological control programs to be submitted for consideration in terms of the Bill. The great majority are not a potential source of controversy and agencies may prefer to proceed independently. However, where an agency wishes to pursue an independent course of action it will remain subject to existing legislation, standards and procedures and, of course, subject to litigation on a common law basis. This Bill will be complemented by legislation in the States and the Northern Territory. The targets of biological control and the agents which control the targets are not familiar with political boundaries. As the majority of biological control programs are directed at agricultural pests or weeds, the Bill provides that the Australian Agricultural Council will have primary responsibility for taking the actions and making the decisions referred to in the Bill. Where appropriate, the Council will seek the advice and assistance of relevant bodies, such as the Australian Forestry Council and the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers. The proposed role of the Australian Agricultural Council is appropriate in that it represents all States, is concerned with agriculture and is the vehicle by which most biological control proposals are presently considered. In order to create a legal entity for the purposes of the Act, there is provision for the establishment of a Biological Control Authority in the Australian Capital Territory. Complementary legislation will establish similar authorities in the States and the Northern Territory. At the first meeting of the AAC each year the Commonwealth Minister in consultation with State Ministers shall designate the Commonwealth Minister or one of the State Ministers as the Australia-wide Biological Control Authority. The provisions of the Bill may be broken down into a few essential elements. First, public opinion concerning a proposed biological activity will be widely canvassed. Second, depending on the nature of any public comment, an inquiry may be held. Finally, based on the information available, including the report of a public inquiry in the event of one being held, the program may be declared in terms of the Act and biological control agents may then be released. A declared program will protect those authorised to conduct the program from any legal action for damages and will preclude the opportunity to halt the program by means of a common law injunction. However, as with other areas of Government decision making, judgments relating to particular biological control programs could result in gains and losses to various groups in the community. Losses could be experienced by the honey industry, for instance, if a decision were made to proceed with a control program against echium. While it is desirable that the greater public benefit take precedence, it is also necessary to recognise the concerns of those adversely affected. Thus the Bill allows for fair and equitable decision making processes which provide the opportunity for the question of assistance to those claiming to be adversely affected to be addressed. Turning to the procedural aspects, the Bill obliges all proposed targets to be advertised, but there is a discretion as to whether the proposed agents should be advertised. The target is a weed or a pest and there is no difficulty for a lay member of the public to express a view as to whether they perceive the target to be undesirable or beneficial. Once the target is declared, the basis on which an agent such as an insect capable of controlling the target is selected is essentially technical, is subject to the requirements of the Quarantine Act and is less amenable to judgment by lay persons. Where the agent has been deemed safe in terms of the Quarantine Act there are grounds for assuming that a public inquiry is unnecessary. Nevertheless, an inquiry as to the desirability of a proposed agent still remains an option under this Bill. The Bill provides that a target must have been declared as such before agents to control that target can be declared or released. However, the Bill also allows the nomination and resolution of proposed targets and their respective agents as well as public hearings to proceed simultaneously. The basis of, and options for, public inquiry are essentially the same for target and agent proposals. The Biological Control Authority, after considering the information available and consulting the Council, may order an inquiry if it considers person or the environment will be adversely affected. The Bill provides for different forms of inquiry, which reflects the fact that biological control may have different social, economic or environmental consequences. Declaration of a target or agent is the final step in the process of consultation and public decision making for which this Bill provides. Declaration is made where the Authority is satisfied that control of a target would be for the public benefit. Once a target and the relevant agent or agents have been declared, the agents may be released subject to any conditions specified. As I have already indicated, the Bill provides that no legal proceedings shall be instituted where the release of agents is in accordance with the Act. In clearly specified emergency conditions, the Bill provides that the Authority may declare target or agent organisms as such without first observing the requirements concerning public comment or inquiry which I have outlined. Such emergencies are rare but, as the recent outbreak of lucerne aphid demonstrated, the relevant agencies need to be able to respond quickly to prevent what would otherwise involve considerable economic loss and disruption. There are a number of existing biological control programs in Australia and these will be declared in terms of the Bill. This simply reflects the fact that the existence of a successful biological control program is a fact of life. In the absence of any previous legal challenge it must be assumed that they are sanctioned by the public. Nevertheless, the Bill provides that any developments in existing programs, such as the introduction of a new sort of biological control agent, may be subject to its provisions. There are several provisions in the Bill which enable the Commonwealth Act and the complementary State and Northern Territory legislation to operate efficiently. These are directed at ensuring that where all the provisions of the Commonwealth Act have been fulfilled, a declaration in terms of that Act applies in all the States and the Northern Territory. This avoids having to duplicate applications, advertisements and inquiries. I should point out that while all the States and the Northern Territory have co-operated fully in the development of this legislation, there may be one or two matters of detail which could require amendments to the Bill at a later stage. It is not possible to quantify the financial impact of the Bill accurately. Effective biological control is accepted as a highly cost-effective means of regulating weeds and pests and has the capacity to save millions of dollars for rural industries. Direct costs are associated with the cost of advertisements and public inquiries, but the frequency and nature of these costs will largely be determined by events that arise on an irregular basis. If past experience is to be used as a guide, biological control very rarely causes controversy and it could be expected that public inquiries would therefore also be rare. However, provision for public comment may lead to increased awareness of biological control programs and hence to more inquiries. The Bill institutes a number of additional administrative requirements. These may involve indirect costs to various existing committees concerned with biological control. Direct costs to the Commonwealth for salaries and administration will be less than $100,000 per annum. There has been considerable pressure, from the rural sector in particular, to resolve urgently the legal status of biological control. While most of this concern relates to the biological control of echium, the legislation has been developed to resolve equitably conflict concerning any biological control program on the basis of public benefit. I draw the attention of honourable members to recent events in Victoria. Biological control of blackberry in that State, in New South Wales and in Tasmania has long been a subject of controversy but there was no means of resolving that controversy. In the end, someone illegally introduced a rust capable of controlling blackberry. This action not only contravened the Quarantine Act, but also was done without the necessary safeguards to protect other plant species. This Bill does not seek to meddle with existing scientific or quarantine measures, or to impose priorities. It does provide what should be a publicly acceptable and equitable means of determining whether a proposed biological control program is in the public interest. Once public benefit is established, then a program can proceed in the full knowledge that it will benefit the community without imposing unacceptable consequences on the economy or the environment. I commend this Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Lusher) adjourned. Debate resumed. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(6.57) —I shall keep my remaining remarks on the Bill very brief. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) recently pointed out that the Department of Social Security program involves the expenditure of $2m every hour, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and 365 days a year. As many as six million Australians are directly assisted by social security programs which include in that amount family allowances. In the 1972-73 financial year, just over $2 billion was spent on social security programs, or 20.6 per cent of total Budget outlays in that year. A decade later, in the 1982-83 financial year, more than $14 billion was spent on social security programs, representing almost 30 per cent of total Budget outlays. Given the obvious importance of this level of national expenditure and the unquestionable significance of the needs of six million Australians who are the recipients of some types of social security assistance, it becomes essential that the operative legislation is framed in appropriate and equable terms. That is the Government's intention with this legislation. There is one major aspect of this legislation which is of great interest to me and to the constitutents in the Federal electorate of Bendigo. Amendments to the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act will bring into being a vital new policy initiative and fulfil a pre-election promise made by the Australian Labor Party to the frail aged and the disabled and their families. As part of our Government 's commitment to redress the imbalance between institutional and community care for the aged and the disabled, an initiative announced in last year's Budget, provides financial incentives or short term respite accommodation for aged and disabled persons who are cared for in a community setting, such as the family home. The Bill gives effect to that initiative. The new respite care subsidy scheme will be open to non-profit organisations which maintain beds within their residential units for the purpose of short term relief or respite care. Initially hostels of up to 50 beds will be expected to keep at least one bed for respite care and hostels with over 50 beds will need to maintain at least two of those beds. Such a scheme surely reflects the concern felt by this Government for the quality of life of the aged and disabled in our community. To date respite care services and community support services aimed at assisting aged and disabled people to live in the community have been extremely limited. In my electorate of Bendigo the urgent need for these services, especially respite care services, has been clearly stated by the Bendigo Disabled Persons Support Group, an organisation representing physically disabled adults and their relatives and carers. In a survey of disabled people undertaken in 1981 by that group it was found that as many as 50 severely physically disabled adults in the Bendigo area were in need of short term relief accommodation. A little more than a month ago, I was delighted to be able to convey a decision of the Minister for Social Security that the Bendigo Disabled Persons Support Group had received a grant of more than $168,000 to establish a respite care hostel for disabled persons in the electorate of Bendigo. This hostel will have the capacity to accommodate up to 10 adults for short term relief accommodation. There is no doubt that the hostel represents a breakthrough achievement for both the disabled people of Bendigo and aged and disabled people throughout Australia. This hostel in Bendigo will give physically disabled people and their families the chance to achieve greater independence of lifestyle while maintaining their important family and community base of care. Equally there is no doubt that the hostel's operation as a wholly relief accommodation service will be greatly assisted by the respite care subsidy scheme. In closing, I remind the House that, however small the individual changes and initiatives contained in this Bill may seem, when viewed in total they represent an important set of amendments. The Bill represents a commitment to socially appropriate and equitable social welfare measures in every detail of their administration and delivery. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(7.03) —The Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill is comprehensive and covers many areas of social security. It is my intention to illustrate to the House how unfortunate it is that the Government has decided to introduce an assets test and the way in which it locks in with the current legislation before the House. In the social security area the previous Government took a decision that some sort of income test should be applied to beneficiaries of social security payments, but that the possession of assets should not exclude people from receipt of those benefits. Those decisions were taken for a number of reasons and they are clearly understood. They were taken initially for the reason that the administration of an assets test is a matter of complication and concern to aged people. It gives rise to inequalities within a system and creates, as Professor Gruen indicated, potholes or gaps within the system that allow people to be left unattended, even though their need may be great. In particular, the previous Government was conscious of the situation in farming communities. In this instance the assets test will affect particularly an electorate such as mine. It is not that the value of the properties which people own in order to pursue their livelihood is great or that the property is large in size or the activities extensive. We are talking about the value of the land on which farming activity is conducted. Within the electorate of Mitchell there are hundreds of small properties of five to 25 acres which, because of their proximity to Sydney, are valuable in real estate terms; not for the reason that they can be subdivided but because they offer a very desirable lifestyle. These small farms of five to 25 acres are usually conducted as vegetable or fruit farms, but in some instances other sorts of agricultural activities are conducted. Elderly couples who have lived their adult lives in an area such as the Hawkesbury district or the Hills district-the same applies to every major capital city around Australia because of the press of urban development-have earned their living from the land. Their nest egg, the opportunity for retirement, is provided by the opportunity of selling that asset when they wish. It is often their only asset. Seldom do they have cash; seldom do they have cash investments; seldom do they have any interests other than the land they have been able to maintain by dint of their hard work and by the crops or livestock they have raised on that land. Those individuals-and they are fine people, too- have come to the end of their working lives, have found that their children are not necessarily interested in continuing the family activity of farming, and therefore have allowed the farm to provide no income. There has been a rundown in farming activity, and the property may be maintained or leased for a small amount. They retire in the family home on the family rural property and seek to live out the rest of their days in a community they know well and amongst friends and family with whom they feel comfortable and safe. The other reason why the previous Gov- ernment decided to remove the assets test was that aged people living in private homes on sometimes larger than normal blocks of land had purchased their properties when they were low in value and, with the passage of time, because of a change in the use of land and urban development, the values of their property had greatly increased. Therefore, they also eventually became eligible for the assets test. The Government, in its decision to reintroduce an assets test, has caused absolute-- Dr Blewett —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I regret interrupting the tale of the honourable member, but I cannot see any relevance of the argument to the present debate. The honourable member will have innumerable opportunities to debate the assets test proposals in this House. I think he should return to the bill before the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —I ask the honourable member to tie his remarks to the measure before the House. Mr CADMAN —I thank the Minister for his intervention, but I point out that in many of the clauses in the legislation mention is made of benevolent homes and societies, hospitals, institutions whose definitions impinge closely on the way in which an assets test would be applied. They have an impact in some way upon the lives of retirees and upon the lifestyle of pensioners. It is not possible in this area to select any one specific instance. We often make the mistake in this House, I believe, of dealing with narrow issues instead of looking at the total situation of retirees. It does not matter whether one deals with lump sum tax on superannuation payments, nursing home opportunities or the processes that the Director-General may use to make assessments. It is a total situation, and the essential factor is the way in which it applies to individuals in retirement . The facts I raised in regard to the assets test are facts that related to the family home, the retention of the family home, and the prospect of a change in family circumstances. This will create greater demands on nursing homes and greater demands for benefits for which people are eligible but which they have not sought to pursue because they have felt secure, living in their family home- whether it be a family farm or in other circumstances-in their complete lifestyle package, with their friends and family around them. Over the last few days I have had many phone calls concerning the totality of social security benefits. Many of them, I will admit, have been related to the assets test. But then again, the assets test becomes a factor when people realise that their fringe benefits will be affected or that their eligibility for a small amount of money on a regular basis, which is not otherwise available , will be interfered with. The proposals in this legislation affect the total lifestyle of individuals, as does the assets test proposal. Calls have come to me from widows or people in their late retirement who have made investments expecting a certain out-turn and a certain predictable result from the social security system of our country. Many of these individuals are also repatriation beneficiaries who, as well as being affected by this legislation, are likewise affected by the assets test. These individuals must make decisions about their future lifestyles long before they are due to retire. Anybody who is over the age of 35 or 40 will be dramatically affected by the Government's assets test proposals, as they will be affected by the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1984 . They will be affected because preparation for retirement starts long before retirement, long before women reach the age of 60 or men reach the age of 65. For instance, the purchase of holiday cottages was a matter of some contention when the Government's previous assets test proposals were being examined. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member to keep it relevant. Mr CADMAN —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Under these proposals before the House recreation and the opportunity to move away from the place of residence have to be considered. The Commonwealth spends hundreds of millions of dollars each year giving health assistance and nursing home assistance to the elderly. If the lifestyle of the elderly is dramatically changed, there are repercussions. I will use another example which is similar to the assets test that applies to pensioners. I instance the set formula applied to the development of nursing homes in any geographical area. The system used by the Commonwealth to assess nursing home development requirements is so tightly structured that life is made impossible for individuals living on the fringes of cities or in areas where no nursing homes are provided in that they have to sell their assets and the family home and move out of their locale, where they have had close contact with friends and family, to gain entry to a nursing home. That is a shattering experience for individuals restricted by processes similar to those outlined in the Bill. The Bill deals with such things as mental hospitals, nursing homes and rental that pensioners pay. In fact it deals with many aspects of their lifestyle. Just as they have to sell the family home because the Commonwealth will not be flexible enough to make a proper assessment of nursing home needs, the sale of assets will be necessary when the assets test is introduced. The legislation before the House tries to deal with some of the problems that have been identified, but I await with great anxiety the decisions of the Government in regard to the assets test because the same sort of flexibility shown in parts of the legislation the House is dealing with has not been shown with regard to the assets test. Individuals are awaiting a blow by blow account of how their lifestyles will be affected. It is not predictable, secure or safe. People feel threatened. The process we are going through at the moment with regard to the assets test is not like the process in the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill, because that is predictable and has been talked about. Areas of deficiency have been identified and over a period we have moved to rectify some of the deficiencies. The Opposition is voting against some of the measures contained in this legislation. That does not mean to say that the Opposition is opposed to its totality. We reject aspects of it. But all aspects of the assets test are rejected. The predictability of this legislation contrasts with the obvious lack of certainty in the way in which the assets test has been developed. After a 10 months gestation period we have thrown into the House something that has caused horror, shock and dreadful disruption to the lives of many people. I have mentioned the need for people to have regular recreation in their old age and a regular break from their daily routine. I have spoken of the damage to families that can occur when they are disrupted and rooted out from their place of residence which they have enjoyed for the full term of their adult lives. The assets test will do that, as will the continuation of current policies in regard to nursing homes. The relationship of spouses is also dealt with in this legislation. I refer the House to clause 38 which deals with the relationship of spouses. In the same way , the assets test so deals with the relationship of spouses that if one dies the other must sell within 12 weeks all the assets which are now to be valued. That is a shameful disruption and not at all predictable. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) likes predictability. The legislation before us is predictable, yet, on the other hand, through some force within his Party in regard to the assets test, an individual who has more than $10,000-worth of personal assets will have to declare them. One could ask how many people would be in those circumstances. Has the Government considered the full ramifications of its decision? I suggest not. The Government has discussed in detail the matters before the House in the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member to discuss that too. Mr CADMAN —The Government has discussed it, Mr Deputy Speaker, and, whilst the Opposition rejects a fair section of it, we knew that it was coming forward; it was predictable. Predictability and certainty are the theme of what I am saying tonight in regard to the affairs of the elderly or of social security beneficiaries. Whether they be rehabilitation allowances or factors relating to rent, the family farm or possessions within a home, they are of great and utmost significance. So why would any government with any sensibility, with any sensitivity, move to damage the lifestyles of the elderly? I do not understand it. I do not know why such legislation would be produced. This legislation does not do that but we will be seeing legislation that will. The role of this Minister in producing legislation is known to the House. He is generally responsible. We know about the allowances and rebates, the recovery of costs for treatment, and the arrangement for treatment for invalid pensioners but we do not know about the assets test. It is a day by day process of dragging out of the Government change after change and that is completely at odds with the proper process of dealing with the elderly or beneficiaries under the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill. It is dreadful that people who appear to be sympathetic to the needs of the elderly have moved to create circumstances in which cupboards, drawers and the utmost of intimate personal possessions may have to be examined to see whether false declarations have been made. It is a frightening thing that is facing the people in my electorate. They have been forewarned. I have not been neglectful in telling them what to expect. We will shortly see an unpredictable and unjustified impost on thousands of Australian pensioners. Mr Deputy Speaker, whilst your unbiased attitudes are held up by all as being the pinnacle of responsibility for a person in your high office, I know that you too in your heart feel as I do and will reject the assets test. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member is going too far. His time has expired. Mr BURR(Wilmot)(7.22) —I am certain it would be true to say that all members of this House share a genuine compassion for those in the community who are less fortunate than we are. I am certain that under successive governments, including the present Government, everything is done to try to help those people in the community who, for circumstances which at times are beyond their control, are not able to properly and adequately care for themselves. However, I think that in the circumstances that are encroaching on us in this country we cannot properly debate the social security problems that confront people without also considering the economic impact that social security and other costs of government are having. Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask you and the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) for some leniency in the comments I want to make because I want to relate the effects of the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill before us today to their impact on the economy. I suggest that in order to have a balanced debate on any social security or other matter that comes before this House the economic impact must also be taken into account. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Wilmot must address his remarks to the Bill. Mr BURR —My remarks will be addressed to the Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, if we study the provisions in this Bill-I am sure all of us can find individual cases where anomalies do occur in various social welfare programs and the Minister in his compassion is trying to remove some of them-we see that their overall effect will increase the total social security cost. We cannot ignore that. I am quite certain that the Minister would have had representations made to him, as do all members of parliament, pointing out anomalies. When there is a certain cut-off point under social security programs some people, for whatever reason, just miss out. It is obviously those cases that the Minister is trying to include in the various programs. However, I remind the Minister that if one draws a line in any program there will always be people who are just on the other side of that line. So, while he may think that in this Bill he is tidying up some anomalies, really he is creating another set of anomalies. Those other anomalies will inevitably occur. This Bill is designed to overcome what one identifies now as anomalies but it will have the effect of increasing the total cost of social security upon the taxpayers. What it will also do is create another set of anomalies which, if one tries to overcome them, will also again increase the cost of social security. The social security costs facing the Government, and therefore the taxpayer, are rising at the moment at such an astronomical rate that we cannot continue to ignore them in any debate on social security that occurs in this House. I understand the compassion the Minister has for people in the community who are less fortunate but I remind him that figures produced by the Department of the Treasury over the period 1981-82 to 1986-87 reveal that the total cost of social security will rise from $11,501m to a projected $21,600m in 1986-87. The figure will almost double over a five-year period. With the economy we have in Australia regardless of the compassion that we may have, we cannot continue to ignore the cost of social security on the Budget and on taxpayers. I understand that the Government wants to help people who are affected by anomalies relating to the unemployment benefit, the single parents benefit, or whatever. However, if the cumulative effect is to run the economy of this country to a point where we can no longer pay our social security bill, I remind the House that not just those people who are affected by the present anomalies in the system will have lower standards of living forced on them; everyone who relies on social security programs will have lower standards of living forced on them because the country simply will not have the money to pay for those programs. This fact has been identified by others more learned than me. I remind honourable members that one thing that is constantly being put forward is that the major reason for increases in social security costs is the increase in the aged persons section of the program. It is my view that it is not so much the age pensioners who are the major contributors to this rapid increase in costs; it is due to the other programs that are included in the total social security area and are also dealt with in part of the Bill. In a recent article in the Australian newspaper, Mr Russell Schneider pointed out that over a five- year period aged persons' benefits will increase by 64 per cent. He went on to state: While the total welfare bill over five years rose by 106 per cent, the cost of aged pensions rose by only 64 per cent. The cost of providing benefits to single parents rose by 295 per cent and the cost of unemployment benefits went up by 258 per cent. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member for Wilmot to tie his remarks to the Bill before the House. Mr BURR —Indeed I will, Mr Deputy Speaker. If you study the Bill, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will find that it relaxes in certain ways the provisions whereby people are able to claim both the unemployment benefit and the supporting parent 's benefit. It is those two sections of the social security bill that are rising at the most rapid rate. I understand that the Minister may well identify unemployed people who he considers are hard done by under the present provisions of the Social Security Act. He may well be able to identify unemployed single parents whom he considers should have greater access to social security. Obviously that is what the Government is trying to correct in this Bill. However , if the effect is to force the social security cost to a point where the economy cannot pay, the Government is not helping those people or any other persons in Australia. The Government is putting those people at a greater disadvantage. I remind the Minister, although I am sure I do not have to do that, of a section of the second reading speech of the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) relating to relaxation of unemployment benefit. It states: Fourthly, payment of unemployment benefit may be postponed at present for a period of between six and 12 weeks if the applicant's own actions caused his unemployment and he did not have a good and sufficient reason for his actions; if his unemployment is due to his misconduct as a worker; or if he failed without good and sufficient reason to accept a suitable offer of employment. What the Government is doing in the Bill is removing restrictions on people claiming unemployment benefit and, in fact, giving the Director-General of the Department of Social Security the right to determine what he considers to be appropriate criteria. Naturally that will give a lot of the people who at the moment have some restrictions on their claims for unemployment benefit greater access to that benefit. That can have the final impact only of increasing the total cost of unemployment benefit. We cannot ignore that. I remind the Minister that in 1981-82 the actual payment for unemployment benefit amounted to $1,224m. That figure has been rising at roughly the rate of $1,000m a year to the point where in 1986-87 the Treasury predicts the total cost of unemployment benefit will be $4,339m. If the Government's proposal under this Bill is to increase those costs even further than those projected by the Treasury, I do not know how this country can continue to provide the money that will be needed. I understand the Government's compassion in saying that people will be destitute if they have such conditions forced on them because, unfortunately, they have no job. However, if we continue to erode our economy by trying to look after people with money which we do not have and which, in fact, we have to borrow from the money market, I fear that our total social security effort will lead the country into the destitute conditions that are now being experienced in Argentina. I hope the Government will not force that on Australia. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(7.33) —In opening my remarks I thank the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr) for providing his very fine defence of the Government's assets test policy and, indeed, the whole thrust of the Government's legislation in the social welfare field which is, of course, to try to ensure that welfare benefits go to those most in need. In commenting generally on the Opposition's contribution to this debate on the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill I say that anyone who reads the debate will find it peculiarly illuminating because it illustrates the utter intellectual chaos and disintegration of the Opposition across the whole social welfare field. The Opposition speakers in the debate fell into two groups. Firstly, a number of Opposition speakers did speak to the Bill and its proposals and nearly all of them supported the proposals. I will come back to a few of their specific points because they are deserving of answer. But nearly half the Opposition speakers talked about issues which were not in the Bill at all. They simply seized on the debate as an opportunity to talk about the assets test or, in the case of the leading speakers for the Opposition-the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) and the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), both shadow Ministers-simply repeated what I have called the fly-blown exaggerations of their leader on the issue of the Government's assets test and treatment of the aged. The first question we should ask ourselves is why the honourable member for Denison and the honourable member for Mackellar hardly addressed themselves to the issues in the Bill and why nearly half the Opposition speakers did not say a word about what was in the Bill. I think the reason for that is that it would make nonsense of their attacks on the Government's social welfare policy as lacking in compassion and concern for the needy in our community because all the measures in this Bill are directed to those most in need in our community. Of course, Opposition speakers really could not afford to talk about that kind of issue. If they did so they would be admitting that in fact the Government has a social welfare policy directed to those most in need. I will briefly state what the Bill is concerned with. The Bill improves the rent allowances for sickness beneficiaries. The Bill provides a supplementary allowance-that is a rent allowance-for those people who live in and have site payments for their caravans or houseboats. This is a group which had been disadvantaged by the way that the rent allowance worked. The Bill removes anomalies under the current income test arrangements for pensioners and beneficiaries. The Bill provides for treatment of lump sum payments on termination of employment to ensure that all such beneficiaries are fairly treated. The Bill modifies the penalty provisions whereby unemployment benefit was postponed for a period of between six and 12 weeks if unemployment was in some way the result of the beneficiary's own action. The Bill improves the remote area allowance for beneficiaries and pensioners. The Bill provides incentives for the provision of short term respite accommodation for people cared for in the community. Many aged and handicapped persons prefer to live at home but their relatives need support in the form of a holiday or a break. Too often the only alternative is premature admission to institutional facilities or hospitals. In this Bill we have tried actually to provide for the first time effective incentives for respite care services in hostels. In our later legislation we will be providing the same incentives for nursing homes. That is what the Bill is about. Of course, that is what most honourable members on the other side did not talk about. They preferred the kind of rhetoric which I have called the fly-blown exaggerations about the Government 's policies on the aged. I call them fly-blown because the longer they are left out in the open sunlight of rational discussion the sooner they will be seen to be as gaseous as people increasingly are becoming convinced they are. I will now take what I consider a typical performance by the honourable member for Mackellar, who was once a sensible advocate of rational policies in the social welfare area. He talked about the income test being applied once again to those over 70 years of age. He did not mention at all in his speech that a single pensioner over 70 years will receive some part of a pension until he earns over $300 a week. He did not mention that a pensioner couple will continue to get some pension until they have other income in excess of $500 a week. That point was entirely left out of the honourable member's speech. Very discreetly the honourable member for Mackellar said: If their assets exceed certain limits they will lose some of their pensions. Of course, the honourable member did not mention the limits because those limits are very high and very generous. There is a limit of $70,000 for a single person and $100,000 for a married couple. He did not mention that there was exemption of the family home and that a special $50,000 was added to the threshold for pensioners who do not possess a home; that is, pensioners who rent, live with their relatives or live in a nursing home. Of course, those facts were not mentioned. I mention the distortions concerning the effect of the 35-day rule. The 35-day rule was introduced, again, to ensure cost efficiency of services. The honourable member said: . . . the 35-day rule introduced for insured hospital patients . . . requires them to leave a hospital after 35 days if they are still in acute care. I think the whole statement is confused, but certainly there is no such requirement. If such patients are still in need of acute care they are covered by nearly all the insurance companies in this country. If they are in need of nursing home care they are still covered for that treatment in the private hospital at a slightly lower rate. Again, there was an attack on our policy as regards changes in hostel funding. The honourable member for Mackellar mentioned a problem that has arisen out of that policy. What he forgot to tell the House is that, as a result of those changes, we have increased personal care subsidies and hostel care subsidies this year, 1983-84, by $4.5m. In a full year that figure will be over $11m. But that fact, of course, was left out. We then heard the nonsense about Medicare's effect on the consumer price index. Let me say that all people on fixed incomes will benefit greatly from our ability to keep the CPI down and from the effects of that flowing through the community in the form of lower prices. Nobody will benefit more from that than pensioners and others on fixed incomes. The Government has already indicated that if there is unfairness as a result of the working of Medicare on the CPI it will be addressed during Budget considerations . I think that, increasingly, the Australian people will come to see such exaggerations for what they are. Increasingly they will be given the facts about the welfare policy of this Government. Let me just say a little about the serious points which were raised by members on both sides of the House. First, the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) was somewhat concerned about the guidelines in relation to de facto relationships. This Government is very much aware of the need for sensitivity in investigating whether de facto relationships exist. Last year, the Department of Social Security issued national guidelines for investigating de facto relationships. We made those guidelines publicly available. We are reviewing the guidelines again in the light of experience with their administration and of comments provided by organisations and individuals in the community in order to ensure the most appropriate balance is struck between the need for proper administration and the rights of clients affected. So I can assure the honourable member for Lowe that his concern is well in hand. The honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) raised a fundamental issue. It is the sort of fundamental issue relating to social welfare that I think is really worth discussing on both sides of the House. It concerns the treatment of the family and the individual and the implications that has for spouses, particularly of course for women, and whether, in fact, we should continue a social welfare policy which is based essentially on the family unit or whether we should adopt a policy similar to the policy we have in regard to taxation, that is, to treat welfare beneficiaries and recipients on an individual basis. That is a very important question and it is thoroughly worth canvassing. I must say that, as usual, the honourable member for Sturt contributed important and worthwhile considerations to this debate. We will certainly continue to keep that issue under review. His comments have been noted and as we continue our reviews of social welfare policy they will be kept in mind. There has been some protest on the other side of the House about our provisions for making the penalty sanctions regarding the unemployment benefit slightly more flexible. The real problem is that at the moment if such a sanction is applied it has to be for at least six weeks' duration. There is no flexibility between no weeks and six weeks. The six-week penalty for, say, a man with three children may involve something like $1,000 in unemployment benefit. That man would already have lost his job, perhaps for some minor misdemeanour. Then, on top of that, a penalty of $1,000 would be imposed. All we are saying in this legislation is that the Director-General should have a little more flexibility. At the moment he can make a judgement involving a period from six to 12 weeks. We are simply saying that we believe it is appropriate for him to have a somewhat greater flexibility in looking at individual cases. That is the purpose of that change. The honourable member for Mackellar, in about the only remarks he addressed to the Bill itself, raised with me the problem regarding respite care. He asked why we provide a $10 a week subsidy to people who use hostels for less than 14 days for respite care and a $50 payment to those who use them for 15 days or more. It is a fairly complicated issue but the basis of it is very simple. On the evidence we have, those persons using respite care for a period of 14 days or less have very little need for extra services. That is, they are very much ordinary hostel care patients, whereas the bulk of the patients who use hostels for longer terms mostly appear to need treatment at the level of the personal care subsidy which, as the honourable member knows, is structured at $50 a day. So the basic reason for making that decision was that in the case of short term users we equated the subsidy to the hostel care subsidy of $10 a week, whereas in the case of longer term respite care we equated it with the personal care subsidy of $50 a week. We admit that this proposal is new and we will monitor it carefully to see its effects. It is designed very much to provide incentives to people who run hostels to take on respite care because it will contribute so much to enable people to stay in the community in the knowledge that they also have respite care to fall back on for short periods. However, we will certainly monitor the assumption we made that people using hostels for short periods are mostly in need of a fairly low level of care and that people using them for longer periods require a higher level of care. The honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) raised an issue in relation to the compensation case of Mrs Owen. We have followed that through. The case was handled by the Department of Defence in Melbourne as a result of the honourable member raising the matter. The Commissioner for Employees' Compensation in Canberra will take over the processing of Mrs Owen's case. The honourable member will be contacted about that matter shortly. The honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) raised the question of extending the defence service homes insurance scheme to all veterans and serving members eligible for defence service home loans whether or not they had such a loan. The Government will review the position and give consideration to that suggestion. I thank the honourable member for Grayndler for bringing the point to the Government's attention. The honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) when talking about repatriation matters, in fact, wandered into the area of the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1984 which deals with delays in the repatriation determination system. That Bill, which was introduced into the Senate on 29 May, has not reached this House yet. But I certainly welcome very much the honourable member' s support for the measure in advance of its arriving in this House. The honourable member for Mackellar concluded his speech by saying that he was going to bring the Government to account in relation to its failure to be a compassionate government, caring for the less well off in our society. Let me say that I think this measure is but one of a number of measures which clearly indicate the Government's compassion and concern for the less well off in this society. As we have indicated, it will be followed by further extensions of the pension rent allowance for a particularly hard pressed group of pensioners. It will be followed by adjustments to the weekly rate of pension to get it to the level of the 25 per cent of average weekly earnings which we have promised. It will be followed by a community care program for the aged. The Opposition will see all of those policies developed in the next six months. I am very confident indeed that the development of those policies will certainly answer the charges of the honourable member for Mackellar. When we finally face the electorate, I have no doubt at all that the performance of the Government in this area will be seen as both compassionate and caring. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Carlton's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 31 —— Baldwin, P. J. Kent, L.Beddall, D. P. Keogh, L. J.Bilney, G. N. Kerin, J. C.Blanchard, C. A. Klugman, R. E.Blewett, N. Lindsay, E. J.Brown, John McHugh, J.Brown, Robert McLeay, LeoBrumby, J. M. Maher, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Mayer, H.Child, J. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Morrison, W. L.Duffy, M. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Everingham, D. N. Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Reeves, J. E.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Fry, K. L. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Steedman, A. P.Hollis, C. Theophanous, A. C.Howe, C. Tickner, R. E.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Uren, T.Hurford, C. J. Wells, D. McM.Jacobi, R. West, S. J.Jones, Barry Willis, R.Keating, P. J. Young, M. J.Kelly, R. J. Adermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Andrew, J. N. Hodgman, W. M.Blunt, C. W. Lusher, S. A.Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J.Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Robinson, IanColeman, W. P. Rocher, A. C.Connolly, D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Cowan, D. B. Sinclair, I. McC.Dobie, J. D. M. Spender, J. M.Edwards, Harry Tuckey, C. W.Fife, W. C. White, P. N. D.Hall, Steele Wilson, I. B. C. Cunningham, B. T. Katter, R. C.Mountford, J. G. Moore, J. C.Chynoweth, R. L. Aldred, K. J.Bowen, Lionel Braithwaite, R. R. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 40-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 41 (Postponement or cancellation of unemployment benefit in certain cases). Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(8.09) —The Opposition has not been convinced by the Government in the arguments it has put forward in favour of clause 41 of the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill. Clause 41 of the Bill amends section 120, sub-section (1) and (2), of the Social Security Act, which provides for unemployment benefits to be postponed for a minimum period of six to 12 weeks under certain circumstances. So the present situation is that if a person becomes unemployed due either directly or indirectly to his voluntary act, which in the opinion of the Director-General was without good or sufficient reason; or if that person's unemployment is due to his misconduct as a worker; or if that person has refused or failed without good and sufficient reason to accept an offer of employment which the Director-General considers to be suitable-in other words, if that person has failed a work test; or if in the opinion of the Director-General the person is a seasonal or intermittent worker, then the present Act requires that he not be given unemployment benefits for a minimum of six weeks and up to 12 weeks. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) representing the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) has said that the Government wishes to remove the restriction of six weeks before the unemployment benefit is payable. I do not think it is unreasonable for the Opposition to question this. If there is a discretion on the part of the Director-General we would see it being increasingly used. We believe that the reasons that have to be present for there to be a six-week delay-the four reasons I have quoted-are perfectly reasonable. Therefore, we intend to vote against this clause of the Bill. Question put: That clause 41 be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Baldwin, P. J. Kent, L.Beddall, D. P. Keogh, L. J.Bilney, G. N. Kerin, J. C.Blanchard, C. A. Klugman, R. E.Blewett, N. Lindsay, E. J.Brown, John McHugh, J.Brown, Robert McLeay, LeoBrumby, J. M. Maher, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Mayer, H.Cohen, B. Milton, P.Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterEveringham, D. N. O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Reeves, J. E.Fry, K. L. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Hollis, C. Steedman, A. P.Howe, B. L. Theophanous, A. C.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Tickner, R. E.Hurford, C. J. Uren, T.Jacobi, R. Wells, D. McM.Jones, Barry West, S. J.Keating, P. J. Willis, R.Kelly, R. J. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hall, SteeleAndrew, J. N. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Blunt, C. W. Hodgman, W. M.Burr, M. A. Lusher, S. A.Cadman, A. G. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Robinson, IanColeman, W. P. Rocher, A. C.Connolly, D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Cowan, D. B. Sinclair, I. McC.Dobie, J. D. M. Spender, J. M.Drummond, P. H. Tuckey, C. W.Edwards, Harry White, P. N. D.Fife, W. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Cunningham, B. T. Katter, R. C.Mountford, J. G. Moore, J. C.Chynoweth, R. L. Aldred, K. J.Bowen, Lionel Braithwaite, R. A. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Dr Blewett)-by leave-read a third time. Mr SPEAKER —I present the following reports of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House: Reports relating to proposed works in the Parliamentary Zone: Australian National Gallery amphitheatre; Provisional Parliament House temporary extensions, and Provisional Parliament House temporary enclosure of verandahs, incorporating a dissenting report. Motion (by Dr Blewett) proposed: That the reports be printed. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(8.10) —I do not want to delay the House but I want an assurance from the Leader of the House (Mr Young), who is not here at the moment. One of these reports causes the Opposition very real concern. I want an assurance that it will be possible for the matter to be debated tomorrow. I refer to the proposed enclosure of the front of Parliament House. Mr SPEAKER —I explain to the Leader of the House that I have just tabled reports regarding four propositions. Mr SINCLAIR —I understand that motions will be moved and there will be an opportunity to debate that particular matter tomorrow. I just want that assurance. Mr Young —I am not going to do it personally. Mr SPEAKER —I will allow the Minister for Territories and Local Government indulgence to clarify the matter. Mr Uren —I will be moving the motions tomorrow. Mr SPEAKER —I think that reassures the right honourable member. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Dr Blewett) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(8.11) —Mr Speaker- Motion (by Dr Blewett) agreed to: That the question be now put. Original question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 8.11 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Hurford to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Redevelopment of the Royal Military College, Duntroon, Australian Capital Territory. Mr Hurford to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Redevelopment of facilities at Darwin International Airport, Northern Territory. Mr Hurford to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of Commonwealth Government Centre Currie Street, Adelaide, South Australia. Mr Hurford to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969 and by reason of the urgency related to implementation of the work, it is expedient that the following proposed work be carried out without having been referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works: Hobart Airport , Tasmania, upgrading of aircraft pavements and terminal facilities. Mr Uren to move- That, in accordance with Section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposals contained in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House presented to the House on 6 June 1984, namely: The construction of a two-storey prefabricated modular building in the House of Representatives gardens linked to the existing building by a covered walkway at the first floor level. Mr Uren to move- That, in accordance with Section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposals contained in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House presented to the House on 6 June 1984, namely: The construction of formal seating at the Australian National Gallery amphitheatre. Mr Uren to move- That, in accordance with Section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposals contained in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House presented to the House on 6 June 1984, namely: The temporary enclosure of the verandahs at the main floor level of the Provisional Parliament House on the northern facade of the building. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 6 June 1984: Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General fixing the dates on which the following Acts shall come into operation- Archives Act 1983-6 June 1984. Copyright Amendment Act 1983-6 June 1984 The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 791) Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 16 November 1983: (1) Which party to the sale and purchase of the self portrait by Peter Paul Rubens, bought by the Australian National Gallery, stipulated that the price not be disclosed. (2) Why was a stipulation attached to the transaction. (3) What was the price paid by the Gallery for the painting. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I am advised by the Australian National Gallery that negotiations for the purchase of this work of art were undertaken during the term of the previous Government, and that: (1) and (2) The vendor stipulated as a condition of sale that the purchase price of the self portrait by Peter Paul Rubens and the vendor's name not be disclosed. The Gallery, desirous of acquiring this very important work for the National collection, agreed to this condition. (3) For the reason outlined above, the Gallery is not able to provide the information sought by the honourable member. I have asked the Gallery to ensure that in future information concerning the purchase price of works of art be available for disclosure to the Parliament and that arrangements with vendors should accordingly include provision for such disclosure. (Question No. 1069) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 2 March 1984: How many (a) males and (b) females have been engaged in (i) the Minister's Department and (ii) any statutory authorities reporting to the Minister, as temporary employees under the Community Employment Program, in each of the months December 1983 and January and February 1984. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: December January February 1983 1984 1984 (i) (a) 2 (a) 13 (a) 20 (b) 2 (b) 9 (b) 7 (ii) (a) Nil (a) Nil (a) 14 (b) 1 (b) Nil (b) 48 (Question No. 1210) Mr Kent asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 March 1984: (1) How many United States communication bases are there in Australia. (2) How many United States (a) service personnel are servicing the bases, and ( b) civilian personnel are employed at the bases. (3) What arrangements are there to replace United States civilian personnel, if they were evacuated during a crisis, by Australian technicians. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There are two joint Australia/United States communications stations in Australia: The Naval Communication Station Harold E. Holt at North West Cape, and the Joint Defence Space Communications Station-JDSCS-at Nurrungar. (2) (a) North West Cape-365; Nurrungar-206; (b) North West Cape-11; Nurrungar- 25. (3) None. Neither the Australian nor the United States Government considers that any such arrangements are necessary. (Question No. 1311) Mr Peacock asked the Treasurer, 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 Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) to (f) All appointments and promotions by the Department of the Treasury are made on merit having regard to qualifications, experience and comparative efficiency. Subject to applicants meeting the minimum qualifications for appointment and the nationality requirement for permanent appointment, there are no barriers to employment within the Department of the Treasury. There has been no change to this policy since March 1983. (2) Specific costs in relation to this element of existing policies cannot be separately identified. (Question No. 1382) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 2 May 1984: (1) What was the value of all (a) imports and (b) exports between Australia and (i) Indian Ocean island states and (ii) individual African countries for each of the last 10 years. (2) What were the major items (a) imported and (b) exported in respect of each country. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The total value of Australia's trade with the Indian Ocean island states and individual African countries for the past 10 years is as follows: 1. (i) The value of all (a) imports and (b) exports between Australia and the following Indian Ocean states for each of the last ten years is as shown below. 1. (i) Indian Ocean Island States (a) IMPORTS INTO AUSTRALIA $A'000 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 from: Madagascar 375.5 533.3 310.2 294.4 298.8 660.2 508.9 5,351.5 356.7 924.8 Mauritius 173.8 538.3 487.7 799.7 759.3 670.5 564.5 589.4 602.8 1,224.9 Reunion 25.6 20.5 - 0.9 31.1 90.0 84.7 27.3 12.1 31.7 Seychelles 53.6 9.4 18.3 34.4 15 .2 5.9 18.8 0.6 21.4 0.1 Comoros 6.9 - - - 0.8 - 3.0 2.2 - 0.6 B.I.O.T. - - - - - - - - - - (b) EXPORTS FROM AUSTRALIA $A'000 to: Madagascar 71.0 219.3 135.7 493.3 330.0 558.8 1,500.4 34.5 3.3 881.0 Mauritius 6,635.3 10,041.7 11,214.4 14,030.1 16,008.9 20,648.0 19,808.9 22,551.9 19,907.8 20,373.2 Reunion 302.0 215.4 391.8 198.1 274.6 1,861.7 346.2 554.3 1,909.9 3, 250.2 Seychelles 739.2 1,270.2 1,513.0 1,321.5 1,424.4 1,444.2 1,546.1 815.7 1, 091.4 982.2 Comoros 2.1 - 542.0 - 508.1 - 0.8 59.1 0.5 - B.I.O.T.* - 20.8 2.0 - 52.8 0.5 - 1,989.1 - - 1. (ii) The value of all (a) imports and (b) exports between Australia and individual African countries for each of the last 10 years is as shown below. (a) IMPORTS INTO AUSTRALIA $A'000 from: Algeria 41.9 21.4 1.4 3.7 1.5 - 3.1 - - 8,646.6 Angola 3,742.3 139.7 222.5 231 .3 - - - - 0.1 - Benin - - - - 4.4 - - - - - Botswana 1.4 3.8 5.0 6.5 1.0 2.2 47.9 3.2 25.5 46.6 Burundi 0.1 - - 1.8 0.5 0.9 2.9 - 0.1 108.9 Cameroon - - 0. 2 0.1 - - 0.1 2.1 338.0 32.7 Cape Verde Is - - - - - - - - - - Central African Republic - - - - - - 0.9 - 0.8 - Chad - - - 507.8 582.3 - - - - - Congo - - - - 4.0 - - - 13.2 9.4 Djibouti - - - - - - - 3.6 - - Egypt 453.6 345.3 92.0 120 .8 114.9 92.4 78.7 172.3 152.5 112.2 Equatorial Guinea - - - - - - - - - 0.4 Ethiopia 502.0 1,110.2 57.5 181.7 345.1 384.0 479.8 388.1 626.7 722.1 Gabon 0. 5 - - 180.0 - - 418.7 417.8 - 12.5 Gambia - 12.2 7.9 - - - - 1.0 - - Ghana 5, 966.6 19,960.5 8,814.0 12,957.3 19,322.6 17,222.0 14,496.4 10,380.6 6,222.8 7, 188.5 Guinea 0.1 - - - 0.1 0.2 0.1 9.3 6.1 3.2 Guinea-Bissau - - - - - - - - - - Ivory Coast 209.7 827.1 1,291.9 4,133.4 8,437.9 2,625.6 6,389.7 7,766.2 6,789 .5 6,172.5 Kenya 2,045.1 1,912.6 2,944.0 4,747.0 4,796.7 2,425.6 9,767.4 4,561. 3 4,834.0 2,438.0 Lesotho 5.1 38.4 25.9 18.1 2.8 5.5 19.5 9.0 67.2 242.0 Liberia 0.3 1.0 - - - - - 0.1 0.4 - Libya - - 1.3 - 1.2 - - - - - Malawi 792. 6 2,005.6 1,600.9 1,373.9 2,859.8 4,395.4 4,099.5 3,196.8 5,801.6 5,875.0 Mali - - - 5.8 - - - - 1.0 - Mauritania 5.3 - 5.7 - - - - - 4.0 - Morocco 1,132.9 2 ,946.8 1,759.2 2,827.7 1,528.3 821.9 91.8 1,185.2 1,314.0 343.0 Mozambique 2,273.2 2,452.0 1,970.1 1,023.4 1,392.9 1,385.8 986.5 1,900.7 690.8 937.1 Namibia 133.5 109.8 0.7 18.9 1.6 1.4 0.7 0.6 7.8 2.4 Niger - 21.9 80.9 - - 357.2 - - 5.7 - Nigeria 934.2 372.0 14.9 1,436.6 757.6 37.0 443.3 1,101.8 1, 254.1 405.2 Rwanda - 0.1 - - - - - - - 65.2 Sao Tome & Principe - - - - - - - - - - Senegal 2.2 0.6 - 759.1 0.5 1,627.5 165.2 0.1 - 0.4 Sierra Leone 1.6 59. 8 0.4 24.2 12.9 20.9 2.8 0.8 0.9 4.1 Somalia 2.4 4.0 0.1 - 0.3 - - 20.0 0.3 1.0 South Africa 36,628.5 43,929.6 36,890.2 56,374.0 58,051.0 84,876.6 105,835.0 110.643.0 90,701.2 84,944.4 St Helena - - - - - - - 2.2 - 0.2 Sudan 378.5 1,621 .6 291.2 634.5 440.8 877.8 905.8 256.5 286.8 448.6 Swaziland 658.9 1,927.2 510. 9 0.3 706.9 261.9 298.0 562.3 1,497.0 1,192.7 Tanzania 8,112.7 3,788.7 3,066.9 7,579.9 3,877.2 4,579.4 5,750.8 6,233.0 3,734.9 2,740.8 Tunisia 43.5 20.4 32.4 8.3 16.4 5.4 10.4 44.5 61.8 81.5 Togo - - - - - - - - - 1,204.2 Uganda 4,977.2 5,342.5 6,778.6 6,575.3 11,168.6 7,728.1 10,278.3 13,313.1 6,992.6 6,949.4 Upper Volta - 117.3 - - - - - 6.5 0.4 - Western Sahara - - - - 70.3 65.4 - - 5.3 19. 3 Zaire 262.3 440.1 589.2 592.6 869.8 1,619.8 844.0 443.7 321.9 534.6 Zambia 200.3 235.4 263.7 461.0 242.4 323.7 350.8 466.7 648.9 600.7 Zimbabwe 13.8 0.2 - 1.1 3.8 - 25.5 2,259.1 4,233.0 3,470.1 (b) EXPORTS FROM AUSTRALIA $A'000 To: Algeria 9.1 230.3 4,596.9 5,107.6 12,691.4 2,428.9 3,068.5 2,650.4 464.9 2,004. 7 Angola 190.2 176.7 4.2 8.6 442.0 114.0 139.9 36.1 35.5 1.9 Benin 81.0 928.0 92.3 40.8 21.0 21.5 6.0 25.3 43.4 8.9 Botswana 12.6 29.7 7.2 2.1 9.6 17.4 57.5 24.2 13.5 106.8 Burundi 28.4 12.6 48.3 60.6 122.1 22.1 9.8 - - 42.7 Cameroon 22.8 510.9 25.6 8.1 80.3 16.0 1.3 23.5 5.5 172.7 Cape Verde Is - - - - 1.2 - 1. 3 39.8 - 41.3 Central African Republic 12.4 3.9 1.8 - - - 2.7 0.5 - - Chad 2.4 49.8 - 0.7 2.1 - - - - - Congo 6.3 53.2 16.6 7.3 - 12.2 38.3 1.1 36.7 4.6 Djibouti 27.2 46.8 29.0 185.3 9.8 38.3 27.7 50.8 2.5 62.9 Egypt 76,400.8 134, 572.8 162,754.5 144,970.2 187,634.9 193,970.6 326,912.9 409,942.0 335,874.0 441, 423.0 Equatorial Guinea - - - - - - - - - - Ethiopia 584.8 1,439.7 467.0 9,164 .0 318.1 2,982.0 13,634.7 7,450.5 4,803.5 114.0 Gabon 3.5 1,041.0 62.3 94.0 66. 0 - 3.1 13.4 - 1.6 Gambia 4.0 3.0 5.7 6.2 5.8 1.9 5.6 0.5 2.2 3.5 Ghana 1,063. 2 225.2 2,904.7 706.4 3,666.1 3,510.2 14,585.7 103.5 256.8 25.3 Guinea 6.3 - 86 .8 - 100.4 - 4.6 - 24.6 5.8 Guinea-Bissau 3.1 57.0 - 21.4 1.4 0.7 15.0 - - 2.2 Ivory Coast 24.4 8.2 208.8 123.4 191.3 1,178.6 1,293.9 55,644.0 638.4 127.4 Kenya 2,769.5 9,898.8 4,567.0 11,630.6 13,812.9 16,074.4 13,152.5 18,181.2 10, 355.5 9,532.1 Lesotho 5.5 9.9 2.3 0.1 60.0 - 1.0 - - 1,950.1 Liberia 127.2 132 .5 160.3 305.5 511.1 235.6 596.7 58.1 221.6 101.7 Libya 2,209.0 10,688.1 9,712. 3 4,355.1 11,378.5 15,851.5 24,763.2 34,172.7 43,027.5 22,698.5 Malawi 427.3 446.0 283.6 129.8 120.4 109.7 362.1 394.8 330.6 190.0 Mali - - 5.3 0.7 5.6 2.4 - 1.4 1.4 56.8 Mauritania - - 1.8 0.7 5.0 54.0 - - - 37.9 Morocco 139.6 4,066. 2 4,022.3 224.2 83.4 163.7 728.9 210.0 8,422.8 207.3 Mozambique 1,235.7 2,161.2 556.2 3,673.4 4,026.2 4,801.7 22.3 1,376.1 1,208.3 113.6 Namibia 16.3 82.1 860. 0 23.7 75.7 3,633.8 6.3 43.0 64.1 10.8 Niger 5.2 18.2 2.9 7.7 736.9 362.1 10.3 229.7 85.1 533.0 Nigeria 1,616.5 2,855.5 6,087.3 5,769.0 11,139.0 2,291.9 2,378 .9 4,072.8 5,681.7 1,649.8 Rwanda 134.3 36.9 5.4 7.3 6.3 8.4 7.2 23.9 7.1 4.7 Sao Tome & Principe - - - - - - - - - - Senegal 12.5 1,133.8 52.0 247.4 980.7 - 31.8 41.6 6.2 2.8 Sudan 307.4 1,022.1 2,481.4 1,595.7 3,020.5 1,708.0 1,284.6 5,162.1 2,897.5 6,841.3 South Africa 90,894.7 97,861.1 90,958.1 69,415.0 65,653 .9 67,547.1 93,393.3 132,757.91 45,539.1 144,532.6 Sierra Leone 214.3 51.6 48.6 56.8 14.5 54.9 1,816.8 367.9 86.3 26.3 Somalia 89.5 1,323.8 459.4 490.1 1,294.4 244.8 635.1 2,169.6 46.6 2,474.8 Swaziland 0.1 0.9 1.3 5.2 6.4 6.1 9.2 5.4 534. 0 553.2 Tanzania 6,191.9 10,454.1 6,928.0 2,528.8 4,415.2 4,302.1 4,658.4 7,996 .7 7,808.4 1,271.1 Tunisia 71.5 1,690.4 873.6 1,361.8 618.5 176.7 172.3 397.9 253.8 505.6 Togo 20.6 7.8 18.0 29.8 5.8 6.7 1.5 - - 2,205.7 Uganda 247.0 352.7 531.8 528.4 611.9 495.4 1,140.0 247.0 2,064.4 570.6 Upper Volta 3.0 0.7 - 29.4 33.8 9.2 320.9 8.3 14.7 12.6 Western Sahara - - - - - 2.4 - - - 177.8 Zaira 107.0 583.9 2.7 3.1 - 37.6 20.0 87.0 1,815.8 9.5 Zambia 10,454.6 11,608.5 10, 982.9 13,717.0 7,414.1 7,707.6 14,443.5 12,718.0 9,650.4 5,128.1 Zimbabwe 12.4 10.2 3.1 0.1 0.8 - 53.8 2,362.4 4,247.3 5,807.7 - denotes nil or negligible. * British Indian Ocean Territory-Chagos Archipelago. Source: Compiled from information supplied by ABS. (2) Major items imported and exported in respect of each country (Financial Year 1982-83). INDIAN OCEAN ISLAND STATES $'000 (a) Major Imports into Australia Madagascar- Vanilla 255.9 Cloves 220.7 Tobacco, unmanufactured 169.4 Tea, excl. in packs exceeding 10kg. 139.0 Coffee, not roasted 122.4 Essential Oils 10.8 Pepper, unground 6.7 Mauritius- Diamonds 314.8 Cat food, canned 262.2 Jerseys, cardigans and jumpers of wool or fine animal hair 247.9 Parts for electric or laser operated welding machines 66.5 Electronic automatic regulating controlling devices for temperature and pressure 65.6 Paper novelties 44.3 Electro-mechanical automatic regulators nei* 31.8 Meters n.e.s.**, gauges, nei, for controlling liquids, gases, non-electronic 23.2 Plastic datum eye-piece for frames for spectacles 23.0 Reunion- Essential oils (other than major flavours) 29.8 Concentrates and terpenic by- products of deterpenation of essential oils 1.9 (b) Major Exports from Australia Madagascar- Wheat 868.8 Food-processing machines, excluse domestic nei 11.0 Artificial resins and plastic materials 1.3 Mauritius- White, plain flour 4,287.1 Milk powder 1,583.2 Books, paperbound or unbound nei 1,333.2 Mutton, boneless, cutmeats, fresh, chilled or frozen 1,268.5 Processed, non-refrigerated cheese 920.3 Inedible tallow nei in bulk 819.7 Edible offals, fresh, chilled, frozen, of cattle 688.6 Butter, not canned 672 .9 Peas, not split, dried 641.2 Beef, boneless 472.6 Reunion- Items for which details are not separately available 1,771.4 Goat meat 470.4 Edible offals 172.0 Meat of horses, asses, hinnies, fresh, chilled or frozen suitable for human consumption 112.4 Lamb 175.9 Kangaroo and wallaby meat unfit and unsuitable for human consumption 79.0 Iron or sheet steel, under 3mm coated galvanised flat 64.3 Lawn mowers 58.6 Seychelles- Beef 256.5 Processed, non refrigerated cheese 124.4 White, plain flour 88.7 Malt, malt flour 49.6 Table wines 43.0 Lamb 38.9 Coin/disc operated amusement machines 35.0 Aluminium frames for louvre windows, doors 27.9 Prawns and shrimps 20.2 INDIVIDUAL AFRICAN COUNTRIES (a) Major Imports into Australia Algeria- Automotive diesel oil 8,634.6 Goods for diplomatic and UN personnel 12.0 Botswana- Darts and dartboards 44.6 Goods of negligible value 1.4 Burundi- Coffee, not roasted 108.9 Cameroon- Coffee, not roasted 32.7 Congo- Veneer wood 9.4 Egypt- Kibbled vegetables 31.3 Fabrics, containing 85 per cent or more of cotton 33. 2 Vegetables, dried 12.3 Essential oils and by-products 10.9 Pharmaceutical plants 5.3 Kalem, shumacks, karamanie rugs et cetera 5.0 Seeds, exc. grasses 3.3 Leather handbags 2.2 Ethiopia- Coffee, not roasted 714.3 Natural gums, resin, balsam et cetera 3.1 Imitation jewellery 1.8 Rugs and carpets 1.9 Statuettes and indoor ornaments of base metal 1.0 Gabon- Goods for diplomatic and UN personnel 12.5 Ghana- Cocoa beans 7,139.9 Cocoa paste 20.5 Veneer wood 6.2 Guinea- Lemon oil 3.2 Ivory Coast- Coffee, not roasted 4,053.8 Cocoa paste 1,065.7 Cocoa butter 937.8 Veneer wood 65.1 Sawn wood, non-coniferous 43.7 Cocoa powder 6.5 Kenya- Coffee, not roasted 868.1 Pyrethrum extract 566.2 Cashew nuts 493.7 Sisal and other agave fibres 440.4 Roasted nuts 20.0 Woven fabrics 19.8 Diamonds 7.0 Fishing equipment 5.5 Lesotho- Rough iron castings 102.3 Other small articles of iron and steel, n.e.s., excl. castings forgings and stampings 64.3 Vegetable materials for brushes and brooms 54.8 Tapestries, hand-made 7.2 Dartboards and darts 5.5 Rugs and carpets 5.1 Malawi- Tobacco, unmanufactured 5,870.9 Lentils dried, shelled 4.1 Morocco- Anchovies 139.7 Statuettes and indoor ornaments of base metal 119.0 Locust bean gum 35.5 Kalem, shumacks, karamanie rugs and carpets 11.1 Sailing vessels 5.9 Spice seeds 5.3 Peppermint oil 4.3 Women's outer garments of man-made fibres 3.3 Pharmaceutical plants 2.7 Mozambique- Cashew nuts, not in the shell 902.0 Slate 34.7 Namibia- Kalem, shumacks, karamanie rugs 2.4 Nigeria- Cocoa beans 285.5 Cocoa paste 47.7 Rwanda- Coffee, not roasted 65.2 Sierra Leone- Vegetable materials for brushes and brooms, excl. broom millet 4.1 Somalia- Goods imported for repairs, intended for re-export 1.0 South Africa- Hake in blocks, frozen 8,432.7 Fish, smoked 4,729.5 Phosphates 3,372.7 Synthetic fibres, discontinuous 2,986.3 Ferro-silicon 2,302.0 Slate 1,969.8 Silicon 1,867.6 Amosite 1,639.5 Coal briquettes 1,443.6 Sudan- Gum arabic 282.6 Cotton, raw 80.4 Cocoa paste 44.3 Cocoa butter 30.1 Natural gums, resin, balsam et cetera 9.7 Pharmaceutical plants 1.5 Swaziland- Wood pulp, long fibre 511.7 Eucalyptus oil 321.3 Wood articles 150.2 Sporting goods 121.6 Packing containers 55.2 Rugs and carpets, hand-made 15.0 Fishing equipment 6.9 Goods imported for repair, intended for re-export 2.7 Sculptures and statuary 1.9 Miscellaneous items of plastic 1.9 Tanzania- Cotton, raw 1,032.6 Tobacco, unmanufactured 566.9 Sisal twine baler 549.8 Cashew nuts, not in the shell 253.7 Sisal and agave fibres 140.2 Cloves 80.2 Coffee, not roasted 70.9 Glassware, bowls or shades 33.2 Smoking pipes, other than wooden 3.1 Tunisia- Statuettes and indoor ornaments of base metal 42.9 Kalem, shumacks, karamanie rugs et cetera 29.0 Wine 7.2 Women's outer garments 2.2 Togo- Phosphates 1,175.1 Coffee, not roasted 29.1 Uganda- Coffee, not roasted 6,948.2 Western Sahara- Wooden broom and brush handles 19.3 Zaire- Coffee, not roasted 428.5 Cobalt 106.1 Zambia- Tobacco, unmanufactured 498.3 Metal articles 49.6 Motor vehicles and parts and accessories 42.5 Zimbabwe- Tobacco, unmanufactured 2,055.4 Nickel 473.4 Parts of iron and steel for domestic non-electric heating and cooking appliances 250.4 Ferro-chromium 165. 3 Iron or steel strand and wire 127.0 Statuettes and indoor ornaments of base metal 73.7 Motor vehicles 36.9 Angles, shapes, sections of alloy steel n.e.s . 26.7 (b) Major exports from Australia Algeria- Sultanas 1,871.7 Cattle hides 37.4 Agricultural machinery and equipment 23. 8 Safety glass 7.4 Surveying and hydrographic instruments 5.0 Angola- Telegraphic apparatus, headphones 1.2 Benin- Pumps 5.9 Botswana- Medical, dental, veterinary furniture 70.9 Medical, surgical, veterinary instruments and appliances 14.5 Re-imported goods, after repairs 9.8 Amusement machine parts 5.7 Aircraft parts 3.0 Cinematographic film 2.0 Burundi- Cheese, processed 41.3 Furnaces, industrial 1.4 Cameroon- Hop cones and lupulin 168.0 Grass seeds 2.4 Hi-fi and television equipment parts 2.3 Cape Verde Islands- Engines and motors 38.5 Brassieres 2.1 Congo- Re-exports and repairs 4.0 Djibouti- Canned or bottled fruit 45.5 Iron or steel reservoirs and tanks 7.9 Iron or steel structures and parts 5.7 Preserved asparagus 1.9 Honey 1.9 Egypt- Wheat 303,647.7 Coal 26,833.3 Wool 22,268.7 Lubricating oils 5,978.9 Lead, refined 2,422.1 Live sheep and lambs 1,595.4 High carbon steel 1,185.2 Iron and steel 890.3 Ethiopia- Parts for telecommunications equipment and radio and television transmitters 31 .5 Instrument for regulating and controlling liquids or gases 15.8 Filtering and purifying machinery 11.8 Vehicle parts and accessories 10.5 Hand pieces for machine shearing 7.0 Grass seeds 5.4 Diesel engine parts 5.4 Insulated fittings for electrical equipment, wholly of glass 3.5 Gabon- Machine and mechanical appliances, non-electric nes 1.6 Gambia- Cheese, processed 2.0 Grass seeds 1.4 Ghana- Parts of machine-tools for working stone, concrete, wood, et cetera 7.7 Analysis instruments 5.0 Paintings, drawings, pastels 4.9 Wine 2.1 Guinea- Files and rasps 4.5 Camera parts 1.3 Guinea-Bissau- Ploughs 2.2 Ivory Coast- Grass seeds 53.1 Instruments and appliances, parts 41.1 Combine harvesters, parts 23.9 Food processing machines 7.9 Joints (excluding gaskets) of metal sheeting combined with other material 1.1 Kenya- Flour 4,152.4 Lubricating oils 2,441.4 Rice 1,028.7 Tallow, inedible 274. 2 Iron and steel bars, et cetera 193.1 Electric apparatus for circuits 146.6 Sugar, refined 101.3 Plastics 95.7 Road tractors for semi-trailers 88.1 Lesotho- Wheat 1,949.5 Liberia- Cheese, processed 50.6 Meat 32.5 Ghee 5.7 Radio transmitters 5.0 Sorting machinery for screening earth, stone, ores et cetera 4.6 Navigational instruments 3.0 Libya- Live sheep and lambs 18,313.3 Jams, jellies et cetera 2,588.7 Parts for boring and well-sinking machines 596.2 Telecommunications equipment 413.9 Tractor parts 321.7 Clover seeds 131.3 Veterinary preparations 120.4 Agricultural equipment 105.2 Oats, unmilled 32.2 Malawi- Tallow, inedible 149.8 Motor vehicles and parts 14.3 Vulcanised rubber conveyor belts 12.8 Arc-welding electrodes, for hard facing applications 4.6 Grass seeds 3.8 Tools 2.3 Sprinklers 1.1 Mali- Mutton, boneless cut-meats, fresh, chilled or frozen 27.0 Radio transmitters 26.1 Fruit seeds 2.8 Mauritania- Semolina 28.9 Nuts, excluding coconuts, brazil, cashew 6.8 Food preparations 2.2 Morocco- Grass seeds 133.2 Food processing machines 33.6 Analysis instruments 19.5 Radio transmitters 7.2 Lenses and other optical elements 7.1 Vehicle parts and accessories 3.8 Mozambique- Tractor parts and accessories 70.5 Harvesting machinery parts 22.0 Radio transmitters, parts for microphones 15.9 Hand fire extinguishers 2.2 Ploughs 2.3 Namibia- Surveying and hydrographic instruments 5.4 Sorting and screening machinery 4. 9 Niger- Metal lamps and light fittings 358.2 Medicaments 87.1 Telecommunications equipment 50.7 Cinema and photo film 11.0 Nigeria- Iron or steel sheet, under 3mm, coated, galvanised, flat 272.9 Fencing wire 266.0 Weighing machinery, weights and parts 241.2 Machinery and mechanical appliances 173.8 Collector's pieces 158.7 Iron and steel articles 156.0 Filtering and purifying machinery 99.9 Medicaments 97.8 Rwanda- Analysis instruments 2.7 Heating apparatus, electric and oil 1.2 Senegal- Paper containers 2.8 Sierra Leone- Telecommunications equipment 24.7 Somalia- Flour, white (self raising) 891.5 Rice 800.0 Butter fat and oil 395.3 Milk , dried 363.7 Parts, for tools 14.8 Honey 6.6 Seeds 2.3 South Africa- Items for which details are not separately available 59,450.0 Motor vehicles, engines, parts and accessories 22,146.4 Prawns and shrimps 7,248.6 Tallow, inedible 6,332.4 Other materials of vegetable origins 2,765.5 Parts and accessories automatic data processing machine 1,351.4 Sudan- Harvesting and agricultural machinery and parts 3,693.2 Rice 2,076.3 Motor vehicle springs 821.4 Vaccines 146.1 Swaziland- Meat 292.9 Radio transmitters 116.9 Medical, surgical, veterinary instruments 48.7 Machinery parts, not containing electrical connectors, insulators, coils, contacts or other electrical features nes 45.0 Cattle hides 25.8 Parts for liquid pumps and liquid elevators 7.3 Tanzania- Tar 156.9 Agricultural machinery parts 127.6 Project plant and equipment 119.1 Vehicle parts and accessories 51.9 Pumps for liquids 39.9 Transformers 27.0 Vehicles, brake assemblies and parts 26.5 Filtering, purifying machinery for liquid, gases 25.2 Tunisia- Sugar, refined 213.2 Grass seeds 193.9 Agricultural machinery and parts 65. 8 Cattle hides 29.8 Togo- Fishing vessels 2,200.0 Rotary pumps for liquids 2.8 Lawn mowers 2.7 Uganda- Iron or steel wire 411.8 Radio transmitters 75.7 Woodworking machines 39.0 Ploughs 36.2 Parts for telecommunications equipment 1.1 Upper Volta- Grass seeds 12.1 Western Sahara- Live cattle 57.5 Metal sign-plates 44.7 Rice, milled 41.2 Vegetables 18.1 Fruit 9.0 Hay and chaff 5.2 Zaire- Grass seeds 9.1 Zambia- Wheat 4,211.5 Motor vehicles, parts and accessories 789.2 Vaccines 19.3 Radio transmitters 12.9 Demonstration instruments and apparatus 12.5 Fittings for loose-leaf binders, files, et cetera 6.1 Cricket balls 5.5 Zimbabwe- Wheat 4,612.6 Tallow, inedible 587.0 Agricultural machinery, parts 107.3 Starches and inulin 93.6 Machinery and mechanical appliances 41.2 Motor vehicle bodies 21.6 Tractor parts 20.8 * nei denotes 'not elsewhere indicated' ** nes denotes 'not elsewhere specified' (Question No. 1421) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 9 May 1984: Further to his answer to question No. 1202 (Hansard 8 May 1984, page 2069), what tonnage of each variety of cheese was imported from the European Economic Community in the first 3 months of 1984 compared to the same period in 1983. Mr Kerin —The following table sets out import figures available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics for cheese imports from the European Community for the first three months of 1983 and 1984. CHEESE IMPORTS FROM THE EEC Jan.-March Jan.-March 1983 (r) 1984 (p) tonnes tonnes Processed Cheese- Cheddar 34.6 152.7 Gruyere 0 12.8 Emmenthaler 102.0 146.5 Pastes, spreads, etc. n.a. 102.1 Other 148.8 187.6 Natural Cheese- Blue-veined 163.3 154.2 Camembert 158.8 217.1 Esrom n.a. 24.3 Other surface-ripened n.a. 191.3 Cheddar 13.8 187.8 Other Cheddar type n.a. 16.8 Edam 351.1 699.5 Gouda 156.0 228.7 Other Edam/Gouda type n.a. 30.9 Fetta 81.0 103.6 Parmesan 66.5 12.4 Other hard rating n.a. 24.7 Mozzarella n.a. 0 .1 Provolone 111.9 85.8 Kasseri 33.3 23.0 Other stretch curd n.a. 74.6 Emmenthaler 13.1 17.5 Other Swiss type n.a. 1.8 Havarti n.a. 235.2 Soft white unripened type n.a. 0.5 Other cheese 645.9 270.3 Total 2 080.1 3 201.8 n.a.-figure not separately available. Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics. p-preliminary. r-revised.