Thursday, 23 August 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: Education Funding To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectively showeth that: 1. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to reject the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission contained in 'Funding Policies for Australian Schools', concerning proposed increases in State aid to private schools and the proposed community standard for education funding. 2. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to declare a three year moratorium (1985-1987) on increases in State aid to private schools and on grants for new private schools and for increased private school enrolments. 3. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm their primary obligation to government schools and to implement all 1983 ALP election promises for increased funding to government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent,Mr Milton,Mr Saunderson and Mr Wells. 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 Dr Blewett,Mr Hawker and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 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 Burr,Mr Fife and Mr Newman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Carlton,Dr Harry Edwards and Mr Lusher. 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 or legislation in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker,Ms Mayer and Mr Millar. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: We the undersigned petitioners do humbly pray, that you know of our deep concern for the safety of airline passengers flying the Qantas direct S.P. flights between Sydney and Los Angeles. The imposition of a tour of duty of up to 20 hours for Flight Attendants operating this flight, appears not only unreasonable but possibly unsafe. Passengers need the critical measure of safety that alert Flight Attendants provide in emergencies. We need you to assure that Qantas will not take any action that will lessen the effectiveness of its Flight Attendants in an emergency. Thank you for ensuring that OUR airline maintains its Safety First approach. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lionel Bowen and Mr Carlton. 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 and Mr Free. 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 as Ordinance now before the Parliament amend the Customs ( Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs (Cinematographic Films) Regulations and supersede the A.C.T. Objectionable Publications Ordinance in such a manner as to be harmful to society by removing from existing Commonwealth law: The power to prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography (e.g. X- rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs; The power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications, including those associated with blasphemy; The power to require imported video tapes/discs for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled; should disallow the new Regulations and Ordinance and ensure that the Attorney-General enforce existing laws: That Censors more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes: That further measures be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; and That, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Dobie and Mr Rocher. To the Right Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled; should disallow the new Customs and Objectionable Publications Ordinance and that: The Attorney-General enforce laws 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 importation and sale of grossly obscene publications, including those associated with blasphemy be prevented; Imported video tapes/discs for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board; Censors more appropriately reflect responsible attitudes; Further measures be taken in association with States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; and That, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. Omega by sending low frequency signals, penetrating sea water enables hunter -killer submarines to establish their position and to launch a ''strike attack. Omega is also used by AWACs, the flying radar stations, and for other military purposes. 2. Omega is an important U.S. military base and a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Omega would have a disastrous effect on Victoria and Melbourne . 3. Omega and other U.S. bases in Australia endanger, rather than protect us. They add a new unnecessary menace to a nuclear arms race that must be stopped, if we are to survive. Your petitioners pray the members and the House assembled will close Omega. by Mr Milton and Mr Saunderson. 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 food, which are exempt from sales tax. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher and Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that we believe that there are unresolved economic, social, biological, genetic, environmental, technical and ethical problems associated with the mining of uranium and the Development of Nuclear power, in particular: (a) to the proven contribution of the nuclear power industry to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the increased risk of nuclear war; and (b) the absence of procedures for the storage and disposal of radioactive wastes to ensure that any danger posed by such wastes to human life and the environment is eliminated. Your petitions most humbly pray that: (1) No new Uranium mines be commenced; (2) No new contracts for the sale of Uranium be approved; (3) Uranium mines presently in production cease with the fulfilment of current contracts; (4) No new Uranium is supplied to countries making or testing nuclear weapons. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth government 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognise that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection , storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise that any system giving ' property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognize that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programs, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth- That currently pharmaceutical companies are not automatically liable for damage or death caused by their products and that there are no statistics kept to determine whether or not drugs administered prior to death subsequently contributed to that death. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray- 1. The recording of prescribed pre-death medication on all death certificates. 2. The collection and publication of relative statistics. 3. Mandatory reporting by doctors to the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee ( A.D.E.C.) or the Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee (A.D.R.A.C.) And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament in Canberra assembled. The Petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth- That there are far too many prescription drugs available and that abuse of these constitutes a serious problem. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray- 1. That all drugs shall be prescribed and supplied by their approved (generic) names only. Trade (Brand) names will not be used in any circumstances. 2. That information concerning possible side-effects of all drugs must be made as freely available as the drugs themselves. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We assert that TAFE, with over 1 million students, requires greatly improved resources if it is to continue to train Australia's skilled workforce effectively. 2. We call upon the Commonwealth Government to provide greatly increased funds to ensure that TAFE is accessible to all Australians, unlike the present time when thousands of people are turned away from TAFE colleges each year. 3. We urge the Commonwealth Government to equip TAFE workshops with the advanced technology used in modern Australian industries, and to expand TAFE's capital works program so that sufficient quality accommodation is available for TAFE teachers and students. 4. We ask that the Commonwealth Government greatly increase TAFE's recurrent expenditure, so that TAFE can respond quickly and flexibly to industry, Government and community demands. 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 humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag reflects Australia's membership of the Commonwealth of Nations, her position in the southern hemisphere, and her federation of original colonies, and Recognises that the flag is a symbol of pride for most Australians, such that several organisations, including the ALP, incorporate the flag in their motifs. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will resist moves to change the Australian flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. 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 sincerely believe that the new Commonwealth censorship procedures for publications and the A.C.T. Classification Ordinance 1983 Standards for Classification of Printed Materials, No. 1-February 1984 passed by the Senate last Wednesday, removing from existing Commonwealth law- (a) The power to prevent the importation and sale of hardcore pornography (e.g. X-rated video). (b) The power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications including those associated with blasphemy; (c) The power to require videos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board before release from Customs was a step in the wrong direction. It is the view of the religious community on the north side of Brisbane, of which we are a part, that the new laws should be amended immediately to give protection to all Australians, particularly women and children from exploitation . It is believed that those materials that come under Category 2 classification should not be allowed to be made available to all, and the knowledge that this kind of material described under classification 2 is now lawful under the new regulations is nauseating. We believe it is the duty of the Government to protect society from those who would incite paedophilia, child pornography, terrorism and extreme cruelty. We believe this protection should be extended to cover items such as are currently listed under Category 2. We respectfully request that amending legislation be drafted accordingly. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the practice of apartheid in South Africa is cruel and unjust and contravenes human rights. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to: Stop all trade with South Africa; Downgrade the status of the South African Embassy to a Consulate. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fry. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Commonwealth Government of Australia in Parliament of Australia. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Country of Australia, respectively ask: That the Government of Australia be responsible for the staffing and financing of the Australian Cadet Corps as run in Government Schools. The undersigned pray that the law be changed so as to allow all students who wish to take part, the opportunity to participate, regardless of their financial position. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of Federal Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth- That we the undersigned wish the present Australian Flag to be retained for all time as the Flag of Australia. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will retain the National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lusher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows: That we object in the strongest possible way to the importation of all forms of pornography, and liberalising the use of hard drugs. These are, we feel, detrimental to all family units and are the cause of the destruction of our Society which we value extensively. We implore that the Attorney-General and all other members of the present Government, treat this with utmost urgency and abandon the 1983 decision to alter the A.C.T. Classification of Publication Ordinance forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McVeigh. 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 there is real and genuine concern for the social and moral structure of the nation of Australia. We feel it is being destroyed, placing our families and our youth in grave jeopardy as a result of the trend to give legitimacy to material in films, books and other public medias. We find the material in both ' 'Category 1 & 2'' to be both offensive and unwarranted in its display and promotion and request its eradication in favour of a more wholesome and edifying use of media time and presentation. We also request a better grading system for the material listed as '' unrestricted''. We believe the principles of the classification system are not in the best interests of all Australians because they are open to extreme abuse. We therefore request the government to abandon its 1983 decision to alter the A .C.T. Classification of Publication Ordinance forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Wells. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm its obligation to fully fund tertiary education and to implement all 1983 election promises to academic staff and students. 2. They call on the Government of the Commonwealth to accept and implement the recommendations of the Advanced Education Council in regard to the funding of the advanced education sector over the 1985-87 Triennium. 3. They call on the Government of the Commonwealth to affirm that increases in Commonwealth Grants to tertiary education should be financed from general revenue and not from the deferral of increases in the level of academic salaries or of tertiary student allowances. 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 humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth-that the railway line-train-passenger service remain in service. (here state circumstances of case) 1. that the railway line remain maintained 2. that the passenger service include return trips 3. that the services become more frequent. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Railway Line between Victor Harbour and Adelaide remains. (Here state terms of action petitioned) open. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Porter. 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 Right Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled the humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully sheweth 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 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 Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: 1. the Hawke Government's retirement income policies are piecemeal, inconsistent and make no provision to encourage people to save towards their retirements; and 2. the Government's proposed assets test legislation is iniquitous and, if enacted, its effects would be discriminatory. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled institute a retirement income policy which is fair and equitable, that encourages self-provision and which will be non-discriminatory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Shipton. To the Honourable, the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, your petitioners, humbly showeth: That permitting kangaroos to be commercially exploited when permissible cropping rates are unknown and the means of enforcing controls or protective laws are completely ineffective in this land, is allowing this unique animal to follow the path to rarity or extinction along which all wild animals have gone when subjected to exploitation in similar circumstances. We Australians, have the right to see kangaroos in reasonable numbers on the landscape: We find the commercial slaughter of the kangaroo to be abhorrent and unjustified. Commercialisation of wildlife should be stopped, particularly as exemplified by the kangaroo industry. We your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will. 1. Ban the export of products made from kangaroos. 2. Take action to see that State Governments prohibit the commercial killing of kangaroos. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Young. To the Honourable, the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain members of the Parish of St. Francis Xavier, West Mackay , Queensland, electors of the Division of Dawson, shows that legislation is to be introduced allowing the import and sale of X-rated video films. Your petitioners therefore pray that such legislation be withdrawn. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable, the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Latrobe in Tasmania respectfully showeth: Whereas the Federal Government has decreed that agencies for Medicare shall only exist in certain townships in Tasmania, and Latrobe has not been recognised as one of those townships; such decision is creating unnecessary hardships in a community that; 1. Has a population of approximately 5,521 people. 2. In that population there are 992 people living on Federal Government pensions, benefits and/or allowances. 3. A further 2,227 are receiving family allowances, proving the number of young families in the area. 4. That these people receiving Federal assistance have to travel to the city of Devonport to obtain assistance from the Medicare agency for the district. 5. That there is no public transport in the area for their use and they cannot afford taxi services. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled request the Minister for Health to permit a Medicare agency to be placed in the township of Latrobe: That the Latrobe Post Office be appointed as the venue for such an agency. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burr. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Victoria sheweth our concern over the continuing taxation of Parents' Club bank accounts by way of the Bank Account Debit Tax. Your petitioners therefore pray that- Parent clubs being set up by Government Regulation in the State of Victoria ( Regulation XLII) be recognised by the Australian Government as education auxiliaries, in the same way as are School Councils. The Treasurer move immediately to exempt Parent Clubs from the tax in the same way as are School Councils. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the citizens of New South Wales respectfully show: Last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; Alcohol is a factor in 50% of road deaths; Alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; Alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ban the advertising of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Maher. 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-$27. 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 Australian 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 humble petition of certain citizens of Whyalla, South Australia, Electors of the division of Grey, respectfully showeth: That an operation was introduced to Australia for 'Downs Syndrome' children. This operation consists of reducing the size of the tongue which helps them to breathe through their nasal passages, and also enables them to speak much more clearly. There are certain setbacks. 1. The operation can only be performed in Melbourne at present. 2. The operation which in our opinion is a necessity for the well being of these children is not covered by Medicare. 3. The operation costs approximately two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) . We hope to change all this by producing this petition to Federal Parliament. We are signing this petition so that 'Downs Syndrome children' do not have to be denied this treatment and can live their lives to the best of their ability. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government takes steps to make this operation available under Medicare and the appropriate action to ensure that any loss incurred travelling to and from the service centre for such operation is fully recoverable. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. Petitions received. Mr HUNT(Gwyder) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) will second: That this House- (1) calls on the Minister for Trade to clarify reports that Australia will not settle a new 4-year beef trade communique with Japan until the Japanese agree to accept criticism of their agreement with the United States in that communique; (2) notes that- (a) the previous 4-year beef agreement signed by Australia and Japan expired on 31 March 1983; (b) nearly 17 months after the expiration of the Australian-Japanese beef agreement the Government has failed to negotiate a new agreement; and (c) the United States, under the leadership of Vice-President Bush, negotiated a new 4-year beef agreement with Japan less than one month after expiry of its previous agreement on 31 March 1984; (3) condemns the Government for its gross ineptitude and neglect in re- negotiating Australia's beef trade with Japan; (4) notes that the Minister for Trade has not visited Japan this year; and (5) calls on the Minister for Trade to lead a delegation of senior Ministers to Japan and other Asian-Pacific Basin trade markets in order to consolidate and expand Australia's share of the beef and other markets, as a matter of utmost priority. Mr MAHER(Lowe) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that at the 1984 Stoke Mandeville Games for the Disabled the Australian team finished 6th overall, winning a total of 56 medals-18 gold, 17 silver and 21 bronze; (2) congratulates the Australian team on its magnificent performance; (3) recognises the significant contribution made by the disabled in our society , and (4) notes the great inspiration our disabled athletes have provided to all Australian sports men and women. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes- (a) the statement by the Minister for Health that the net cost of Medicare in 1984-85 will be $152m, and (b) the commitment made by the Minister to maintain the Medicare levy at 1 per cent; (2) calls on the Minister to explain why the additional cost of Medicare as shown in the Budget papers is $2021m, not $152m, and (3) calls on the Treasurer to acknowledge that the true level of Medicare levy based on the Budget estimates is 1.7 per cent. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross) will second: That this House- (1) condemns the former Government for mismanaging defence programs and repeatedly deferring major equipment decisions; (2) expresses its satisfaction at the great progress being made by the Government in overcoming the effects of years of coalition neglect of the Australian Defence Force, and (3) congratulates the Government on its initiatives in developing an equitable system for determining pay and conditions for Defence Force personnel. Mr BLUNT(Richmond) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Hicks) will second: That this House- (1) expresses its appreciation that the Government has now understood and recognised the harmful effects of material promoting hard-core pornography and violence upon our youth; (2) notes the Government's intention to now establish a select committee of inquiry to investigate the harmful effects of the new censorship and customs laws, and (3) condemns the Government for introducing this half-way measure and for allowing the continued sale of this objectionable material for an indefinite period instead of revoking the laws which make this inquiry now necessary. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) will second: That this House- (1) congratulates the Government on the 1984-85 Budget, and (2) notes with satisfaction that the Budget will continue the economic recovery of Australia. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) deplores the fact that in a big-spending Budget where total outlays have been increased by 13 per cent, the provision for the Department of Science and Technology has increased by a mere 1.6 per cent, representing a very significant cut in real terms, and (2) condemns the Government for putting at risk Australia's internationally- recognised effort in science, which is a foundation stone of the long-term economic health of Australia and of meaningful jobs for all Australians. Mr TICKNER(Hughes) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Hollis) will second: That this House- (1) congratulates the Government for its 1984-85 Budget allocation of $12.1 million for the establishment of a National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, to co-ordinate the Australian Government national strategy in this field, and (2) urges further action by governments, trade unions, workers and employers to safeguard occupational health and safety. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Prime Minister for his treatment of Tasmania in the 1984-85 Budget, and (2) calls on the Tasmanian members to fight him to the barricades in the cause of justice. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) will second: That this House- (1) notes the decision of the Minister for Foreign Affairs to establish an ALP working party in Western Australia to determine the Government's policy towards visits of US naval ships; (2) considers this decision to be a ploy in preparation for the banning of such visits to Western Australia in line with existing bans on such visits by the NSW and Victorian Governments; and (3) condemns the Minister for his consistently anti-American decisions. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) congratulates the Government on its move towards tax justice to PAYE wage and salary earners, and (2) calls on the Senate to support retrospective tax legislation against tax avoidance. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) will second: That this House- (1) condemns the Government for its disgraceful treatment of Tasmania in the 1984-85 Budget, and (2) calls upon Tasmanian ALP Senators to join in a united approach to the Prime Minister to immediately increase, by at least $23 million, the Commonwealth capital works program for Tasmania in 1984-85. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) affirms its support of the principle of equality of all people irrespective of their race or ethnic background, and (2) condemns those groups in the Australian community which are seeking to incite racial and ethnic divisions amongst the people. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that the Premier of Western Australia has complained to the Prime Minister about the introduction of a wine tax; (2) reminds the Premier of his Western Australian election campaign promise that a Hawke-Burke team would work together, and (3) calls on the Premier to admit that there is no special relationship between the Burke and Hawke governments and that he has lost again. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Government for implementing the biggest 'tax grab' for over a decade; (2) notes that all Australians will finish up by paying the 23 per cent tax rise this year, although there is some relief from personal taxation, and (3) expresses its appreciation to Mr John Stone for drawing its attention to the deceit of the 1984-85 Budget by his dramatic resignation. Mr BLUNT(Richmond) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) will second: That this House- (1) deplores the failure of the Government to provide specific funding for the expansion of the Northern Rivers CAE, and (2) regrets that the Government has not eliminated the incentive gap between the level of TEAS allowances and unemployment benefits. Mr WELLS(Petrie) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) will second: That this House- (1) notes that the pension increases announced in the 1984-85 Budget are increases over and above CPI increases; (2) condemns the former Government for the fact that never, in its seven years in power, were pensioners granted an increase over and above the CPI; (3) congratulates the Government on its move to boost pensions outside CPI increases, and (4) calls on the Government to continue this policy in the future and make further improvements to pension incomes by supplements additional to CPI increases. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House calls upon the Prime Minister to- (1) dismiss the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs for his action repealing the Aliens Act before his Department has completed developing systems to meet the needs associated with control over entry; and (2) dissociate himself from statements that those who are loyal to the monarchy are supposedly 'sucking up to the Queen'. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House calls on the Government to recognise that- (1) the Victorian dairy industry is in a state of crisis which, if not quickly resolved, will result in numerous dairy farmers being forced off their farms; Mr Simmons-Talk to Peter Nixon. Mr McGAURAN —The Government has completely washed its hands of the dairy industry. It is forcing people off their land. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member had better proceed with his notice of motion or he will resume his seat. Mr McGAURAN —Mr Speaker, it is a matter of the gravest concern. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member will proceed with his notice of motion. Mr McGAURAN —Mr Speaker, I repeat: (1) the Victorian dairy industry is in a state of crisis which the Government has failed to address which, if not quickly resolved, will result in numerous dairy farmers being forced off their farms; (2) many towns and regional centres in the electoral division of Gippsland largely depend on the dairy industry for their economic and social well-being; (3) the Minister for Primary Industry is either unwilling or unable to act decisively- Mr Cadman-He is incompetent. Mr McGAURAN —He is indeed incompetent. I repeat: (3) the Minister for Primary Industry is either unwilling or unable at this critical time to act decisively to assist dairy farmers; (4) it stands condemned for reducing the rural adjustment scheme in the 1984-85 Budget by over $18m, when such a scheme could have been used to assist dairy farmers with financial assistance. Mrs DARLING(Lilley) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House congratulates the Government for making Budget decisions as a direct result of representations by the electorate by- (1) exempting P & C associations from debit tax; (2) granting special rebates so pensioners will not pay tax; (3) increasing TEAS by 10 per cent, and (4) grading the tax scale at the bottom of the tax pool for the benefit of low- income earners. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) deplores statements made accusing members of the Liberal Party and the National Party of 'sucking up to the Queen'; and (2) reminds the Government that it is the duty of all Australians to maintain allegiance to the Crown. Debate resumed from 22 August, on motion by Mr Willis: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Macphee had moved by way of amendment: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'Whilst not opposing the provisions of the Bill, the House is of the opinion that the Government should extend the objects of the Bill to take account of all of its proposed amendments in the field of industrial legislation . Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(10.21) —I rise to conclude my remarks in support of the amendment moved by the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) to the motion for the second reading of the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill 1984. Yesterday I pointed out to the Government the very damaging effect that any rise in real wages could have on the safety of jobs and the future of the Australian economy. In my remarks I adverted to a report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and to its comment-in fact demand-in its conclusions, following its examination of the Australian economy, that there be no wage or salary increases in a real sense until October 1985. Following its inquiry into the health of the Australian economy, the OECD drew attention to the damaging effects of the misunderstandings that can occur between employers, employees and the Government when they consider the effects of real wage rises on the long term employment prospects and economic recovery. This world recognised body, which examines the economies of nations who contribute to its existence, was very forceful in saying that non-wage costs and flexibility in wage setting were crucial to Australia's future and to the maintenance of our economy and its growth. As all Australians will recognise, the real factor in growth over the last 12 or 18 months has been basically the moderation in wage demands and the contribution the previous Government made by arriving at a situation where real wages did not rise. My concern has been heightened by the results of the last quarter's figures in relation to wage claims and wage rises. The House may be aware that wages grew at a rate of 14 per cent in the July quarter. That may be the start of a trend that would overturn the gains of the last two years, when the economy had started to stabilise. The OECD put its finger right on the problem in saying that real wages are of crucial importance to Australia for its international competitiveness, for job opportunity, and for a chance for the economy to grow. It also identified the need for flexibility in wage settlements. The House will be aware of the damage that can be done by global wage decisions as presented by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Dr Harry Edwards —It needs to be more decentralised and market sensitive. Mr CADMAN —It needs to be a more decentralised process, as my colleague has said . In fact, the proposals of the coalition parties, when elected, will be to preserve some elements of conciliation and arbitration but to decentralise and make more flexible the process of wage settlement. This is in stark contrast to what is happening at the moment in Australia where wages are starting to rise and where wages on-costs are increasing dramatically. In the last few weeks I have had the opportunity to discuss with a number of small employers the demands that are being made by factors outside their control in wage settlements. I draw to the attention of the House the massive demands that are being made for workers compensation, which is a cost to employers, and which will produce a situation where employment opportunities will decline. One company in particular that I am aware of has found that its contribution to workers' compensation over the last five years has increased from 8.7 per cent of its payroll to 24.9 per cent. What a massive rise that is in a period of five years. That expenditure, which amounts to about $125,000, for a company with 44 employees and a good safety record, is indicative of the way that State governments and other instrumentalities, as well as the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, are adding to real wage costs. The Government may say that wages in a sense have not increased. But if one takes the total wage package and the superannuation deal that has been proposed by the Government for the building industry, which will grow into a national superannuation program, this will be an addition to real wages costs. The OECD and the Opposition are determined that job opportunities and real stability in employment should be maintained and encouraged. The Government is heading in the opposite direction. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), as I said yesterday, has met every demand of the union movement but has not met a single demand for industrial development and industrial growth as set out in the Government's prices and incomes accord, its agreement with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. On the one hand the Government is claiming that it understands the economy; on the other hand it bends over backwards to meet the demands of the union movement. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(10.27) —I understood there was to be another speaker from the other side but he is not present so, in responding on behalf of the Government and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), who is unfortunately not able to be here in the chamber this morning, I thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate. The Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill introduces a range of measures aimed essentially at improving the effectiveness of the administration of the Federal industrial relations system. It contains amendments designed to overcome anomalies and to clarify some of the existing provisions. While modest in its objective, the Bill nevertheless implements changes which have been regarded by employers and employees as requiring immediate attention. As the Minister indicated in his second reading speech, these changes do not, as suggested by the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), pre-empt the Hancock Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems which has been established by the Government to review the industrial relations system in Australia. The contributions by Opposition speakers, including that of the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee), raised a number of matters which have no bearing on the amendments contained in the Bill. The honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) stressed the need for an armoury of sanctions to keep the unions in control. This thinking reflects an attitude towards industrial relations which this Government totally rejects. The record of the previous Government shows that this kind of approach succeeds only in increasing industrial disputation. The record over the past 18 months clearly demonstrates that the approach of this Government, based on the prices and incomes accord, has resulted in a significant decline in industrial disputes in Australia. The honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) pointed out that most of the proposals in the accord for changes to industrial relations legislation had already been implemented by this Government. This is true. I add that the measures taken by the Government not only reflect the accord but also have been agreed by the employers in the National Labour Consultative Council. The Government is pleased that the measures contained in the Bill have the support of the Opposition but it is not prepared to accept the amendment moved by the honourable member for Balaclava. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Peter Morris) read a third time. Debate resumed from 4 May, on motion by Mr Scholes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.30) —The Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 1984 contains a number of provisions of considerable interest to this House and certainly to the defence forces. I appreciate that it has been some considerable time since the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) first introduced the Bill and, sadly, I am afraid the delay is not a product of his efforts to enable adequate consideration of this matter but rather reflective of the inadequate weight he bears in Cabinet not only on matters such as this but also on wider issues. It is regrettably true that in the Budget that we will discuss shortly the Minister has lamentably been deplorably unsuccessful, to the point where in the real areas of need, such as operating costs and exercises, inadequate funds are available for any of the improvements in the level of efficiency that the foreign policy this Government is pursuing requires. I am afraid that the same applies to the introduction of this legislation. The delay is not because the Minister really wanted adequate time for the Services or the community to examine the Bill, rather it is reflective of his lack of political weight and, sadly, the Services are suffering as a result. The Bill makes some minor changes and some major ones. With one exception, to which I will turn shortly, the changes are not opposed by the Opposition. The abolition of the need for collectors of militaria to obtain permits will remove a somewhat petty obstacle for those involved in that field. Changing the title of Chief of the Defence Force Staff to Chief of the Defence Force is a move we support, albeit a little cynically. I find it incredible that the commander of the defence forces will be called Chief of the Defence Force but each of the chiefs of the individual Forces will still be called respectively Chief of Naval Staff, Chief of the General Staff, and Chief of the Air Staff. Why he-or she, perhaps, at some time in the future, although frankly I cannot foresee that day- who is to command the other services should have his title deleted while the others retain their titles seems to me to be one of those anomalies for which this Government is increasingly obtaining a record. The abolition of the annual training obligations of members of the emergency forces is another of the proposals in this Bill and is one which we advanced in government and which we of course support. More significantly, this Bill makes extensive amendments to the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982. It also establishes an independent pay fixing authority for the Defence Force. The amendments to the Discipline Act are by far the most sizable portion of the legislation. They have been introduced principally because the Discipline Act introduced by us when in government, with the support of the Australian Labor Party in opposition, was proposed to act in conjunction with the Criminal Investigation Bill. Honourable members will recall this Bill was before Parliament at the time but lapsed with the dissolution which preceded the election of March 1983. As a result new provisions have been introduced by the Government to perform the functions originally intended to be performed by the Criminal Investigation Bill until new legislation is operating in this field. My predecessor as Minister for Defence, the former member for Moreton, Sir James Killen, played a very significant role in this area. In this place at this time, I wish to pay tribute to him for the work that he achieved in bringing into reality these changes to the Discipline Act. It was a very significant proposal, and one in which he took a particular interest. I think all members of this House would pay due respect to him for his labours in that regard. There are a number of other amendments to the original Discipline Act. The Opposition welcomes the Minister's statement that it is hoped to bring the amended Discipline Act generally into force early in 1985. Of course, by then we will be in government and there will be no delay in the implementation of the proposed measures, subject only to the difficulties involved in ensuring the changes proceed in accordance with the administrative procedures which must back them up. We would have hoped that the proposed changes could have been introduced sooner than the date the Minister has now announced. I say this because of the bipartisan agreement on the need for the proposed reforms and because of the work done, now so long ago, by Sir James Killen. Nonetheless, it is worth while that the Minister at least realises that there is need in this area for the Government to get on with the exercising of its responsibilities within the Defence Force, and I hope that the Minister does not dally in this area, as he seems to be dallying in every other area relating to the defence forces. The Opposition accepts the Minister's proposal to view this legislation after it has been operating for three years. I can assure the House that we would in exactly the same way implement such a review. Indeed, we welcome the fact that the Minister has agreed to present to the Parliament the report of any review. We echo that assurance. The proposed annual reports on the operation of the legislation by the Judge Advocate-General must be introduced into this Parliament. They should not be censored as the present Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) seems to wish to do with reports of his Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Temby, QC. I hope that the Minister recognises that the annual reports by the Judge Advocate-General should be tabled in their entirety and that there will be no attempt in any way to censor those reports. The legislation is extensive and complex. It replaces a body of law established over a great many years. It is important for the welfare of Defence Force personnel and the proper operation of the Services that it works as effectively and equitably as was intended. If this review would help ensure that aim it certainly will not be opposed. As I have said, we intend to proceed with the review when in government. Well before the report of that review comes forward, there will be some experience in the operation of the changes to the Defence Force Discipline Act. We hope that if there are any outstanding shortfalls in its application they also can be considered perhaps in advance of that three- year review. The second major change in this legislation is the creation of the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal. Again, this we support. The Tribunal will determine salaries and salary-related allowances for the defence forces with reviews at least every two years. It will also be able to determine other financial conditions if they are referred to it. There are a few provisions with respect to the establishment of the Tribunal that I will talk about in the Committee stage, but we support the principle of the Tribunal and welcome its introduction in this legislation. The Bill also establishes the office of Defence Force Advocate who will act in many ways as the voice of the Services in the proceedings of the Tribunal. Again , in the Committee stage I will draw attention to the fact that it seems that the Defence Force Advocate will be called upon to exercise a dual responsibility . On the one hand he will represent the Chief of the Defence Force whom one would see as the employer and on the other the members of the Defence Force. That conflict of interest in the undertaking of his task worries me. However, I think the proposal for a Defence Force Advocate is essential. I trust he can reconcile that seeming conflict in the exercise of his responsibilities. We recognise the need for machinery for determining the pay and allowances of Service personnel which takes into account their conditions of service, the special demands of Service life and, of course, the nature of the work itself. There are special and very real personal risks involved in being a member of the Australian Defence Force. The proposals contained in this Bill are not those of the Opposition but we recognise the Government's right to move and we will in that respect at least not significantly oppose it. However, we will observe the operation of the Tribunal and on return to government we will review its operations to determine whether it should be retained in this form or whether there are better ways of achieving the same aims. I make it clear to this House, to all members of the Services and to the Australian public that we on our side of the House certainly believe that the conditions of service must be protected. They must be advanced in parallel with conditions of service for others in the community. Indeed, they must provide the incentive to serve which proper reviewing and maintenance of the conditions of service generate. One of our regrets in the changes of this Government is that one important area of conditions of service has been reduced. I refer to the superannuation area. The patching up that this Bill in fact represents in no way obviates the disability, because the Service incentive by way of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits is modified. I will talk more of that in a moment. There is certainly in that area a very real objection which involves clause 18 of this Bill. The clause amends section 58B of the principal Act and among other things extends the Minister's power to make determinations regarding Service pay or allowance. The operation of the determination system to date and the fact the determinations remain subject to parliamentary scrutiny, give the Opposition no reason to oppose this change. There remains, however, some concern about these proposals. Clause 18 of the Bill imposes a liability on a person or persons in specified circumstances to pay an amount to the Commonwealth. The Minister, sadly, is not present for the debate on this measure. I think that is interesting because his absence of concern for the forces has been so obvious. I ask him to take particular note of the next observations I will make. Within the Services and within the Returned Services League of Australia there is concern about a disability which they believe exists because of the actions and restrictions of section 12 of the principal Act. The particular concern is that this liability on serving defence personnel is not balanced by a corresponding liability on the part of the Commonwealth because of the action of section 12 of the principal Act. This section limits to ex-service personnel the right to sue the Commonwealth for money they believe is due to them. In other words, existing service personnel are denied the right available to every other employee in Australia, the right to sue the Commonwealth for money they believe is due to them. Indeed, one of the prime functions, as many see it, of the trade union movement is to take up cudgels on behalf of members of the work force where an employer fails to act properly and responsibly in respect of money that is payable to his employees. Yet under section 12 of the principal Act that right is denied to servicemen. It is not denied to ex-servicemen but it is to serving personnel. There is concern that this section, by precluding the rights of serving personnel, puts them in a disadvantageous position vis-a-vis others in the work force. In the coalition we have great sympathy for the view that serving personnel should, in reasonable circumstances, have the right to take the same action that is now available to ex-service personnel. I closely considered the desirability of recommending to the coalition that we should move an amendment to this Bill to bring that about. However, I have been advised that on other views section 12 of the Principal Act does not create the blanket prohibition that has been feared. It has been suggested that in spite of section 12 there is no barrier to defence personnel taking legal action in regard to money they believe is owed to them by the Commonwealth. In the absence of the Minister, I ask the officials who are representing him in the chamber at this time to pass on to him my request that an assurance be given that that interpretation of section 12 is correct. In the absence of the Minister, with his failure to respond to this matter in this House, I would appreciate a letter from him assuring me that this is so. Although such personnel may not be able to sue the Commonwealth directly, I am advised that they could apply for a declaration from a court which the Commonwealth would be bound to honour. In view of this interpretation of the rights of serving defence personnel I am not persuaded that it would be productive at this stage to embark on major surgery to section 12 of the principal Act through an amendment to this Bill. But I do request a commitment from the Minister that priority will be given to an examination of section 12 of the principal Act with a view to bringing before this House at the earliest practical opportunity amendments which will formalise the rights of serving defence personnel so that they may take action to recover from the Commonwealth money owed to them; in other words, they will have an assured right of being in the same position as ex-service personnel. Section 12 of the principal Act is quite plainly antique. It reflects nineteenth century British views about the relationship between defence personnel and the Crown. It is not applicable in this century and certainly not at a time when in so many ways service personnel tend to be disadvantaged. Certainly, section 12 has no place in our modern defence structure. The principles that the Minister has espoused in this House at various times would suggest that he may even support this view. Therefore, I ask him to respond to my request for a commitment during this debate and failing that, as I have suggested, by way of correspondence to me. Such a commitment, I believe, is necessary to put to rest the very considerable concern that has been passed on to me and, I have no doubt, to other members of this House. I now move to the aspects of this Bill that we in the coalition firmly oppose. I refer to the section that implements changes to the Defence Force retirement and death benefits scheme, which follow the Government's iniquitous changes to the taxation of superannuation lump sum payments. We do so on two grounds. We believe firmly that the superannuation tax proposals are themselves inequitable and harmful. They destroy the right of individuals, not just in the Services but in the community at large, a proper opportunity to aggregate funds during their working lives so that, at whatever time they seek to change course in their careers, they may have a reasonable opportunity to take a positive step with some capital to enable them either to acquire a home or perhaps buy a business or have sufficient capital to look after themselves instead of becoming, as this Government would have us all, increasingly dependent on the state. We believe that the changes to the DFRDB scheme planned by the Government, far from compensating service personnel for the tax changes, as this Government promised, will be very unfair to them. Have no doubt; this is another one of those broken promises of Labor. It is an area which affects every one of those who serve in the Defence Force. The changes contradict entirely the nicety of language used by the Minister before the last election when he assured service personnel that they would not be disadvantaged. There is no doubt that this Minister, in misleading the Services in this way, is reflecting the same approach that Prime Minister Hawke is adopting around the country, beguiling people with falsehoods, inducing in people the belief that this Budget, for example, provides genuine tax reductions. How false that assertion is. So too, in this area which directly affects DFRDB entitlement and the retirement benefits of service personnel, this Bill reflects the fact that the Minister and this Government have failed to meet their obligations to servicemen, have failed to act honourably. In fact, they have contradicted the assurances given prior to the election and have deliberately misled every one of those who are members of the Australian defence forces. If honourable members think that perhaps that is contrary to what the Minister did, I ask them to refer to the edition of the Australian of 4 March 1983. There were rumours that the then Opposition spokesman on defence, the now Minister for Defence, had sent a signal to service establishments. The allegation was that he had said that pay and conditions under the Defence Force retirement and death benefits scheme would be changed under Labor. He came out with a proposal. Defence correspondent, William Pinwill , quotes the present Minister for Defence as saying: 'The ALP has no proposals to change the scheme- that is the DFRDB scheme- To the disadvantage of service personnel'...... He continued: 'I am disgusted at attempts being made to stampede people into resigning from the services by the use of deliberate lies, which purport to represent Labor Party policy.' We all know who, quoting his words, was using deliberate lies. The present Minister, in telling the Services that there would be no changes, might well be able to say: 'Oh, but of course I was talking only about retrospective benefits' . It is true that the DFRDB changes are prospective, but the prospective changes reduced the entitlements to servicemen and servicewomen. It was because they did reduce them that we now have this package before this House. This package, sadly , does not bring servicemen to the position they were in before the Labor Government came to office. It does not even put them in a position of equity with respect to others in the community. I want to say a little more about that in a moment. We believe that changes to the DFRDB scheme introduced by this Government, far from compensating service personnel for the tax changes the Government promised, will be unfair to them. To give effect to our first belief, I will be moving an amendment to the second reading of this legislation which expresses our concern. To give effect to the second belief, I will move an amendment which will truly fulfil the promise the Prime Minister made to minimise the effect of the new tax on service personnel. We all know how little regard the Prime Minister has for his promises. He is great on promising and very poor on delivery. Sadly, I have no faith whatsoever in this man who is beguiling the nation being any more equitable to servicemen in respect of their terms and conditions of employment than he has been in providing funds to the Services to enable them to maintain a real level of capability. I am sure the Minister will have no trouble supporting me if he was so strong in his belief way back in March 1983. I am sure that if he does that at least those in the Services can accept that they will not be disadvantaged by the tax actions of this iniquitous Government. The concerns felt by us over the superannuation tax are perhaps expressed most clearly in an independent summary of the effects of the Government's proposals that again was published in the Australian on 2 June. That report states: The changes to lump-sum superannuation tax legislation introduced into Parliament this week provide little comfort for prospective retirees, and almost certainly are destined to be an administrative nightmare. The confusion started when the Government first announced changes to the superannuation tax system in its May 1983 mini-budget, and the new legislation does little to clarify the uncertainty. I continue from the Australian: While it achieves the Government's objectives of raising the tax rates on lump sum benefits accrued and received after 20 June 1983, it will place enormous pressure on retirees, people who change jobs, employers, superannuation scheme administrators, death benefit recipients and even tax officers. Roll-over procedures, for people wanting to escape the tax by buying pensions or annuities, are unsatisfactory, and the omission of indexing provisions is disappointing. This is damning enough, but there is much more. There are little publicised rorts like the granting of authority to trade unions to act as approved deposit funds for superannuation funds. This lays open the possibility of superannuation payments being used as the vehicle for generating funds through high management fees, for example, which would help this corrupt Labor Government pay for its campaign expenses. It also lays open the possibility, because there are no prudential requirements for trade unions, of unions being unable to meet their commitments because of unwise investment decisions or the failure of investments . We all know of the record of the Prime Minister in the Australian Council of Trade Unions with Bourke's store, Bourke's Travel and ACTU Solo. Should this occur, and it must be counted as a danger, those who suffer will have no cause to thank this Government. Australians should remember also that the tax on lump sum superannuation payments which has led to the change to the DFRDB arrangements before us today is in breach of two specific promises by the Prime Minister. Again, what faith can we put in any promise or undertaking by that man? Before the election the Prime Minister promised there would be no tax on lump sum superannuation payments. Six weeks later he again promised there would be no such tax. The Australian Financial Review reported on 18 April 1983: The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, has confirmed that there will be no increase in the tax rate for lump sum superannuation payments. Pensioners, taxpayers and servicemen, beware. After breaking two specific promises and announcing that lump sum superannuation payments would be taxed, the Prime Minister made a further promise-this time to service personnel. It followed genuine and considerable concern at the effects of the Government's proposal on service personnel. Under the new arrangements those who retire at the age of 55 years or more will pay a tax of 15 per cent on the first $50,000 of eligible lump sum superannuation payment and a tax of 30 per cent on the remainder. Those who retire before reaching 55 will pay a flat 30 per cent on the entire portion of their lump sum payment which is eligible for the tax. As all but a handful of service personnel retire before they reach the age of 55, not out of choice but out of necessity, the Government's proposals were clearly discriminatory. I say they were, because this change does modify the situation. Responding to concern expressed, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence promised to introduce special provisions to minimise-not to cancel but to minimise-the effect of the changes. Of course these special provisions are now before us. The Government has thrown service personnel a bone, but it is a lean bone and the longer one looks at it the smaller it gets. Currently, service personnel become eligible for the DFRDB scheme after 20 years service. When they retire they can take a lump sum of up to four years DFRDB pension entitlement. Under the arrangements introduced in this legislation, as the superannuation tax bites progressively harder each year from 1983, the lump sum entitlement will increase, also progressively, from four years pension entitlement to five years over 20 years. That is welcomed. However, at the same time the residual pension will fall by about 6 per cent over that period. The Government has given with one hand and taken away with the other. Service personnel will receive increased lump sums but pay for them by reduced pensions. Tables prepared by the Defence Industrial Branch and published in November last year in RAAF News show the facts. Take the case of three men who retire in 1983, 1993 and 2003, each with 20 years of service. In the case of a warrant officer, the man who retires in 1993 is about $1,100 worse off than his colleague who retired in 1983. That takes into account the increased commutation and decreased pension. The man who retires in 2003 is over $3,700 worse off. In the case of a squadron leader, the man who retires in 1993 is almost $1,300 worse off than his colleague who retired in 1983. The squadron leader who retires in 2003 is over $ 4,000 worse off. It is true the margins are smaller for lower ranks and larger for higher ranks but the picture is the same, and it gets grimmer and grimmer each succeeding year. The fact is that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence have broken their word. Service personnel are better off than they would have been without these changes but they are still substantially worse off because of the increased superannuation lump sum tax. The Opposition does not believe this is a satisfactory position. It believes that Australia's service personnel deserve better treatment than they are getting from this Government. For this reason we will be moving an amendment in the Committee stage of this debate. The amendment will have the effect of moving the cut-off age for the lump sum tax, now fixed at 55 years, to 45 years for service personnel alone. The change will not present any administrative problems. It will apply to this clearly defined group and it will recognise the special problems faced by service personnel because of their conditions of service. I can illustrate the need for this change by referring to the current regulations on compulsory retirement of officers in the three Services. In the Royal Australian Navy, all general list officers below the rank of commodore or captain must retire before reaching 55 years. In the Army, all officers below the rank of colonel must retire before 55 and, in the Royal Australian Air Force , all general duties officers below the rank of group captain must retire before 55. The practical effect of this is shown by the average age of personnel retiring from the defence forces. For this information I have referred to the answer to a question on notice given in 1981 but I understand the situation remains the same. It can be seen from these figures that there would, under the present arrangements, be a very large group of service personnel discriminated against and we believe they deserve better. An important consideration in this is the principles on which the original decision to permit commutation of DFRDB pensions was based. The 1972 report of the Joint Select Committee on Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Legislation reported: The justification for the inclusion of the commutation provision in the original DFRDB legislation was that a serviceman often had a requirement for a capital sum on his retirement, to assist on his re-settlement and re- establishment of civilian life. Commutation is not simply remuneration; it is compensation for the disadvantages of service life. These principles seem to have been lost sight of by the Government. Service personnel give their best and most productive years to Australia. They and their families are posted around Australia and overseas, and are regularly posted on, when there is money enough for that-though there was not for much of last year. They are often unable to buy a house like their civilian counterparts. In early middle age they have to re-enter civilian life, often with young children, establish a home and find work. When they do they often find they have fallen behind civilian colleagues of the same age in the salary scale, and also face higher costs for housing. Of course this is getting harder every year yet the Government proposes to reduce the benefits available to service personnel. We believe they deserve better. On behalf of the Opposition parties, I move the amendment to the motion for the second reading which has been circulated in my name: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst not opposing the passage of the Bill, the House condemns the Government for its failure to keep its promises to the men and women of the Defence Forces, on taxation of lump sum superannuation payments, and for its attack on the ability of Defence personnel to accumulate capital to provide for their retirement. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr White —I second the amendment. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(11.01) —An historic announcement was made by the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) on 9 March 1984 that a Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal was to be established by legislation and that the Tribunal would replace the existing Committee of Reference for Defence Force Pay. The Defence Legislation Amendment Bill constitutes a landmark reform and a significant turning point in the history of the Australian defence forces. Foremost, the Bill provides for the establishment of an independent pay fixing authority for the Defence Force with power to determine financial conditions of service for members of the Defence Force and the establishment of a Defence Force advocate. Briefly, I shall examine the reasons for the need for this Tribunal. The Department of Defence employs people with skills and professions extending across the entire civilian work force spectrum. However, many of the tasks that are performed and the conditions of employment have no civilian equivalent. Clearly, lengthy and costly initial training and continuation of training make the retention of trained members a major objective of any conditions of service policy. The conditions demanded to attract a sufficient number of qualified applicants from an increasingly sophisticated population require realistic incentives which must be frequently reviewed. Service members can be required to serve anywhere, sometimes in hazardous environments. Males are liable for combat service anywhere at any time. Females, although excluded from primary combat duty, may still be required to defend themselves from attack. Service discipline intrudes on lifestyle and work. Often, particularly in infantry units, working hours are long, conditions arduous and tasks variable. Often, too, considerable periods are spent away from home and family. Disruption to family life is common as members are frequently posted from place to place to meet service needs, with little choice in the matter. In addition, short term postings do not allow easy integration of members and their families with their local community. Retiring ages for members of the Defence Force are much lower than those applicable to civilian occupations. Even though very high professional standards are often required, involving intensive training and dedication, a long term career in the Defence Force is not available for the majority of service members . For other rank servicemen and women, a specified initial engagement is usually six or nine years. There is no obligation on the Government to re-engage a service member. It is my belief that salary is the single most important condition of service and the salary structure must be able to attract and retain suitable young Australians in the defence forces. Essential components of the salary structure include compensation for arduous and dangerous situations, for long working hours, and for disabilities to families caused by service life. Fundamentally, I believe that provisions should be made for transfer to civilian life in recognition of the member's disadvantage compared with others who have always pursued civilian careers. A retirement scheme appropriate to the unique nature of service careers is an essential component. It should be noted that within the defence forces there is no employee organisation. There is no industrial award. The government is the employer and determining authority on conditions of service. In an article entitled 'The Evolution of Australian Military Industrial Relations', Major J. R. Jauncey of the Royal Australian Artillery, said: Traditionally military remuneration has been based on the paternalistic ideal of 'Serve us well, do as you are told and we will look after you'. The soldier-scholar, General Sir John Hackett, emphasised the one-sided nature of the contract of employment between government and service members. He said: The military contract demands the total and almost unconditional subordination of the interests of the individual should the group require it. The soldier's unique legal position in the civil sense is referred to in the Army law manual.The manual states: By the common law no engagement between the Crown and any member of the forces in respect of services past, present or future can be enforced in any court of law . . . . Over the years Federal Governments have adopted different approaches to their obligation to look after serving personnel. Remuneration was provided by a complex array of entitlements based on the Federal Government's perception of the needs of serving personnel. Those needs have, at times, included clothing, housing, food, medical care and cash payments. However, it was not until after World War II that any attempt was made to relate military wages to the civil standard. After World War II a parliamentary working group, referred to as the Dedman Committee, devised financial conditions of service for the Australian permanent army. This Committee adopted the Commonwealth Public Service annual basic wage as the starting point for the determination of military remuneration. The government of the day accepted the Dedman Committee's report and thereby committed future governments to the policy that pay and conditions in the armed forces should reflect community standards. The Dedman Committee tied military pay determinations to the decisions of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Consequently, the defence forces have received the flow- on from national wage case decisions. However, in 1958, low service manning levels prompted the Federal Government to appoint the Allison Committee of Inquiry. In addition, in 1964, there was a departmental pay review. Whilst improved financial conditions of service resulted from these inquiries, neither inquiry dealt with the failure of inflexible civil wage relativities as a principle for determining military remuneration. By the late 1960s servicemen were bewildered and discontented with the military pay system. Different kinds of military rank were not recognised in a pay system too tightly aligned to civil standards. In 1964 military officers won equivalent salary status with the Australian Public Service professional level. In late 1969 military officers lost this status. Demotion in status was bitterly resented by military officers because the Federal Government had decided that military officers should be aligned for pay purposes with the clerical and administrative division of the Australian Public Service. Over the past decade a number of developments have taken place within the Defence Force to implement remuneration policies. One such development, the Kerr-Woodward Committee, recommended the need for regular and continuing reviews of armed forces pay by a suitably competent authority. In 1973 a Committee of Reference for Defence Force Pay was appointed by the then Government. The formation of the Committee of Reference for Defence Force Pay proved to be of significant benefit to serving personnel. Matters which were examined and adjusted included changes in work value performed by members of the Defence Force and new salaries on the grounds of these changes, salaries for special categories of servicemen and a salary structure which recognised the special needs of the armed services. Unhappily, however, initiatives recommended in the Committee's reports required ministerial approval. For example, in August 1982 in the fourth report on the adequacy of the Defence Force remuneration, it was stated that it was essential for a review of the Defence Force remuneration to commence and be completed by the end of 1982. In the event this recommendation could not be acted upon because no reference was made to the Committee by the then Minister for Defence. The Defence Force received no general salary increase in 1982, which was the last year of the Fraser Government. Indeed, no increase occurred until October 1983. The first year of the Hawke Government. There is no doubt that service personnel lost a substantial amount of ground in conditions of pay as a result of the Committee's earlier recommendation. The establishment of the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal is a major step forward in the pay fixing procedures for the armed services. The Tribunal will be a truly independent body with power to determine matters within its jurisdiction. The new Tribunal will replace the Committee of Reference for Defence Force Pay. The Tribunal will consist of three members, comprising a chairperson who is a current presidential member of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; a person experienced in industrial relations matters, preferably a commissioner of the Conciliation and Arbitration or someone of similar status; and a person with a Defence Force background who has been retired at least five years. New section 58(H) (6) provides in effect that there will be an automatic two- yearly review by the Tribunal of the adequacy of Defence Force remuneration. This should provide for just and equitable pay and financial conditions. National wage case decisions can be expected to apply as they occur. In addition , the Tribunal will consider matters referred to it from time to time by the Minister for Defence or referred by the Secretary to the Department of Defence and/or the Chief of the Defence Force, through the Minister. A new section 58D provides for the appointment of a Defence Force Advocate who is experienced in industrial relations and knowledgeable with regard to the Defence Force. The Advocate will develop Defence Force submissions on pay requirements and related matters and will appear before the Tribunal on behalf of the Defence Force. The provision for the appointment of a Defence Force Advocate will ensure that the Defence Force will be in a far better position to put its case in the future. These changes implement the policy of the Hawke Government, an authentic Australian government, of providing the Australian Defence Force with a wage fixation body similar to those available to the civil community, while recognising that the Defence Force has no industrial organisation to represent its interests. Clause 118 of the Bill provides for amendment of Acts containing reference to the Chief of Defence Force Staff. The office of Chief of Defence Force Staff was created by the Defence Force Re-organization Act 1975 which amended the Defence Act 1903. Section 9 of the Defence Act provides that the Chief of Defence Force Staff shall command the Defence Force subject to the Minister's general control and administration of the Defence Force and to the operation of section 68 of the Constitution. Under the Minister, the Chief of Defence Force Staff and the Secretary to the Department of Defence share responsibility in law for the joint administration, as distinct from command, of the Defence Force. The Chief of Defence Force Staff and the service chiefs are the senior military professionals within the Defence Force. Their advice and experience is necessary to the proper functioning of the Defence Force and the development of Defence policy. Under the Chief of Defence Force Staff, the Service chiefs command their services, manage assigned assets and retain right of access to the Minister on matters relating to their command. The Chief of Defence Force Staff, however, commands the Service chiefs and is the Minister's principal military adviser in the formulation of policy and the administration of the Defence Force. The title of the Chief of Defence Force Staff does not accurately describe the position as the holder of the office heading the Defence Force, not just the staff. Accordingly, clause 228 of this Bill provides that the position of the Chief of Defence Force Staff shall now be designated Chief of the Defence Force. This Bill also amends the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 in a number of matters. For example, clause 44 provides for the inclusion in the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 of the relevant provisions of the Criminal Investigation Bill 1981 which lapsed when Parliament was dissolved in February 1983. Clause 44 also deals with a number of important decisions relating to procedures to be followed by investigating officers when interviewing suspects. New clause 101D gives the second of the judge's rules statutory force. Suspects in custody will have the right of access to a legal practitioner. Additionally, new sections dealing with the admissibility of confessional evidence, the taking of fingerprints, the holding of identification parades and the rights of persons charged with service offences, have been added. The provisions relating to the investigation of service offences now provide a modern code in this area of criminal law for Australia's Defence Force. To sum up, this Bill is even further written evidence of the achievements of the Hawke Government in providing national re-construction, national reconciliation and national recovery. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(11.14) —As the Leader of the National Party of Australia ( Mr Sinclair) has said, the Opposition supports most of the provisions contained in the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 1984. In the second reading speech of the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) he stated: The . . . Bill proposes amendments on various subjects to a number of Acts dealing with defence matters. In saying that, he opened a very broad debate on the place of defence in the Australian community. The Defence Legislation Amendment Bill which we are considering contains 16 parts, 120 clauses, hundreds of paragraphs, four schedules and altogether 100 pages; so it cannot be said that it is a narrow Bill. Most of the provisions of the Bill are sensible. In particular, the setting up of a Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal is long overdue and I congratulate the Government on proposing it and putting it into place. One provision that we will oppose is the tax on lump sum superannuation. But this Bill, welcome as most of its provisions are, fiddles around the edges. When will the Minister and the Government address the question of Australian defence? What will the Government do about restoring some credibility to Australia's Defence Force? During the parliamentary recess I was fortunate to be a member of a parliamentary delegation to South East Asia which included a visit to Vietnam. This subject has been raised in the House many times. But the fact is that the Russian presence in Vietnam is increasing considerably. The Russians have a very large navy and air force in Vietnam. Their influence is all pervasive. It is certainly not in Australia's interests to take a complacent point of view when the Russian force is increasing year by year. I do not say that because I think it is about to attack Australia tomorrow, but because it highlights the necessity for Australia to take a strong and independent stance. The allocation for defence in Tuesday night's Budget was $5.8 billion. Mr Braithwaite —Just a bit more than the public debt interest servicing. Mr WHITE —Just slightly more; that is right. The honourable member for Dawson rightly said that it represented just slightly more than the interest on our public debt, which is 8.8 per cent. The $5.8 billion allocated for defence, depending on who one listens to, represents an increase of perhaps 3.3 per cent or 3.1 per cent. More realistically, if we take away the money that is carried over from last year, it is an increase of 1.5 per cent, and that is the lowest real increase in defence spending in this country for 12 years, at a time when we are required to put some guts and credibility back into our defence forces. The Minister knows that the Services are suffering. In fairness to the Minister , I believe he is doing his best. But every time he takes a reasonable submission to Cabinet, he gets rolled, and he got rolled in regard to the Budget . The fact is that the defence forces know that they are not getting anywhere. The effects of the Budget were simply that most money will be allocated to capital expenditure for major equipment purchases and there is still not enough to provide manpower for our units, the necessary equipment or to carry out realistic training. On the question of manpower, it is inconceivable that we will see in the coming year an actual reduction in service manpower of 538. At a time when the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) travels around the world, trumpeting the need for an independent stance, insulting our American allies and casting doubt on the ANZUS alliance, we are reducing service manpower in Australia by 538. No wonder Asian countries look on us as being very suspect allies. The effect of this policy for example in regard to infantry battalions is that they have reached the stage where they have found it almost impossible to train effectively because the sub-units, sections, platoons and companies simply do not have enough men to take to the field in any form of realistic training. The problem will be made much worse by the Budget that was brought down on Tuesday night. I turn to the matter of equipment and, in particular, equipment for the Royal Australian Air Force. The new F18 aircraft is now in Australia. It will be a significant addition to our Defence Force and to the RAAF in particular. But because of the Government's decision to abolish the Fleet Air Arm the RAAF has been given a multitude of tasks which it has no hope of carrying out and to which it can pay only lip service. It might have the planes. In fact it has very good planes in the F111 and the F18 in particular, but both of these have no modern armaments. The F18 has never had anything but what might be broadly described as 'iron bombs'. It is now undergoing a refit to give it the capacity to carry Harpoon missiles and guided bombs, but that does not mean any program is being put in place. I ask the Minister in his reply to tell us: What is the armament program for the F111, when are these modern armaments to be purchased and what is the armament program for the F18? In my correspondence with the Minister he has been unable to give me that information, except to say that he is looking at the possibility of producing 20-millimetre cannon ammunition in Australia. For God's sake, we are not playing Boy Scouts; we are talking about serious matters of Australia's defence. It is no use having modern planes, modern aerial platforms, if the weaponry does not exist. There is no mention in the Budget of money for airborne early warning systems. It is vital that our new F18s have this facility. It is no use talking about the Jindalee over the horizon project, which in itself is good and can pick up targets in certain areas in a very broad way; but without airborne early warning systems who is going to direct these modern aircraft precisely to where the enemy may be? I have been able to see nothing in the Budget which provides for this, despite the cries and the pleas of the Chief of the Air Staff over a long period for this facility. It is not so long ago that he, I presume jokingly, referred to mounting a public appeal so that this could be provided. The Chief of the Air Staff said: The lack of Airborne Early Warning is a great deficiency in our air defence capability. Nothing could be more succinct than that. An even greater deficiency is the lack of an aerial refuelling capacity in the RAAF. We are getting into service a very fine fighter aircraft. According to what I have been told and information I have been able to gain-the Minister might like to take this up-the maximum range for an F18 with normal armaments is about 500 nautical miles. One of the most northerly airstrips that we could deploy this fighter to, if we had to, would be Weipa in north Queensland. If, for example, we were required to provide cover between Weipa and Papua New Guinea, say at Vanimo, that distance is 680 miles. The distance from the Western Australian coast to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands is some 1,500 miles. I would like an explanation from the Minister as to how these new fighter aircraft can possibly do the job to which one day they may be committed without aerial refuelling, because nobody else I have asked has been able to provide that answer. Do we find any provision in the Budget for aerial refuelling, for the conversion of the two planes that were bought for that purpose, the two 707s? No , not a mention and not a penny. Again, what is the point of having modern fighters if they cannot do the job? That is what it amounts to because at the moment they have neither proper armaments nor aerial refuelling capacity. All this is happening at a time when Australia's traditional alliances have been cast in some doubt. We have had the unfortunate decision in New Zealand concerning the docking of American nuclear powered ships. We have the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs roaming the world casting doubt and insulting our American allies. Two months ago he was in Canberra defending the American bases to the hilt and saying how important they were. Then he went overseas and he said to the Americans: 'You had better buck up because if you don't improve your disarmament performance we will have to look at whether your bases can remain in Australia'. That, in effect, is what he said. It really has nothing to do with defence; all he was doing was shafting the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), and everyone knows that. However, it casts grave doubt on whether this Government is serious about its defence commitment. It is to be noted that the Prime Minister was very quick to disown his Foreign Minister when he made those statements. What did the Minister for Defence have to say when all this was happening? About as much as he had to say when HMS Invincible came here. Anything that he said when we refused admission to that British ship made matters worse. What has he got to say about the doubt that has been cast on United States bases in this country? Nothing. What did he have to say some days ago when the cost of the F18 project was severely criticised by the Minister for Defence Support (Mr Howe)? Nothing. How much longer is the Minister for Defence Support-a confirmed and acknowledged pacifist-going to be allowed to have some say in the defence of this country? Let me turn to some of the details of the Bill. We welcome the establishment of the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal. For too long service men and women have been left to the mercy and the whims of government. I note that the Tribunal will have the capacity to determine other financial conditions. I ask the Minister: If the Tribunal is to look at other financial conditions, who will refer the matters to the Tribunal? It is very important that this Tribunal operate effectively because we have so few servicemen-they are getting fewer with 538 less this year-and they need to be looked after. I believe the Tribunal will help considerably. Establishment of the office of the Defence Force Advocate seems to me to be a sensible provision. The abolition of annual training obligations for the Emergency Forces again seems to be sensible, but it should be noted that there are only 300 of these personnel in that emergency reserve. This brings me to the question of the reserves in Australia. On paper we have some 30,000 Army reservists. The best estimates that I can get from people who should know say we would be lucky if we had half of those as effective reservists. That is because of their lack of equipment and facilities and, more particularly lately, interference with their pay-another broken promise by this Government. For 18 months the reserves have been under assault, and they know it and it is reflected in unit strengths and effectiveness. In my own area we have an artillery battery still training on the road underneath street lights at night. And the Government wonders why the reserves are not strong and healthy. Let me come to the question of the taxing of commutation payments-another broken promise by this Government. We all remember the signals that went out to defence establishments prior to the last election saying that a labor government would not interfere with the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act, and that has not been forgotten in the Services. I believe that the Minister did try to make sure that the payments were excluded from the lump sum taxing provisions, but again he failed. The measures proposed in this Bill are cosmetic. They will do nothing in real terms to provide servicemen with a decent lump sum on retirement. As the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) has said, servicemen are required-not because they want to; they are required-to retire early. Very few servicemen or women serve even to the age of 55. When they retire at age 50 or earlier they need money to set themselves up and re-establish themselves in civilian life. Most of them will have served at least 20 years and have probably lived in anything up to 20 houses, or even more. In 21 years in the service I lived in 26 different houses. The movement is constant and the expense is very high. Few servicemen or women manage to save much money during their life in the service. When they get out, when they still have children to educate and have to buy a house and re-establish themselves in civilian life, that is the time they need a lump sum. Whatever might be said about taxation on superannuation-I would be opposed to it anyway, no matter who was concerned-there is a very special case for servicemen. That case has been put and it has been ignored by the Government. All the cosmetic toing and froing in this Bill, the extension from four to five years and the other fancy figuring to try to convince them that they will not be any worse off, is a lot of rubbish and those people know it only too well. The worst part is that the tax on their lump sum commutation will affect the younger servicemen and women, and they are the very ones we should be looking after. Of course, they are the ones who are most concerned. Earlier this year in this House we debated defence at some length. The Opposition showed then that the country's defences are weak and getting weaker. The tragedy is that there was a chance in Tuesday night's Budget to redress this imbalance, and that chance was ignored. The Government has agreed from time to time that there is not enough money in the Services to maintain manpower at reasonable levels; combat units are unable to train. Not enough training is taking place to keep units and individuals up to a minimum standard. In short, in terms of training and maintenance, there is just not enough money for boots and bullets. We are becoming the laughing stock of our allies because of the small effort and the lack of resources we are providing for the defence forces in this country. I speak particularly about our allies in the Association of South East Asian Nations, our Pacific allies and our ANZUS allies. Whilst I support most of the provisions of this Bill, except that regarding lump sum superannuation, which is clearly another broken promise, we are continuing to make it difficult, and in some cases impossible, for the defence forces of this country to carry out the most important job of all, that is, the protection of Australian territories and the Australian people. Ms MAYER(Chisholm)(11.34) —I am very pleased to speak in this debate on the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 1984. Many of the amendments in this Bill were foreshadowed last year in the Budget statement made by the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes). Unlike the previous Government, the Labor Government has moved quickly to establish defence decision-making on a clear foundation. This Government is committed to maintaining a viable Defence Force to ensure the nation's security. In our first Budget, the Government provided an increase of 4 per cent in real terms. The 8 per cent rise in the 1984 Budget in real terms provides an increase of 3.8 per cent. The average annual increase under the former coalition Government was 2.5 per cent. I mention that to get those sums right. It is extraordinary to listen to the breast-beating that goes on in the Opposition about defence allocation and defence measures. Once again we have had the Opposition suggesting that this Government should spend a great deal of money while not increasing its taxation revenue in any way or providing any equity. The honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) has just spent some thousands of millions of dollars in theory, at the same time denying utterly that there could be any possible need for an increase in government revenue in order to make those thousands of millions of dollars available. For example, the Liberal Party of Australia when in government did not find early warning systems very urgent at all. The previous Government listed it in its program for 1987-88 . Priority seems to change suddenly when it is this Government which has the responsibility for carrying out defence policy. The Opposition's priorities have changed in a number of other areas too. Whilst perhaps not ranging as widely as did the honourable member for McPherson over foreign policy, which he seems to comprehend not at all, or defence policy, about which he is perhaps a little shortsighted, I wish firstly to address those aspects of the Bill which relate to the Defence Force pay and conditions. The Defence Force has been denied an independent pay fixing avenue for quite some time. Unfortunately, the former Government was obviously unconcerned about the welfare of the members of its armed forces. The Minister, Mr Scholes, in a speech earlier this year on the Government's view of the armed forces, said: . . . the Government considers that the Armed Forces are in a special group in the community with an important role to play in that community. The Government recognises the special position of the Defence Force and the restrictions and difficulties under which it works. We are particularly conscious of problems faced by Service wives and families. The Government goes to considerable lengths to compensate the Defence Force for these difficulties. Clause 19 of the Bill provides for the establishment of an independent Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal with power to determine conditions of service for members of the Defence Force and to establish the position of Defence Force Advocate. At present the Committee of Reference for Defence Force Pay can deal only with matters referred to it by the Minister; its reports are subject to ministerial approval before they are operative; and appeals must go to the Minister. So, first of all, the Minister has to take action to refer a matter to the Committee. The Committee's decisions are subject to approval by the Minister , and then the Minister is the final court of appeal. This is not the case with other government and non-government employees, for whom pay fixing authorities are able to initiate and determine matters within their ambit. It is astonishing to think that the former Government ignored this discrepancy for such a long time. Every other group of workers in the country, with some minor exceptions such as members of parliament, has a union or association which can review the remuneration and working conditions of members and make submissions to an appropriate body for improvements and adjustments. It is extraordinary that the Defence Force was left defenceless in this regard by the Fraser Government. If it is regarded as inappropriate for the interests of people in the defence forces to be so represented, it is the responsibility of government to treat these people fairly. Yet they have not been treated fairly. The fourth report on the adequacy of defence force remunerations, dated 12 August 1982, said that it was essential for a review of Defence Force remuneration to commence and to be in a position to be completed by the end of 1982. What happened? Was that taken up? That recommendation was not acted upon because the reference was not made to the Committee by the then Minister for Defence, the first speaker in this debate, the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair). He seems in Opposition to find matters of concern to him which were of no concern to him when he had the power to be concerned. The wage pause legislation intervened and prevented any action. As far as I am concerned, one of the most cynical political moves of the Fraser Government was to deny the defence forces the reference to the committee on remuneration because it was secondary to the political advantage which could be gained in a by-election by announcing the wage pause legislation. While the establishment in 1973 of the Committee of Reference for Defence Force Pay was an acceptable step forward from the unsatisfactory arrangements which preceded its formation, it lacked the capacity to take independent action and this had disadvantaged the defence forces on more than one occasion. The Minister for Defence, in his second reading speech, said: . . . in setting up an independent body for the Defence Force, this Bill brings into line the fixing of Defence Force pay and conditions with those arrangements applicable to the Public Service. This commitment is part of the Australian Labor Party's platform. The proposed Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal will consist of three persons, and it is important to recognise the nature of the experience and the understanding of those people. The chairperson will be a presidential member of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The second person will be experienced in industrial relations matters and will probably be a commissioner of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The third member of the Tribunal will be a person with a Defence Force background who has been retired long enough to give him or her some objective views. A Tribunal with that sort of experience in industrial matters and particular experience in Defence Force matters when acting as an independent body can be looked at as a tribunal which is objective and independent and which can provide advice to the Government and the defence forces. The Tribunal will be authorised to convene and conduct a review of salary and salary-related allowances at least every two years, or earlier if requested to do so by the Minister. In addition, it can be expected that national wage case decisions will be applied when they occur. When announcing the Government's decision to establish a pay fixing tribunal for the Defence Force, the Minister said that the proposed change implemented the Government's policy of providing the Defence Force with a wage fixing body similar to those wage fixing bodies available in the general community, while recognising that the Defence Force has no industrial organisation to represent its interests. This deficiency from which the Defence Force suffered and from which no other large body of working people in this country suffered should have been recognised a good deal earlier. The office of the Defence Force Advocate is established in proposed new section 58S. The Advocate's function will be to develop Defence Force submissions to the Tribunal and he will appear before the Tribunal on behalf of the Defence Force. That is the second important aspect of this Tribunal. It is a matter of fact that every other organised group of workers in the country has someone to put and argue a case for it before an appropriate wage fixing body, whether it be a tribunal or a court. Again, it seems extraordinary that the defence forces have had no such person to argue for their needs and their benefits. The provision of the Defence Force Advocate and his location within the Defence Force organisation will ensure that the Defence Force will not be disadvantaged before the Tribunal by reason of the fact that it has no industrial organisation . This new provision will give members of the defence forces rights equivalent to those of other members of the community. I am sure that the proposed provisions I have mentioned will be welcomed by all members of the Australian Defence Force and I am very glad that the Opposition agrees with them. It might have been better had the Opposition thought of such provisions earlier. I wish to move on to those provisions of the Bill which affect the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act. Sections 24 and 32A of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973 relate to the commutation of retirement pay and of Class C invalidity pay. These sections are now amended by clauses 83 and 84 of the Bill, and this will enable an increase in the proportion of these benefits that may be commuted. The Government has responded to the needs of members of the Defence Force who are to retire. Last year the Minister said in his Budget statement that in recognition of the special employment conditions of members of the Services, including demands on time, the risks faced, the acceptance of discipline and particularly the disruption to family life caused by frequent postings, and the early retirement from active employment within those Services, the Government had made special provision under the existing Defence Force retirement and death benefits scheme to reduce significantly the impact of the decision to tax lump sums received on retirement. Although the actual amount to be commuted will remain at the discretion of the member, these changes allow for an increase in the maximum amount available for commutation to five times the amount of the member's retirement pay. The increased commutation is to be available from 1 July 1983. I believe that the proposed amendments, particularly those which refer to pay fixing arrangements, are very urgently needed in the defence forces. The retrospective provisions relating to commutation are also extremely important and will improve the conditions experienced by the defence forces. I believe that on the record of the action of the Government, members of the defence forces will see that the neglect which they suffered for years under preceding governments is now being addressed. Mr KATTER(Kennedy)(11.47) —My comments will be very brief. The time of this House is now extremely valuable. With an election coming up next February I feel that I would be remiss if I were to occupy too much of the time of the House. However, there are one or two points on which I wish to comment. First of all, I say to the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) that those of us who have had some involvement in the defence spectrum are delighted that the Government is now going ahead with the development of the Royal Australian Air Force base at Tindal. The Minister and I have had a lot of contact in relation to this matter and to other matters, and I think that is just great. The Opposition has no great disagreement with the proposals in the Bill as they have been put forward by the Government. However I have a feeling of apprehension because when any matter involving the defence spectrum is handed over to civilian authorities there is a reaction within the forces. Although it has been stated, and I am sure it has been done on fairly valid grounds, that the forces generally accept the proposition relating to the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal-I suppose members of the forces will now feel that this Tribunal will perhaps look a little more deeply into their conditions of pay and into other matters affecting their daily lives-again, I hope that the impact of this change will not be too severe. I am sure the Minister will agree with me that the morale of members of our defence forces is the predominant factor. Morale is far more important than equipment, provisions and logistics. Inevitably morale is affected by the fact that at the moment money is just not there even to provide support for the existing establishment. We have to look very carefully at this aspect. That is the first of the two points that I wish to stress. My second point relates to insignia. Admittedly, people can shop around for insignia not only here but also in the United States and in other places. I bought an old marine jacket when I was in the United States and I used to wear it while wandering around the streets of New York. A comment was made that in appearance I had a lot in common with the Boston Strangler, but I question that proposition. But there has to be a very clear line of demarcation. Ordinary army jackets, ordinary army clothing, even colour patches and military badges, should be easily available to collectors, but certain insignia such as decorations should be the subject of very stringent regulations. I think the proposed withdrawal of the written authority for insignia should be reconsidered. I am very proud to say that within a few hundred miles in my area lived two very meritorious Victoria Cross winners. I refer to Colonel Murray and Major Townley. The situation of Major Townley when he died was rather sad in that he had no very close dependants and his Victoria Cross was auctioned. The recipients of the Cross, perhaps through lack of understanding of the value of the Cross or perhaps for monetary considerations, allowed it to be auctioned. That very precious article, a Victoria Cross, was sold for some tens of thousands of dollars. Major Townley was a soldier of tremendous achievement, a man obviously extremely brave in the field of battle. I thought it was sad that that Victoria Cross which meant so much to this nation and to his family was subject to an ordinary auction. It is now quite a thing to get hold of a decoration such as a Victoria Cross and subject it to a very cold and calculating merchandising. Insignia should be clearly defined so that such decorations do not become the subject of even a written authority. Naturally I support the amendment as presented by the shadow Minister for Defence, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair). Let us not permit the shift of accent to the extent that it will affect the morale of the forces. They should not suddenly find that they are in the hands of a civilian tribunal. Certainly they have in mind their conditions. Even in the years when I was Army Minister they perhaps did not have the full protection that civilians had, but let us not permit that to go too far. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(11.53) —The Defence Legislation Amendment Bill aims to do four things. First, it aims to establish an independent Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal with the power to determine financial conditions of service for members of the defence forces; it also establishes the provision of Defence Force Advocate. Secondly, the Bill increases the proportion of retirement pay that a member of the Defence Force may commute on retirement. Thirdly, it abolishes the requirement for collectors of military uniforms and badges to have an official permit issued under the Defence Act of 1903. Fourthly , it abolishes the annual training obligations of members of the emergency force components of the Defence Force. The Bill touches upon a number of additional matters, including the change to the title of the Chief of Defence Force Staff and some extensive amendments to the Defence Force Discipline Act. I shall comment briefly today on two major aspects of the legislation. First, there is the landmark legislation for the Australian defence forces dealing with the establishment of the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal. It is a fact that the Australian Labor Party platform includes a strong commitment to the fixing of Defence Force pay and conditions on a basis similar to the arrangements which apply to members of the Public Service. I note that among previous speakers there has been general recognition that the establishment of this Tribunal is indeed a landmark decision and that it is many years overdue. It has in fact been welcomed by all speakers in the House. As the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) noted in his second reading speech, the pay fixing arrangements for the Public Service consist of two arms. One arm is the Public Service Board. That Board is empowered under section 82D of the Public Service Act to determine terms and conditions of employment. The Minister for Defence is similarly empowered to determine financial conditions of service for members of the Defence Force under section 58B of the Defence Act. The other arm for the Public Service is the independent Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. This Bill sets up a similar body for Australia's defence forces. It is to be called the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal. Proposed new section 58G deals with the establishment of that Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal. Sub-sections (2), (4) and (5) provide that the Tribunal shall consist of three persons: First, a chairman who is to be a presidential member of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; secondly, a person experienced in industrial relations matters who will usually be a commissioner of the Commission; thirdly, and most importantly in many ways, a person with previous service in the Defence Force. Proposed new section 58H provides the Tribunal with jurisdiction to determine salaries and salary-related allowances for the Defence Force and requires the Tribunal to review these matters at least every two years. New Division 3 provides for the establishment of a Defence Force Advocate. Proposed new section 58S, sub-sections (2) and (3), requires the Minister for Defence to appoint a person who has experience in industrial relations matters and knowledge of or with the Defence Force. In making the appointment the Minister will have regard to any recommendation of the Chief of the Defence Force. That Advocate has a most important role. His or her role will be to prepare matters for reference to the Tribunal by the Chief of the Defence Force and also to prepare submissions to the Tribunal on behalf of the Defence Force. The Advocate will also represent the Defence Force in any proceedings which might go before the Tribunal. The arrangement that I have explained certainly recognises the fact that the defence forces in Australia have no industrial organisation. The arrangements which we have set into train give full cognisance to that fact and give full representation to those important interests of the defence forces of pay and conditions. This particular aspect of the legislation is welcomed by the defence forces. It has been welcomed by all speakers in the House today. I believe that in terms of its setting pay and conditions for members of the defence services it is truly landmark legislation. The other matter that I wish to touch on briefly is the changes in relation to the commutation of the Defence Force retirement and death benefits arrangements. Under the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act an eligible member of the Defence Force can elect on retirement to take a lump sum of up to four years ' entitlement to retirement pay. That set of conditions is essential to the working conditions of members of the Defence Force who have a relatively short working period in the defence forces. It is necessary to provide them with an adequate lump sum superannuation benefit on retirement so that they are able to adjust to civilian life and to take employment, if necessary, in other positions . It should be said that following an election by a member of the Defence Force to take such a commutation, the member's retirement pay entitlement is reduced in accordance with the formula that is set out in the existing Act. The scheme recognises the disabilities of employment in the Defence Force and helps in the resettlement of members into the civilian community after periods of service in the defence forces. It is a fact that the application of the new taxing provisions on lump sum superannuation benefits would gradually reduce the net value of that commutation. As a consequence of that, the Government has acted to make certain changes in relation to that commutation. Clause 83 of the Bill before the House amends section 24 of the existing legislation to increase the maximum amount available for commutation to five times the amount of the member's retirement pay. This change will be introduced gradually over a period of 20 years after 30 June 1983 . In all cases the actual amount to be commuted will remain at the option of the member, subject of course to the new higher maximum. A transitional provision, which is incorporated in clause (83) (2), is also to be included to ensure that a member who became entitled to retirement pay after 30 June 1983 has at least one year to consider his or her options under the new arrangements. In general terms it must be said that the changes proposed will preserve the net value of commutation after tax. That is a most important thing for all members who have served in the defence forces. The major issue upon retirement is the size of that lump sum benefit and, as I have indicated, it is crucial for those who leave our defence forces that they should have that lump sum benefit so that they are able to resettle into normal civilian life. This legislation guarantees that that lump sum benefit will remain at approximately the same level as it did before the introduction of the Government's taxation amendments to lump sum superannuation. The increase in the amount that will be commuted will mean an appropriate and consequential reduction in the level of actual retirement pay which is received in the form of a pension. That reduction initially will be very small and I should emphasise that even in the longer term it will mean no more than about a 6 per cent reduction in current pension entitlements. So I believe that the Government in this legislation has acted with responsibility. I cannot emphasise enough that the major issue which is put to me by members of the defence forces, and I have them at Puckapunyal in my electorate of Bendigo and at the Army Survey Regiment Unit, in terms of their working conditions is to be able to get a reasonable lump sum on retirement from the defence forces. While these changes will provide for some very small reduction in the amount of pension, they will guarantee through those changes to the commutation that members leaving the defence forces will receive about the same value of lump sum upon retirement. I conclude with two other points. There has been some suggestion from the Opposition in the debate today that the policy of the present Government is, in some way, to diminish or run down the Australian defence forces. There have been many debates in Parliament on this matter prior to this legislation. But the Opposition's record, in terms of meeting its commitment to the Australian defence forces, is really not a record on which I would be happy to stand. It is very poor. The defence White Paper of 1976 envisaged expenditure in the defence forces as representing some 22 per cent of total defence expenditure by the financial year 1980-81. Under the policies of the previous Government, that recommendation was never fulfilled and by 1981-82 equipment purchases accounted for only 16.9 per cent of total expenditure in the Australian defence forces. That is some 5 per cent below the figure recommended in the defence White Paper of 1976. In money terms, the present Opposition was $1.5 billion behind its spending on defence priorities. In terms of that $1.5 billion, the Opposition when in government was four years behind target with the tactical fighter, four years behind target on the frigate program, three years behind target on the anti-armour weapons program and three years behind target on the 155 millimetre artillery program. That was not a good record at all. There has been some suggestion that this Government is reducing its proportion of expenditure allocated to defence. I have some figures which summarise Australian defence budgets over the past four or five years. They show that total defence expenditure in 1980-81 was 2.7 per cent of gross domestic product; in 1981-82 it was 2.8 per cent of gross domestic product; in 1982-83 it was 3 per cent. In the two years under our Government it was 2.9 per cent of gross domestic product in real terms in 1983-84, and for the 1984-85 Budget, which has just been announced, it is 2.8 per cent. Those figures compare very well with the total amount of expenditure allocated to defence under the previous Government. The 2.8 per cent of GDP we are allocating in this Budget to defence expenditure compares with the previous Government's 2.7 per cent in 1980-81. I hope that puts to rest the argument that there is somehow a run down in the defence forces and their equipment levels by this Government. The Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) spent much of his time discussing the Government arrangements for taxation of lump sum superannuation payments. He referred in particular to the confusion or incompetence of the Government in relation to the establishment of approved deposit funds. In that sense, I think it is the Opposition that is confused about the establishment of approved deposit funds. I note that the Age of 6 August ran an article by the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), in which he claimed that there was no prospect whatsoever of any approved deposit funds coming into operation by the end of September of this year. I point out to the coalition partners, to the Leader of the National Party and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, that a company operating in my electorate of Bendigo, Sandhurst and Northern District Trustees Executors and Agency Co. Ltd, which has had more than 100 years of operation in that area, had previously on 3 August issued a prospectus and Press release announcing that it was the first company in Australia to establish an approved deposit fund. I just make the point that the Leader of the National Party and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition are somewhat confused about the overall arrangements relating to lump sum superannuation and approved deposit funds. In conclusion, the amendments in this Bill are common-sense amendments. In an overall way they substantially improve the pay and working conditions of members of the Defence Force. I am particularly pleased to see the establishment of the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal, the independent pay fixing authority. That is something the Parliament has discussed on many occasions in the past. It has been a consistent plank in Labor Party policy. Following the Minister's announcement on 9 March 1984 saying that we would establish that Tribunal, we are doing it in this legislation, and I believe it is landmark legislation. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(12.09) —I wish to speak very briefly to the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill before the House. I do not want to deal with the various clauses of the Bill, but with the principle of some of the matters that have disturbed me for some time. I speak because the Williamtown Royal Australian Air Force Base is within my electorate of Lyne, and very often the members of the Service, and particularly the wives, speak to me about their problems, particularly those relating to pay. I believe that over the years there has been some discrepancy in the fact that there has not been a regular survey of the pay available to those who serve within the defence forces. Therefore, the proposal to carry out at least a two-yearly review is something that is in the right direction. However, I feel that a more regular review could be made of service personnel pay. We live today in a society that is very ill-balanced in terms of the determination of wages, especially the wages of those who serve in industry and commerce compared with the wages of those who serve in the defence forces. Australia is dependent on young people who are prepared at all times to come forward to serve in the three arms of defence. Maybe we have gone a little too far with respect to the salaries and conditions available to those who serve in industry generally throughout Australia. However, I want to make the comparison between those people and the people who serve in the defence forces generally. When one talks to men and women of the Defence Force one appreciates that for a greater part of their lives these people move from place to place within Australia. In many cases these people have families to support and look after. As a member of the Parliamentary Statutory Committee on Public Works I have been to a number of defence establishments within Australia. It is rather interesting to note that service personnel generally have much larger families than do civilians. It could be that their families are double the size. We have to take these factors into account. I have spoken in this House before about my concern in respect of the tax on superannuation which will affect young men and women in the Services who wish to move into civilian life. Service personnel receive a regular wage. However, they plan for the time they will go back into civilian life. In other words, upon leaving the Services they will want to buy some land or purchase a home or a business for themselves and their families and make a living. I believe the Government was very foolish to impose a tax upon superannuation which is not in the interests of defence personnel at all. I speak strongly about this because I believe it is wrong. Why put this impediment in the way of people who have offered their services within Australia and overseas, who are prepared to serve in any theatre of war and who may be called upon to be part of a United Nations peacekeeping team? I believe that both government and oppositions in all parliaments in Australia should give more sympathy and support to those men and women who are involved in the general defence forces of Australia. As I said, I wanted to say a few words on behalf of all of the personnel in my electorate who serve at the Williamtown RAAF base and elsewhere. These people are serving this country in the way that we would expect them to do. Mr PUNCH(Barton)(12.14) —I will not occupy the time of the House for very long this afternoon. However, I want to draw the House's attention to a couple of points in the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 1984 that is before the House. Too often since this Government has been elected we have heard that so much needs to be done. We have heard the same argument from those opposite in terms of the economy, social welfare, health, education and much more. Of course, they were in power for 30 of the last 34 years. And, I find it staggering that from time to time honourable members opposite rise and say that the soldiers do not have enough boots or that there are not enough bullets. It seems to me amazing that having had 30 of the last 34 years to put the defence forces into adequate shape they have not done so. Yet they complain that we have not been able to correct that anomaly overnight. This is an amazing indictment of just how tongue in cheek those opposite can be from time to time. One of the most glaring tongue in cheek attitudes that from time to time comes from the conservative forces of this country is in their treatment of personnel in the armed forces. One could talk about Australian history and mention the Menzies plan for the Brisbane Line and how our troops were going to be left in the African desert during World War II. However, I will maintain the debate in contemporary terms. I would like to draw attention to the effect that some of the amending legislation will have on Defence Force personnel in this country. Perhaps the amendment that I, as a member of the Government, find most gratifying is that relating to the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal. Soldiering-be it in the army, navy or air force, but speaking colloquially-is a noble career in which one serves one's country, is on hand and on call and in fact prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice and die for one's country. In the view of our Party and our Government that noble profession should not be precluded from the normal industrial and pay rights of every other employee. The Australian Labor Party, therefore, has firmly adhered to the principle in its platform that the fixing of Defence Force pay and conditions should be on a similar basis to that for other public servants in this country. It is for that reason that the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal is to be established. In terms of adding consistency to the rights of Defence Force personnel, I want to draw the attention of the House first to the structure of the proposed Remuneration Tribunal. The Tribunal is to consist of a Deputy President of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and two other persons-one an experienced industrial relations specialist and, of course, the other a former member of the Defence Force. The Tribunal will be similar to other State and Federal tribunals across this country that have the power to set wages and conditions for various sectors of public service employment. That can only be said to be a major step forward for the rights of Defence Force personnel in Australia. No longer will they be subject to the budgetary constraints, the political whims and the day to day financial discretions of government. Rather, because this Bill provides the Tribunal with jurisdiction to determine salaries and salary related allowances for the defence forces and, more importantly, because it requires the Tribunal to review these matters at least every two years. Defence Force personnel will no longer be second-rate citizens in terms of their pay and conditions. I am sure that the Tribunal when carrying out its review every two years will take into account the capacity of government to pay. However, more importantly the Bill mandates the public sector as opposed to the Government of the day, to make sure that Defence Force personnel do not lag behind as they have in previous years in terms of their pay and conditions. Nor should they because, as I said earlier, they have not only chosen a noble career in the defence of the nation but also more importantly they ensure stability in the social fabric by providing the knowledge that they are constantly protecting this country from external aggression. The other matter I wish to raise while discussing pay and conditions concerns the Defence Force retirement and death benefits scheme amendments. Earlier this year the Returned Services League expressed fears for the general pay and conditions of the armed forces, and the lump sum superannuation amendments that took effect across the broader community were mentioned. This Bill amends the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act to increase gradually the amount of pension that may be commuted, with the result that the amount that may be commuted will increase by annual stages over the next 20 years from four years to five years retirement pay. However, it is indisputable that this formula will preserve the net value of commutation after tax. I think that speaks volumes for the attitude this Government has towards defence personnel. On 7 March, in a defence supplement in the Australian, General Sir Phillip Bennett, Chief of the General Staff and Chief of Defence Force Staff designate, wrote an article in which he expressed the value that the individual soldier comes first. That is the attitude of this Government, and it has always been the attitude of the Australian Labor Party. The individual soldier, sailor and airman need to be looked after, and when the Government is about to make changes in other legislation that affects employees across the community it must ensure that Defence Force personnel will not be harshly treated by such changes. The other point to which I would like quickly to draw the attention of the House concerns the changes in legal terms for defence personnel. Clause 75 of the amending legislation deals with the Defence Force Discipline Act. Clause 75 provides for the establishment of a Defence Force Discipline Legislation Board of Review, and the Board will be established by the Minister three years after the Defence Force Discipline Act comes into effect. That, taken with the amending clause 44 in Part VI-a derivation of the Criminal Investigation Bill, which unfortunately was not dealt with in proper terms by the last Government as it rushed towards the polls-means that the law as it relates to armed forces personnel has been brought into the twentieth century and put on a level similar to that pertaining to employees in the non-defence area. I will not occupy more of the time of the House except to say that in two very important areas, pay and conditions and retirement benefits, as well as the law, the legislation before the House has great effect, adding great weight to this Government's commitment to Defence Force personnel. It puts them on a level more befitting their stature and not on the level of second class employees. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Defence)(12.24) —It is not my intention to delay the House long. The passage of the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill is a matter which we consider has been delayed long enough. The Bill introduces a number of provisions which have long been needed in respect of Defence Force pay and conditions. The most notable is the establishment of the Defence Force Pay Tribunal, which will have total independence from interference by government. No longer will governments be able to give directives on how it should conduct its affairs. The provision is in line with amendments moved in this House and rejected by the previous Government in 1979, when alterations were being undertaken in respect of the fixing of Defence Force pay and conditions because the old regulation system had completely collapsed. It resulted in situations which came very close to causing industrial action, bringing Defence Force personnel into conflict with the Government. Once the Bill becomes law and the Tribunal is established it will be able, within the guidelines established for all wage and salary earners, to determine the salaries, allowances and pay-related matters which affect members of the Defence Force. As I said, governments will not be able to interfere and prevent that taking place. The office of Defence Force Advocate will also be established . We had originally intended that it be under the general administrative control of the Defence Force Ombudsman. However, that position no longer exists. The office of Defence Force Advocate will be placed under the Chief of Defence Force Staff. That point leads me to a third matter. It is intended to change the title of the Chief of Defence Force Staff, which is an historic title but one which no longer reflects the actual role of the chief of the Defence Force. We believe the new title will emphasise the importance of the position and, in fact, will reflect the command responsibilities of the occupant of that office as the senior defence person in Australia. As a consequence there will be some alterations in the organisation of the office of the Chief of Defence Force Staff, and these will be announced at a later stage. A number of things have been said during the fairly general and wide-ranging debate on defence matters, including matters relating to pay and conditions and the Defence Force retirement and death benefits scheme. On behalf of the Government, I can say that the Defence Force has been given special treatment in this Bill with respect to tax on lump sum superannuation. It is the first time, when legislation of this type has come before the Parliament, that special arrangements have been made. They were not made in the provisions for deferred payments, annual leave, or long service leave which were introduced a few years ago. Certainly, members of the former Government, who now find the DFRDB scheme so beneficial to servicemen did not process the report of the Joint Select Committee on Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Legislation-the Jess report-when it was presented to them in May 1972. In fact, they had made no decision to proceed with the recommendations of that report when they were removed from office. It was left to the incoming Labor Government both to improve the scheme and to bring it into operation. The changes in the Bill with respect to defence personnel will give them benefits to which the Government considers they are entitled and will have an offsetting effect against the general income tax applied to all lump sum superannuitants. As persons who normally retire before the age of 55, they are treated differently. They are the only members of the community for whom special provisions have been made with respect to their early retirement. I note the Opposition's proposed amendment relating to reducing to 45 the age provision in the Income Tax Assessment Act. I find that interesting, and I think it is a presentational argument demonstrating what the Liberal Party usually does when in opposition-it offers all sorts of goodies. The fact is that, if carried, the amendment concerning the early retirement age of service personnel would not deal with that matter at all, except in a very limited way. About 85 per cent of service personnel retire before they reach the age of 45. Only a few persons below the rank of captain retire at 45 or older. In fact, the great majority of service personnel retire before they are 40. The Government rejects the amendment and asks the House to give speedy passage to this Bill. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Sinclair's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. C. Millar) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 46 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. McLeay, LeoCampbell, G. Maher, M. J.Charles, D. E. Mayer, H.Charlesworth, R. I. Mildren, J. B.Child, J. Milton, P.Chynoweth, R. L. Morris, AllanCohen, B. Morris, PeterCross, M. D. Morrison, W. L.Darling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Steedman, A. P.Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Wells, D. McM.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J.Hurford, C. J. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Blunt, C. W. Katter, R. C.Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B.Burr, M. A. Lusher, S. A.Cadman, A. G. McArthur, F. S.Cameron, Donald McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ian McVeigh, D. T.Carlton, J. J. Macphee, I. M.Coleman, W. P. Moore, J. C.Connolly, D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDrummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. Uren, T. Fife, W. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. The CHAIRMAN —Is it the wish of the Committee to deal with the Bill as a whole? Mr Sinclair-On the understanding that it is intended that the Minister move his amendments and we deal with those and then we deal with my amendments. So we will deal with it as a whole on that basis. The Bill. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Defence)(12.40) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 2, page 2, omit sub-clause (5), substitute the following sub-clause: ''(5) The provisions of Part VI, other than sections 83A and 84A, shall be deemed to have come into operation on 1 July 1983. ''(5A) Sections 83A and 84A shall be deemed to have come into operation on 1 October 1972.''. (2) After clause 83, page 64, insert the following new clause: Rate of retirement pay applicable to certain existing contributors ''83A. Section 25 of the Principal Act is amended- (a) by omitting from paragraph (a) of the definition of 'previous pension percentage of pay' in sub-section (1) all the words after 'sub-paragraph (2) (d) (i)-' and substituting- '(i) in the case of a person who was, on 30 September 1972, an officer of the Permanent Forces-he had, on that date, attained the retiring age for the rank held by him on that date; or (ii) in the case of a person who was, on that date, a non-Permanent Forces officer as defined in section 54A of the previous Act-he had, on that date- (A) retired with the rank held by him on that date; and (B) reached the age that was his age on the date of his retirement, and had, on 30 September 1972, completed a number of years of service for pension equal to the number of years of service for pension completed by him on his retirement; or'; (b) by omitting from sub-section (1) the definition of ''retiring age for the rank held'' and substituting the following definition: '' 'retiring age for the rank held' has the same meaning as it would have in the definition of 'retiring age for the rank held' in sub-section 4 (1) of the previous Act if the reference in that definition to the date of a member's retirement were a reference to 30 September 1972;''; (c) by omitting from the definition of ''service for pension'' in sub-section ( 1) 'Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948-1971' and substituting 'previous Act'; (d) by inserting after sub-section 25 (2) the following sub-section: '(2AA) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) (d) (ii)- (a) a reference in sub-paragraph 39 (2) (b) (ii) or (2) (c) (ii) of the previous Act to the rank held by an officer shall be read as a reference to the rank held by the officer on 30 September 1972; (b) the reference in sub-paragraph 39 (2) (c) (i) of the previous Act to the rank of an officer at the date of his retirement shall be read as a reference to the rank of the officer on 30 September 1972; and (c) a reference in sub-paragraph 39 (2) (b) (ii) or (2) (c) (ii) of the previous Act to the retiring age for the rank held shall be read as a reference to the retiring age for the rank held within the meaning of this section;'; and (e) by omitting sub-section (5) and substituting the following sub-section: '(5) In the application of this section to a person who was, on 30 September 1972, a non-Permanent Forces officer as defined by section 54A of the previous Act, the retiring age for the rank held shall be the age that would be deemed, for the purposes referred to in sub-section 54A (2) of that Act, to be the retiring age for the rank held by the person on his retirement if he had retired on 30 September 1972.'.''. (3) After clause 84, page 65, insert the following new clause: Rate of invalidity pay applicable to certain existing contributors ''84A. Section 33 of the Principal Act is amended- (a) by omitting from the definition of 'previous pension percentage of pay' in sub-section (1) all the words after ' duties' and substituting the following- 'and- (a) in the case of a person who was, on 30 September 1972, an officer of the Permanent Forces-he had, on that date, attained the retiring age for the rank held by him on that date; or (b) in the case of a person who was, on that date, a non-Permanent Forces officer as defined in section 54A of the previous Act-he had, on that date- (i) retired with the rank held by him on that date; and (ii) reached the age that was his age on the date of his retirement, and had, on 30 September 1972, completed a number of years of service for pension equal to the number of years of service for pension completed by him on his retirement ;'; (b) by omitting from sub-section (1) the definition of ''retiring age for the rank held'' and substituting the following definition: '' 'retiring age for the rank held' has the same meaning as it would have in the definition of 'retiring age for the rank held' in sub-section 4 (1) of the previous Act if the reference in that definition to the date of a member's retirement were a reference to 30 September 1972;''; (c) by omitting from the definition of ''service for pension'' in sub-section ( 1) 'Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948-1971' and substituting 'previous Act'; and (d) by omitting sub-section (6) and substituting the following sub-section: '(6) In the application of this section to a person who was, on 30 September 1972, a non-Permanent Forces officer as defined by section 54A of the previous Act, the retiring age for the rank held shall be the age that would be deemed, for the purposes referred to in sub-section 54A (2) of that Act, to be the retiring age for the rank held by the person on his retirement if he had retired on 30 September 1972.'.''. (1) Clause 35, page 18, line 34, omit ''Subject to the regulations, a chief of staff'', insert ''A chief of staff''. (2) Clause 36, page 19, line 10, omit ''Subject to the regulations, a chief of staff'', insert ''A chief of staff''. (3) Clause 36, page 19, before proposed section 68B, insert the following section: Disallowance, &c., of rules relating to certain punishments '' '68AA. Sections 48, 49 and 50 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 apply in relation to rules made under sub-section 68 (2) or 68A (2) of this Act as if references in those sections of that Act to regulations were references to rules made under those sub-sections.''. The amendments which I have moved deal with the no-detriment provisions of the existing Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act and can relate to anomalies and matters where interpretation of the Act as originally drafted has not been as intended. These amendments correct those anomalies and I think the House will agree to them. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(12.41) —The Opposition does not object to the amendments that have been moved. I comment, however, that they are extraordinarily technical. Having looked at them and having heard the argument placed on them, we accept that the intention is as alleged. The difficulty in relation to the amendments is the degree to which they tend to make the understanding of the legislation almost impossible for a non-lawyer and even for a lawyer a look at the amendments without referring to the principal Act and taking into account the nuances of interpretation put upon them makes their application for the average individual very difficult. But the Opposition does not oppose the amendments moved by the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) and therefore will not take action against them. I shall make a couple of comments at this stage, before moving my amendment, with regard to a number of other aspects of the Bill. They are not subject to the amendments, but it might be appropriate if I deal with them. The first concerns proposed new section 58G on page 7 of the Bill. I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that under sub-section (2), the members of the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal are to include a person who has been a member of the Defence Force. But under sub-section (5), a person shall not be appointed if he has at any time during the five years preceding his appointment been a member. I suggest to the Minister that there is no reason for excluding somebody who has been a member of the Force during that five-year period. I can see no reason for that five-year requirement, and would have suggested to him that it might have been better to require only that the person was a former member of the Defence Force. Proposed new section 58H on page 8 of the Bill concerns the functions and powers of the Tribunal. I noticed in sub-section (4) the exclusion of matters that are before the Minister. The Opposition does not do other than comment on that. I think it is important to recognise that if matters are before the Minister, they can be excluded from consideration by the Tribunal unless the Minister so requests. I think that is a wise protection. With regard to proposed new section 58T on page 13 of the amending Bill, as I mentioned during my speech in the second reading debate, I think there is some difficulty in the Advocate's conflict of interests. He, of course, must advise the Chief of the Defence Force , but he also has to prepare submissions on behalf of the Defence Force. To the extent that the CDF is the employer in a nominal sense and the members of the Defence Force are the employees, there is some difficulty, I believe, in his representing both parties. It is true that by virtue of paragraph (c) he is to represent the Defence Force in proceedings before the Tribunal, which means that he is there representing the employees rather than the employer. But there are problems in the application of that section as it stands at the moment. The Opposition will be looking at the practice of the Advocate to ensure that no consequences flow from it. Finally, on page 17 of the Bill I was fascinated to see the significance of the amendment to clause 31, which inserts a hyphen in the middle of 'safe-keeping'. I trust that the officers of the Department, in all other areas of their responsibility, will be as assiduous in their attention to detail. Consideration interrupted. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., in accordance with sessional order 10A , I shall report progress. Progress reported. Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(12.45) —I want to point out to the House today the size and importance of the small and medium-size business sector in Australia. Small business is the big employer in this country. Small business is the backbone of Australia. I think the facts speak for themselves. There are some 750,000 enterprises or firms in Australia and 99 per cent of these 750,000 firms employ less than 100 people and 93 per cent employ less than 10 people; that is, some 700,000 firms out of 750,000 enterprises in Australia each employ less than 10 people. So, 61 per cent of the total private sector work force is in this small and medium business sector. When I talk about small business I am talking of retailers, wholesalers, manufacturers, the self-employed, and owner-managers. I am talking about the professions: Architects, engineers, lawyers, accountants, and advertising agents . I am talking about secondary and primary industry, the small farmers and those engaged in horticulture. I am talking about truckies and cab owners; and I am talking about sub-contractors, those very important people who play such a vital role in a free enterprise economy. The 'subbies' today above all are being squeezed by governments, by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), who is trying to interject, and by the union movement. The 'subbies ' are independent businesses, not employees. This Government and the union movement have them in a pincer movement. Australia's employment difficulties would be solved if every small business in Australia took on one extra employee. Small business has the opportunity of making a mighty hole in the unemployment problem in Australia. Between now and the year 2000 at least 80 per cent of new jobs, if they are to be created at all , will be created in the small and medium-size business sector. United States studies show that half of all job creation in the last decade was by businesses with not more than 20 employees. If we are to have job opportunities for the young in Australia today, they have to be in the small business sector. Let us look at what is happening in the corporate sector. The large corporate sector has lost its capacity to generate employment. Recent retrenchments by General Motors-Holden's I think prove this. Small business has to be the key to prosperity, growth and jobs, because they will not come from the larger sector. High technology is important, and the creation and exploitation of new ideas through the small firm are vital. But that is not where the jobs are going to be . They are going to be in the other small and medium-size businesses in Australia. The nature of the corporate sector is changing. Franchising I think shows how big business and small business are related to each other. Small firms are becoming more important to the large firm and large firms have to rely more on the entrepreneurial skills of small business. McDonald's is a case in point: A large company whose very existence is owed to many small business franchises and independent owners who operate most of its outlets. Another case in point: Yesterday there was an announcement that Carlton and United Breweries was going to offer to the tenants of hotels the opportunity to own companies and to operate them. That proves my point. The future of large companies is really going to rely on the health and prosperity of small business. Technology is working in favour of small business. If only we could create the proper climate for entrepreneurship in this country there would be the opportunity, with new and modern technology, to give small business an advantage, because small business is more flexible. The reducing cost of computers and word processors gives small business the opportunity to use the new technology to take on large business. Small business is neglected by governments, hated by trade unions and locked out of the political process. Not one aspect of the Budget recently introduced in this chamber is related to small business. The Budget hits the small wine producer particularly, an example of how small business is locked out of government thinking. Governments at all levels in this country have to create the climate and environment within which small business can grow and prosper. Australia is at the crossroads and small business is very much at the crossroads , because burden after burden and cost after cost are being placed on small business. Labour on-costs are crippling it. There has been a recent explosion in workers compensation premiums, which are becoming unbearable. Small business is being choked and throttled and obstacle after obstacle is being put in its way. Recently the job protection case decision was handed down by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission-a blow to the small and medium size business sector. It was a selfish claim for redundancy payments by unions supported by the Federal Labor Government and Australian Labor Party State governments. It means fewer jobs. Small business, the dominant source of employment in the economy, is hit hardest by this decision and will be deterred from taking on new employees. This decision hurts small business particularly. The retrospective financial burden placed by this decision on small business will bankrupt some businesses. It imposes enormous red tape on small businesses because they are forced to notify unions of important management decisions. Unions have been given enormous power by this decision. Small business must be encouraged by governments and not discouraged. There must be less regulation and red tape rather than more and lower rather than higher tax. There is in Australia today the stupidity of the double tax system. The Australian tax system is so structured that it operates to deter successful entrepreneurs from creating profit, wealth and jobs. Where a successful company fully distributes its profits by way of dividend and they are taxed at the full rate in the hands of the shareholders, there is a net tax paid, an overall tax burden on the company, individuals and shareholders, of over 78 per cent. That is just totally crazy. The Opposition has recognised this situation, because in our Industry and Commerce policy we have clearly stated that we shall institute a phased and equitable system for the removal of this crazy double taxation system. The accord we hear so much about has frozen out small business. It has completely locked out the political process in the country today. The only way to build a better Australia is to have a dynamic, prosperous and profitable small and medium-size business sector. The Opposition recognises this. We understand clearly that governments must create a climate, an environment, for small business to grow and prosper. That is the job and role of governments-not to get in the way of or interfere with small business. The coalition is serious about creating this climate and environment. We recently held a most successful national small business conference in Sydney, the first of its kind. All the small business groups in Australia were invited and attended, and leading speakers who understand the role and importance of small business spoke at it. The Opposition held the conference to hear the views of those concerned and to provide input into its policy, because we understand that small business is the job generator. If there are to be jobs, if there is to be growth, in this country, that will come about only through a healthy, dynamic and prosperous small business sector. Small business provides the breeding ground for new industries and the opportunity for existing industries to cope with change. Small business is the means of entry into business of new entrepreneurial talent and the basis for new companies to grow and challenge existing large firms. I have a picture of Australia as a nation of prosperous, dynamic and thriving small businesses. Small businesses are the key to the economy. Small business is the way to get Australia going. We need a small business revolution in this country. The coalition Opposition is very proud to be part of a small business revolution. The only way ahead for Australia is with a prosperous, dynamic, profitable and thriving small business sector. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(12.55) —Jacob Bronowski said of those who preach dogma that they take a very simple idea and shout it over and over again. We have just heard an example of that from the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton), because we see from a real analysis of economics and from talking to small business, which honourable members on this side do because they are still a bit bruised from the previous Government, that the reality is that small business is facing reduced inflation and economic growth of around 10 per cent this calendar year. The depreciation allowance, as announced in the Budget, has gone up from 2.5 per cent to 4 per cent. That will be quite an important initiative to enable small business to undertake investment and thereby recoup some of that investment. It will mean in effect that the allowance on investment will be recouped in 25 years under depreciational arrangements rather than in 40 years. Interest rates are down. It is interesting to note that, when the Opposition was in government, prime interest rates and rates for overdrafts of $ 100,000 or more were about 16.5 per cent. Small business these days is being asked to pay an interest rate of around 11.5 per cent. So I think small business people listening to this debate today would find it staggering that the Opposition is speaking at great length about the difficulties facing small business when already the interest rate on overdrafts of $100,000 or more has gone down 5 per cent since March 1983. We recognise that there is a problem facing small business with respect to workers compensation. We are taking some initiatives in that area. The only thing I could observe is that under the previous Government there were years of neglect in which there was no attempt whatsoever to introduce what we are aiming for-a single insurer, no-fault compensation scheme which will do something towards bringing down workers compensation costs. We recognise that. The other thing we recognise is the degree of inaction during the years in which the Opposition was in government. I am associated with the housing industry and I would argue that the housing industry consists largely of small business. I find it staggering to get an argument from the other side that somehow the housing industry is not profiting. It is doing very well. It is doing very well because of our initiatives in public housing and our first home owners scheme. If we look at the circumstance facing small business-the large changes in the economy, with inflation down, economic growth up, and interest rates down some 5 per cent-I believe we can see that small business is facing a very profitable climate. It is a climate in some contrast to that which preceded our taking office in March 1983. I had to take a minute or two to deal with that because I felt that we needed to correct the record. I know there are people listening to this debate who would recognise that there is a degree of accuracy in what I have said. I want to talk very briefly about the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation and to make three points about it. The Housing Loans Insurance Corporation exists to insure those lenders of money in housing where there are small degrees of equity by the borrower in the property. One of the initiatives I would like to see us take as a Government is to extend the charter of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation to insure the borrowers of money as well as the lenders of money. I know that there will be claims that the Housing Industry Association already has its own scheme. My retort to that is that the Housing Industry Association scheme is an admirable scheme which is heading in the right direction, but it really provides coverage only for the first two years for borrowers. We would like to see coverage for the first five years, during which time the equity in the property can be built up by the borrower. They are the most critical periods in the housing demands in anyone's life. If there is a change in circumstances due to sickness, unemployment or a reduction in income the person is facing a crisis with repayment of loans. The point I make is that I believe the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation should have its charter extended to try to provide coverage for borrowers with relatively low equity in their property; in other words, those who have had to borrow 80 per cent or more of the loan. We believe that it is a very important position. I suggest to this House that it take consideration of that, because under the previous Government there was an attempt to sell off the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation; in other words, to leave that insurance responsibility in those situations of low equity to the private market. We are not unhappy with the private market having the capacity to insure housing loans, but we also believe that government has a larger responsibility not only in providing funding for housing itself but also in providing particularly some insurance capacity, not only for lenders, who are already under the HLIC charter, but also for borrowers , so that in the event of a change in their economic circumstances they would be covered. I suppose that if it is good enough to provide insurance for groups such as farmers in the event of a change in their circumstances-and one does not deny that that is a good thing-it should also be good enough to provide insurance for those who are buying a house. It is true to say that the housing purchase is probably the most significant purchase for most Australians. I was interested that the former member for Moore talked recently about how housing distorted the economy. One of the problems, he said, was that if we put money into housing we do not put it into major investments. The trouble with the analysis was very simply that when we do borrow for housing we usually take out a life insurance policy or superannuation to cover our indebtedness, and I would make the observation that the largest lenders to the mining industry in Australia, of course, are institutional investors. In other words, the housing industry not only provides that mechanism for providing accommodation for people, probably the only major investment in their life, but also provides the gearing-up of money which thereby enables those people in the community who are not able to invest in equities in normal shares to fund in essence the institutions who then put money into mining. So I believe that we have to make sure that we have a strong commitment to housing. I conclude on this point arguing that the HLIC charter should be extended to cover borrowers as well as lenders. I wish to make a couple of other points on another industry which is concerning me at the moment, one that is going through some severe problems; that is, the professional football industry, or what I might call the amateur football industry. People would be aware that in fact at the moment there is a major problem with respect to disputes over football transfers and so on. The only ones who are benefiting from that incidentally are the lawyers who tend to do very well out of disputes; cases cost in the order of $100,000. The proposition I put to the Western Australian Football League and the Victorian Football League is that all of those disputes should be managed through the arbitration system, through the industrial commissions. Under section 29 (2) of the Western Australian Act there is a capacity to negotiate disputes involving contracts in that arena. It is a very sensible involvement in the arbitration system. The argument I put to professional football associations in Australia is that they begin to examine that as a way of dealing with the tranfers issue, because it keeps it out of the area of common law and out of that very costly involvement of the Supreme Courts or other courts and lawyers. I would like to recommend that we begin to examine that to get some rationality, because we are getting a large drain of funds from football at the moment. What we are really on about, I think, if we are heading down that track, is establishing a system of contracts which in a sense would be quasi awards for footballers. Along with that what we ought to be looking at is tax averaging, because unfortunately footballers may in fact be on an income of around $12,000 a year but the next thing they know they are on an income of $40,000 a year. For that short period they are paying very high marginal tax rates. We ought to be looking sincerely at enabling them to do what is done in the primary sector-to spread their earnings over a longer period. It would be a sensible way to proceed. There are two final matters to deal with on this question. I believe we need a trade practices case to establish the issue of zoning, because zoning in professional football is somewhat like an apprenticeship system. We need to secure the zoning system for the benefit and the health of the future of football. We also need to have a severe look at a national competition. The only concern I have about a national competition in Australia is that no one has bothered to ask the people who attend football every Saturday how they would like to have their team exported to another city and watch them only on television. I think football is typical of an industry that needs to say: 'Let us look at what the basic consumer wants'. I say to the VFL, the WAFL and all other associated bodies: 'Let us ask the consumers who come in their thousands every year what their view would be about a national competition'. To sum up, we have an obligation to the future of this industry. I believe we can do some sensible things with respect to football transfers, the establishment of better conditions for players such as tax averaging and a sensible national competition following a proper arrangement of zoning, which I believe the Trade Practices Commission should look at. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(1.05) —Madam Deputy Speaker, honourable members, my fellow Australians: Today I grieve for Australia-my country, our country. Australia is a nation with enormous potential. We are blessed with so much; yet I am saddened that with so much we are doing so little. We are a nation in second gear. Worse still, we are on the brink of disinheriting our destiny. In short, if we do not get our act together I believe we will be letting down our children, our children's children and future generations. Tragically the malaise of which I speak has greatly accelerated since the people of Australia made the political mistake of the century by electing the Hawke socialist Government to power just 17 months ago. Mr Braithwaite —The greatest natural disaster we have had. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member is quite correct. It was the political mistake of the century, and history will prove me right. Australia today, in 1984, is in greater danger than it was in 1975, under Whitlam. Heaven knows that in the dark years of 1972 to 1975 the Whitlam Government brought this country to the brink of bankruptcy and endangered, indeed wounded, the fabric of our society, the structure of our Federation, the strength of our institutions and, indeed, the traditional Australian way of life. This Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), this self- styled president of an Australian socialist republic, poses a greater threat to the future of this nation than even Mr Whitlam and his Government ever did. We have in office a Prime Minister who gained the leadership of his Party in a brutal fashion. We have in office a Prime Minister of Australia who conned his way to power on election promises which he knew, or ought to have known, he could not possibly honour. Mr Braithwaite —He stabbed Bill Hayden in the back. Mr HODGMAN —Correct. We have in office today a Prime Minister who quite blatantly seeks to rewrite history by misrepresenting the position as it was when he came to power and who repeatedly misrepresents the position as it is today. Do my fellow Australians recall those sterling words uttered at the Sydney Opera House last February by the honourable member for Wills as he pursued his grab for power: 'My Government will introduce immediate tax cuts for 99 per cent of Australians'? Dr Harry Edwards —And then went on to increase them. Mr HODGMAN —Correct. He said: 'My Government will not take money out of the pensioners' cheques. My Government will create 500,000 new jobs for Australians within three years'. How do these grand promises line up with the truth today? There were no immediate tax cuts for 99 per cent of Australians. That solemn promise was shamelessly dishonoured. Seventeen months later we see confidence trick tax cuts: We get a tax cut of a miserable $7.60 a week and the Hawke socialist Government will take off us an extra $8 a week in increased taxes in 1984-85. What sort of a tax cut is it when one is worse off on the 1984-85 tax scales alone and even before the Treasurer delivered his Budget on Tuesday night an average Australian worker was already paying an extra $22.41 a week-- Mr Braithwaite —How much was that? Mr HODGMAN —It was $22.41 a week extra in taxes under Prime Minister Hawke, the honourable member for Wills, than he or she paid under Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser. The so-called tax cuts are a con, a cruel confidence trick on decent working Australians. I turn to the promise to look after the pensioners of Australia. We all know, Madam Deputy Speaker, how close the pensioners of your electorate are to you. But what a shameful deception that promise was on the part of the Prime Minister. This ruthless socialist Government launched a vicious and continuing attack upon the senior citizens of Australia, the elderly , the pensioners, and the superannuants, from the moment it came to power. Mr Holding —Are you off again? Mr HODGMAN —Yes, and the Minister will be a pensioner before very long. The incomes test on the over-70-year-olds was promptly reintroduced. The superannuation tax slug was next in line. The promise to lift the pensioners' tax threshold went out of the window. Pension increases were reduced by the rigging of the consumer price index by the infamous Medicare fiddle whereby over $200m was snatched out of the hands of Australia's senior citizens. Last but not least, this cruel and heartless Government pushes on with the Hawke assets test, a wicked and shameful attack on those who have worked hard all of their lives and have made Australia what it is today. This arrogant and heartless socialist Government will not listen to reason. It will press on with the Hawke assets test, which is going to cost the people of Australia $30m this financial year. The figure could be much higher than that when we take into account the 1,500 inspectors who are going to turn Australia into a police state as far as our senior citizens are concerned. Let us look at the third promise-to create 500,000 new jobs for Australians. As recently as yesterday the Prime Minister claimed that his Government was on target in honouring this promise. What a misrepresentation that was. On what possible basis could the Prime Minister make that claim? On 2 May in this Parliament the Prime Minister claimed that since April 1983, in 12 months, his Government had created-and I emphasise the word 'created'-210,000 new jobs. What did the media have to say about this claim? The Australian Financial Review, in stark contrast to the Prime Minister's claim, said that the number of additional jobs created from February 1983 to February 1984 was only 101,900. I will repeat that figure: Only 101,900 jobs, less than half the number claimed by the Prime Minister to have been created between April 1983 and April 1984. Dr Harry Edwards —And even that was not due to the Hawke Government. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member for Berowra is quite right. Does the Prime Minister really expect this Parliament and the people of Australia to believe that his Government actually created 108,100 new jobs in just one month between February and April of this year? What absolute nonsense! Does the Prime Minister think that Australians are a bunch of fools and will accept anything at all just because he says it? No, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I have just proved, on the three fundamental promises upon which the Hawke socialist Government conned its way into power, this Government's credibility and the credibility of the Prime Minister are in tatters. They will never be trusted again and I believe, notwithstanding all the predictions of the so-called political experts and pundits, that the Hawke socialist Government will be defeated, will be thrown out of office, at the next Federal election, whenever it comes. I now turn to an area very close to my heart-Tasmania. Mr Holding —Ha! Mr HODGMAN —Yes, they are laughing; the Labor Party hates Tasmania. Tasmania, under the Hawke-Keating-Dolan Budget this week has received the worst treatment ever under any Federal Budget in living memory. I have been in Parliament, State and Federal, for the past 16 years and I have never before seen such disgraceful treatment of Tasmania under governments of either political persuasion as I have seen this week. Shame on the Hawke socialist Government for taking a stockwhip to Australia's smallest State. Shame on this big brother Government, 1984-style, for once again belting Tasmania around the ears. All Australians, whatever their political persuasions, will condemn it for its despicable action in slashing the Commonwealth capital works program for Tasmania to one-tenth-I repeat 'one-tenth '-of what it was in the last year of the Malcolm Fraser Government. In the financial year 1982-83 the Commonwealth capital works program for Tasmania under Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser was $35.7m. In 1984-85 under the Hawke socialist Government the Commonwealth capital works program for new projects in Tasmania is a miserable $3,050,000. Dr Harry Edwards —Less than 10 per cent. Mr HODGMAN —Less than 10 per cent. It is shameful. There is no new major Commonwealth capital works project for our State. As a result of this despicable treatment of Tasmania by the Hawke socialist Government our building industry will be thrown into chaos; and hundreds of decent Tasmanian workers in the building industry will lose their jobs, thanks to the Prime Minister. Dr Harry Edwards —He doesn't care at all. Mr HODGMAN —He does not care at all. This is, of course, on top of the thousands of Tasmanians who lost their jobs or failed to gain employment as the result of the actions of the Hawke socialist Government against the State of Tasmania last year which, as we all know, finished up in the High Court of Australia. There, tragically for Tasmania and for our Federal system of government, the decision went against our State by the narrowest possible margin. It is a cruel deception for Australian Labor Party sycophants both in Tasmania and Canberra to claim that Tasmania has done well in this rotten Budget. Those who support the Hawke socialist Government and its cruel actions against the people of Tasmania will surely be remembered by the electors of Tasmania when they go to the ballot boxes in a few months time. Shame on them! They will pay the supreme penalty for letting down their State in its hour of need. The Hawke socialist Government will not win a single House of Representatives seat in Tasmania after this outrage and the ALP will be scratching to win even two of the seven Senate seats which will be decided when the election is held. Tasmania-and Tasmanians-will never forget and never forgive this rotten Prime Minister and his rotten Government. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(1.15) —I wish to draw the attention of the Parliament and the people of Australia to the need for sweeping initiatives to be taken by employers to limit the escalating incidence of repetitive strain injuries in the work force. This injury, if its development remains unchecked in the work place, will have the effect of continuing to reduce thousands of Australian men and women to a state of potentially incurable suffering and to cost Australian employers and insurance companies in both the public and private sectors millions of dollars in wasted workers compensation premiums and payments. An award of $180,000 has already been made in the State of New South Wales in a common law negligence action in respect of a victim of repetitive strain injury. There is an appalling lack of awareness about repetitive strain injury and action which must be taken to avoid its crippling onslaught. Repetitive strain injury is the name used to describe injuries which are sustained by muscles and tendons involved in repetitive work. The most common repetitive strain injury is tenosynovitis which refers to inflammation of tendons and the tendon sheath in the wrist and hand, but there are numerous other injuries which also give rise to prolonged great pain and consequent loss of working capacity. The occupations which are considered to be at greatest risk of contracting repetitive strain injuries are process workers, including workers in packaging, manufacture and assembly; cleaners, because of their use of heavy polishing machines; and clerical workers, especially keyboard operators. Because of their preponderance in the work force in these areas women, particularly migrant women , have a high incidence of repetitive strain injury. I urge all honourable members to consider the plight of workers who have contracted this repetitive strain injury. Migrant women in particular suffer because of lack of power, no money, no status, and an inadequate knowledge of English. However, all workers suffer from a lack of status and power. There is virtually negligible power for workers to have a meaningful say, let alone control their system of work. Power under the present system lies with the employer, and employers are regrettably appallingly ignorant of the issues involved in devising a safe system of work to prevent the onslaught of repetitive strain injuries. Regrettably in the past the majority of the trade union movement has also done too little to take up on a broad scale the need to change systems of work to make them safe in this area. The medical profession has much to answer for in relation to its failure to diagnose repetitive strain injuries. For too long many doctors have dismissed out of hand the claims by workers who are suffering from these injuries. Serious repetitive strain injuries have been dismissed by some doctors as rheumatism, or seriously injured workers have been described as malingerers. However, I am pleased to say that the tide is turning as workers become increasingly conscious of the need to assert control of their work environment and to avoid repetitive strain injuries. The trade union movement is taking up a new position of vigilance in relation to the matter. Both employers and employees have a vested interest in devising safe systems of work because it is only by this means that repetitive strain injuries, with their consequent tragic effects on the health of employees and consequent financial loss to employers, can be avoided. There is considerable evidence that in the past employers have been penny wise but pound foolish in their failure to provide safe systems of work. There are dozens of provable examples of this failure, but one example affects employees in the media industry. The working conditions of many Australian journalists employed by major Australian newspapers and other media organisations lag far behind the adoption of accepted practices which will prevent the occurrence of repetitive strain injury. In Mr Murdoch's News Limited office in Sydney, for example, there are already 30 reported cases of Australian Journalist Association members suffering from repetitive strain injury. The figures for the advertising and account sections are unknown. The AJA has been concerned that new technology has been introduced in a haphazard way and that management has not yet met its obligations to employees to protect their occupational health. In the Fairfax organisation the incidence of repetitive strain injury is not yet as great, but that organisation has not been using video display terminals for as long. Since the introduction of this new technology the incidence of repetitive strain injury within the Fairfax organisation is dramatically increasing. The reality is that unless practices change within that industry many media workers are, in my view, statistically doomed to become victims of repetitive strain injury. I must stress that the best available medical evidence suggests that the only cure for repetitive strain injury is complete rest, and only then if the problem is located early. However, repetitive strain injury can be avoided by employers and employees co-operating to adopt some or all of the following practices as required: Job rotation between jobs; frequent rest breaks-for example, five to 10 minutes every hour may be helpful, or perhaps one or two minutes every 35 minutes; the adoption of up-to-date equipment, including ergonomically correct tools, benches and seats; a slower pace of work; periods of acclimatisation at slower rates-for example, after return from holidays; the education process at work whereby management and staff are alerted to the problem; early reporting of symptoms; medical surveillance of possible victims; and rehabilitation of sufferers. In this context I must pay tribute to the Amalgamated Metals, Foundry and Shipwrights Union which has advocated these initiatives and which has taken further important initiatives by appointing an occupational health and safety officer and publishing material for the information of workers and the community on the subject of occupational health and safety. That union is thankfully not the only union which is taking up the issue. There is, as I have already indicated, a growing awareness among union leadership and rank and file unionists of the need to take sweeping action to prevent the onslaught of this crippling injury in the work place. This trade union and worker concern must now be reflected by matching concern and action employers and employer organisations. Should this concern and consequent remedial action to make the work place safe not be forthcoming, the consequence will be that thousands of workers will be consigned to a life of pain and exclusion from the work force, with consequent loss of national productivity and skyrocketing workers compensation claims. It is to be hoped that the Hawke Government's allocation of $12.1m for the establishment of a national occupational health and safety commission will lead to national leadership being taken to protect workers from the incidence of repetitive strain injury and other occupational health and safety hazards. The Australian Public Service Board is to be commended for its initiative last week in circulating a memo to all departments and statutory authorities outlining procedures for the prevention, recognition and management of repetitive strain injuries. This is a lead which the private sector and State authorities would be well to follow. However, I conclude with this important message: The best protection for Australian workers against the occurrence of repetitive strain injury is for their own action to occur within the work place and for their trade unions to defend their fundamental right to a safe and healthy working environment. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(1.24) —I know that as I raise my grievance today I will be criticised and even condemned as one of those conservatives and out-of-touch traditionalists, but I am prepared to take that risk. It is prompted by a notice of motion which was given on Tuesday in this House by the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) and which I seconded. It reads: That this House- (1) deplores the action of the ABC Board in granting spouse entitlements in respect of homosexual partners of ABC staff; (2) asserts that such action is not consistent with provisions of the sex discrimination legislation, and (3) resolves that the ABC within its charter to inform and entertain, does not possess the authority or propriety to concern itself with sexual preferences or sexual aberrations. This was followed by a petition addressed to my Mackay office by certain concerned constituents. I want to read this: Dear Mr Braithwaite, With regard to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's granting of entitlements for homosexual employees, we, the undersigned concerned Christians, strongly condemn this action and unreservedly oppose it and wholeheartedly endorse the criticism of the ABC's approval of 'domestic' concessions for homosexual employees and their 'partners'. We stress out total opposition to this outrage on the part of the ABC. We deplore the unchristian, unnatural and unwholesome attitude of homosexuals and to have it endorsed by the ABC is unacceptable. That the ABC intend to treat homosexual 'partners' in the same way as husbands and wives . . . is not only degrading, it undermines the basic structure of family life in our society. It is outside the bounds of decency and morality-why has the ABC been permitted to abandon proper principles by rejecting the very law of nature? We will not allow our Christian and moral standards to be so eroded and we call on you as our properly elected representative of the people to act on behalf of our fellow Christians and do all that is necessary to have the Federal Government intervene and overthrow the ABC's ruling on 'granting of entitlements to homosexuals'. As a secondary issue we are taxpayers whose money is supporting the functions of the ABC and we find this doubly unacceptable. On the same matter a public comment was made in the Australian of 8 August by Dean Shilton, when he said that Australians who value the sanctity of marriage: . . . will deplore the absurd action by the ABC to use federal funding at taxpayers' expense to provide staff entitlements to homosexual partners as well as the present objectionable provision for de facto heterosexual partners. Those three items did not address the other matter which I wish to refer to-an action of this Government which earlier this year allowed de factos or homosexuals to travel overseas on members' and senators' entitlements. This in itself was observed again by Dean Shilton in this form: At a time when serious efforts are being made to preserve the family as a basic unit of healthy society, it would be entirely irresponsible for members of Parliament to flout overseas, at the taxpayers' expense, an immoral way of life rejected by the majority of Australians. He described the whole situation as a 'perk for permissiveness'. In the face of all of this we had the final episode in this whole sorry affair when the Government in its Budget of only last Tuesday night allowed de factos to be entitled to the dependent spouse rebate. As one of my colleagues observed at the time: 'Why marry?' Indeed, why marry when our system is so very ready to accommodate and to give its acceptance to any acknowledged domestic arrangement at the expense of traditional marriages and family units? To take it a step further, our Family Law Act-should it be the marriage breakdown Act-also deliberately or coincidentally has the influence to tear away those marriages already established. It is an indictment of our Australian society that one- third of marriages entered into today will end in divorce. The actions of this Government in recognising de factos in travel arrangements and now in spouse allowances and the ABC are either deliberately designed to reduce the number of normal marriage commitments and arrangements or are the result of decision makers bending before the pressure of minority interests. I believe they are minority interests, for we have seen petitions against abortion on demand, hard core pornography and a lot of other immoral aspects, which indicates to me a strong resentment from a normally silent majority against this concerted attack on our established family traditions. There is a feeling of outrage against the ABC's decision, and I understand that within the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs a similar condition applies with regard to overseas postings. One has to ask: Who are the people making these decisions and why are these decisions being made? The ABC Board, in its decision, has set itself above the society that supports it through its taxation commitments. It is allowed the freedom to make decisions which neither the Minister nor the Government apparently wish to veto. In fact in its agreement on members' and senators' entitlements and the Public Service attitude within government departments, has the Government or have we, the Parliament, set our own precedent? There is power for the Parliament to set aside our salary increases, but apparently there is none on such an entitlement as has now been given. The decent people of Australia must in all honesty wonder what powers we have and what traditions we are willing to subvert by silently standing aside in this matter. We are judged as guilty by our silence as we would be by our active support of the measures proposed. The Board argues that it is a recommendation of the equal opportunity officer set up as a result of the Sex Discrimination Act. What a nonsense it is to suggest that the decision was a result of the Sex Discrimination Act. What other ridiculous decisions are going to be made incorrectly and inappropriately under the threat of this Act? There is even legal argument as to how the ABC decision will be affected in States such as Queensland and Western Australia where homosexuality is still illegal. Does the ABC intend to decriminalise homosexuality in those States by its action? The public-not the ABC-require an equal opportunity officer so that taxpayers and those employed in private industry are given equal opportunity with the ABC staff. As taxpayers, should they not be as entitled as ABC staff to job security, superannuation, conditions of employment and other perks? There is a tremendous resentment building up in society against this decision. In one fell swoop the ABC has changed its name from the respectable Aunty to the GayBC. Let us look again at the entitlement of those in de facto arrangements to the spouse rebate. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) might care to indicate to this House the additional cost to revenue of this measure and compare that additional cost with the extent the legitimate spouse rebate may have been increased to provide some additional revenue for traditional one-income families. It is not the role of government to lead in these circumstances. It should try to provide a better financial redistribution to ensure that families stay together and are not torn apart. The ABC, with its obsession to change and to fund these staff aberrations , should look at its own charter. On the one hand, it finds money to pursue unchartered goals. But it can find no funds to improve the strength of its Mackay radio translator, for instance, which is of 1949 vintage, it cannot provide FM radio to all Australians, and it cannot maintain regional television from Townsville and Rockhampton-all matters that are properly within its charter . The gays of Australia claim that they should not be second-class citizens. No one would dispute that. But there might be a matter of choice in this regard. What we do not want is for the family to become a second-class or irrelevant unit in our society. In calling on the Government to reject the Remuneration Tribunal's recommendations, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) made a very telling point in defence of the family when he said: The overwhelming majority of Australians continue to regard the institution of marriage as pivotal in society and the Government should reject the Remuneration Tribunal's recommendation. Frequent references to the importance of the family are meaningless unless governments, unless parliaments-- that is us-- are willing to show a bias towards orthodox family arrangements. It is little wonder that the Director of the Australian Institute of Family Studies, Dr Don Edgar, said as recently as this morning in a seminar that young people are losing confidence in marriage and lasting relationships and prefer to remain single. He added that teenagers face uncertainty and doubt in three key areas of their lives: Personal relationships, education and employment. Why should these people not be confused when Parliament and its authorities are expected to set an example? The manner in which we as a parliament have brought forward laws in respect of marriage dissolution, sex discrimination, affirmative action, homosexual relationships and tax laws, and our refusal to act to prevent abortion and the distribution of hard core pornography in the Australian Capital Territory, would confuse any person who was born into a Christian family and believed in traditional values. We, the members of the Parliament, the Commissioners of the ABC and the Public Service Board are not setting the example. We are mistaking the signs presented to us by the noisy minority. We fear the consequences of being out of touch with that minority and of being outspoken more than we fear taking action from our inner convictions. Mr WELLS(Petrie)(1.34) —One of the many pleasant surprises of Tuesday's Budget was the announcement that parent and citizens groups and parent and friends groups would no longer have to pay the bank account debit tax. This tax was introduced by the previous Government as a revenue raising measure but it operated as a source of intense irritation to voluntary groups trying to provide for their children's education. I have made more representations on this subject than any other and the fact that those representations were responded to by the exemption of parents and citizens groups and parents and friends groups from the tax is a source of great satisfaction. School parents and citizens groups in my electorate of Petrie however have greater problems than niggling little taxes. The subject I wish to raise in the House today concerns the State Government's use of Federal funds in primary education in my electorate. The problem which has been fermenting for several years recently surfaced when many parent groups independently came to the conclusion that they could not manage to continue raising the funds needed to help keep primary schools in Queensland afloat. I have been approached by schools in my electorate of Petrie which tell me that they are required to pay for school supplies of classroom teaching aids, art equipment, library books and even soap, paper towels and, for goodness sake, toilet paper for the children. The nature of education has changed. Children now do not always work from textbooks but read from many sources which have to be photocopied to provide each child with essential material. No doubt this is a great advance in education but it also leads to vast amounts of photocopying. Parent groups in Queensland supply the paper for the photocopier and, indeed, one parent group told me that it had even bought the photocopier for its school. Another aspect of the funding problem involves ground maintenance. Many Queensland schools-including many of the State primary schools in my electorate- are fortunate to have large grounds. This would be a great advantage except for the fact that the parent group, not the State Government, bears the major burden of ground maintenance. Parent and citizens groups, or P and Cs as they are called in Queensland, pay for the petrol to run the school's mower or tractor and apart from a few select models of new machinery, which attract a State government subsidy, they are responsible for the purchase price. Another surprising policy of the State Government with respect to ground maintenance is that the employment of a janitor to manage the grounds is not dependent upon the size of the grounds or the difficulty of their maintenance but, instead, is decided on the basis of pupil numbers. I recently visited a small school with large grounds where a small group of parents are struggling to keep even the area closest to the school in decent condition. Some honourable members opposite may think that this is a minor problem, but those familiar with Queensland growing conditions, in which grass can grow inches in a week in the hot months, would appreciate that ground maintenance can be a major problem. Of course, the State Government does provide some funds for educational requirements. Each school receives an allowance for educational costs but any further expenditure above that must be funded from elsewhere. One school estimated that the State Government only provided this: Half a paintbrush per child per year, leaving nothing for paint or paper, less than one library book per child per year, one sheet of paper per child per week, one service for equipment every 10 years, one bus trip per child per year and nine stamps per week, plus minor contributions to the maintenance of the swimming pool and tennis courts. Such provision is clearly inadequate for a basic education, which means that parents have continually to seek out ways of raising funds to subsidise the school's operation. Apart from raffles and fetes, many schools also run contribution schemes under which each family is asked to contribute a certain amount to the school's operation. This leads me to the next point. P and Cs estimate that only 20 per cent of parents are willing and able to be actively involved in P and Cs. There is a myth that primary education is free. This is rubbish in Queensland. Most schools require a lot more money than the government subsidies provide and the balance is made up by a relatively small band of parents in each school who work extremely hard to keep this supposedly free education system afloat financially. I am aware of one school in Queensland-and this is incredible-for which the parents provide twice as much money as the State Government, excluding staff and salaries, of course. Honourable members may wonder why the parents put up with this. When we think about it, they do not have a choice because if they stop providing funds children will stop getting an education. The State Government has them over a barrel. At a State-wide P and C conference earlier this year there was a unanimous decision to cease providing funds for essential items but, of course, I do not believe this has been carried out, for obvious reasons. Honourable members opposite might argue that schools all over Australia have parent support groups which support school operations and, after all, education can become a bottomless pit which always needs more funds. There are, however, aspects of the Queensland situation which set it apart from other State education systems. Perhaps the point which upsets P and Cs most is the expectation that they will provide for essential school items. The definition of 'essential' is debatable, but I do not think anyone would disagree that toilet paper, art materials and paper are essential for a school's operation. Parent groups do not so much mind raising money for special projects such as the installation of a swimming pool, which many P and Cs have done due to the high risk factor in Queensland for children who cannot swim. P and Cs however do resent constant funding which disappears into recurrent maintenance items which are essential to the school's operation and which should properly be the State Government's responsibility. I have discussed the situation with school people in other States who are astonished to hear the demands placed on parents in Queensland. Another point which sets Queensland apart from other States is the low priority the State Government accords to education in its budget. Of course the Queensland Government would never say that it considers education to be a low priority, but no other conclusion can be drawn from the facts. Back in 1977-78, the Queensland Government spent more per student in government primary schools than the average expenditure per student across the six States. In addition, excluding Federal Government funds, back then Queensland spent 42 per cent of its State budget on education. On both accounts in those days Queensland compared well with the other States. Since that time the situation has deteriorated considerably. Australian Bureau of Statistics figures indicate that by 1981-82 not only was Queensland spending significantly less on each primary student than the six States average but also education as a percentage of the State Government budget had slipped to 31.8 per cent, which was the lowest of the six States. Queensland State budget papers for 1983-84 indicate the percentage has dropped dramatically even further to 21.8 per cent, half of what it was seven years ago. In other words, since 1977-78 when Queensland spent 42 per cent of its budget on education, this percentage has dropped to 21 per cent, the lowest in the Commonwealth. In assigning education a low priority, Queensland is badly out of step with the other States. While my concern has been with dozens of P and Cs in my own electorate of Petrie, the seriousness of the situation is emphasised by the fact that concern has been expressed by parent groups from all over Queensland. The issue has appeared in the Press repeatedly in recent months. To put the matter simply: The Queensland Government does not appear to believe that the initial training of our young people in their preparation for life is a high priority. Apparently the purchase of private jets for the personal use of State Ministers is a higher priority with the Queensland Government than the education of Queensland's children. I cannot see how that can be justified. Personally I believe that the children have the right to an education which not only covers reading, writing and arithmetic, but also provides a decent grounding in physical education, social skills and leisure activities which are proving to be so essential and important to the physical and mental health of Australians. But in Queensland we are still fighting for the basic facilities, which brings me to the final point. A Federal system of government assumes that State governments will adequately meet their basic obligations. In 1981-82, approximately half of the Queensland Government's total outlays were provided by the Commonwealth Government out of funds from Australian taxpayers. In my view, each State should be required to meet some minimum standards of service before Federal funds are allocated. If State governments cannot be trusted to make responsible allocations of Federal funds when these are granted as untied funding this Parliament should increase the proportion of tied grants to the State in question and go on increasing them until we learn somehow to keep them honest. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(1.43) —I am forced to rise in this grievance debate because of the foolishness of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on Budget night and because of the support given to my point of view by the Labor Premier of South Australia and the Acting Premier of Western Australia. I take this opportunity to quote from a telex what the Labor Premier of South Australia said. Premier John Bannon said he was disappointed and fairly bitter. Honourable members might ask about what. He was disappointed and fairly bitter about just the same thing as the honourable member for Wakefield and the Acting Premier Mal Bryce in Western Australia are disappointed and fairly bitter about. I refer to the shortsighted decision of this Government to hit the industry that so directly affects South Australia and so directly affects the electorate of Wakefield-the wine industry-with a 10 per cent sales tax. The Acting Premier of Western Australia Mal Bryce said that the Federal Government had already made one decision on the industry without the full knowledge of its potential effects and was in danger, real danger, of repeating the mistake. Mr Deputy Speaker, why, I ask you, do I have to stand so frequently in this House to defend the wine grape growers of Wakefield? Why, from this Government, do we have this passionate attack on South Australians? Why is there this obsession with the grape industry and this continual comparison between the brewing industry and the grape industry? The honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) has already made the strong point that what this nation needs is more small business, and the wine grape industry can be clearly differentiated from the brewing industry in that it is made up of a myriad of small businesses. If that decision in itself were not bad enough insult has been added to the injury when we remember that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), this man of integrity, this man of consensus, pledged in Griffith in 1983 that there would be no tax, no sales tax, on the Australian wine industry. That promise has been broken not once but twice. It was broken in last year's Budget and again in this year's Budget. Now whom, Mr Deputy Speaker, is this attack aimed at? Mr Braithwaite —It is aimed at the Aussie battler. Mr ANDREW —Contrary to popular opinion, it is not aimed at the multinationals, it is not aimed at the wine conglomerates, it does not directly affect those manufacturers of wine who are in the large, bulk, cask market. It is a unique attack, as the honourable member for Dawson rightly says, on the Aussie battler, an attack on the boutique wine makers of Australia, on those who, in selected corners of the Barossa Valley, the Clare Valley, the Hunter Valley, the Margaret River area of Western Australia and the Yarra Valley or Rutherglen areas of Victoria are making, manufacturing and selling exclusively Australian wines. It is an attack on the Aussie battler, an attack on wine grape growers, an attack on those people whom the Bureau of Agricultural Economics says are currently earning less than $150 a week. That fact ought to sit very uncomfortably on the shoulders of a Labor Government. The truth is that this Government knows nothing of what these people go through. It knows nothing of the integrated industries that make up the horticultural and viticultural areas of Australia. It knows nothing of the fact that every tonne of dual purpose grapes that does not find its way into the wine industry puts pressure on the dried fruit industry, already itself subject to an Industries Assistance Commission inquiry. This tax follows the 2J spirit tax, that ill-advised tax that was applied in the last Budget, and then, thanks to pressure from the Opposition, pressure from the industry and, I am pleased to say, pressure from Premiers Bannon and Burke, taken off. What does the Treasurer say to us in the Budget? He says: 'Well, gentlemen, well, winemakers, before I hit you with this 10 per cent I will in fact relieve you of the 2J spirit tax and refund, if you please, the money I have collected'. But what is he refunding? He is refunding a mere $6m and planning to collect out of the industry $62m. There is no justice in it at all. Not only had he taken the $6m but he had taken it inequitably. All he has done is to make a refund which is equitable and extract $62m. Now this tax, which is supposed to be palatable to the wine grape growing industry, is to be made sweet by the offer of an inquiry. Did anyone ever witness as cynical a move as a Treasurer who says: 'I will hold an inquiry into the industry after I have taxed it'? Do honourable members know that my industry , my wine grape industry, in the last decade has been subject to no less than 14 inquiries. It would take a truckload of paper to cover the inquiries into the industry. The industry does not want words or rhetoric, it wants action; it wants an assurance that the Government will offer some predictability. The last thing it needs is a tax. Fourteen inquiries show the industry is in trouble. The offer of another one is nothing short of cynical. Mr Deputy Speaker, in the time available to me it is not only the tax I want to attack. It is an even more sinister threat lying in the change to Customs duty that will provide the opportunity for people to import additional quantities of imported wine. Now what did the Treasurer introducing this tax have to say? He said that this reduction in protection is not expected to result in any significant increase in wine imports. So what? If there were no significant increase in wine imports nothing credible would be achieved at all. Wine imports are already a major threat to this industry. Are honourable members aware of the fact that on 3 July on Nationwide the major winemakers spoke about just what wine imports are doing to their industries? Do you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that in the last year imported wine from France has gone from 739,000 litres to 1.3 million litres. Mr Fisher —The socialists have very exclusive tastes. Mr ANDREW —Yes, very exclusive tastes. The value has risen from $3.25m to over $ 5m. This industry does not need change in its import status; it needs some protection from the very real threat of imported wines. The Treasurer has gone through a review of Customs duty and sales tax but he has done nothing to protect this vital Australian industry, this essential South Australian industry , from a further attack. Thousands of jobs are at risk in the wine industry as a result of this sales tax measure. Let us not have the Treasurer wax eloquent in this House about what he or his Government is claiming to do for unemployment. Thousands of jobs are at risk. What does my industry seek? It seeks from Government a measure of predictability. Primary Industry Minister Kerin may well have gone into Cabinet to defend the industry but the truth of the matter is that he went in batting for it and he was clean-bowled. The wine industry in Australia could not afford the 2J spirit tax. It cannot afford this 10 per cent sales tax. It cannot afford the unemployment that will inevitably result. It cannot afford, quite frankly, the Hawke Labor Government. Mr STEEDMAN(Casey)(1.52) —My grievance today refers to the problems of youth housing and accommodation. Much was made in the newspapers the other day of the young people who protested in King's Hall over the Budget allocation for public housing. They were, of course, represented by the media as some sort of noisy freaks lurking on the fringes of our society. But they were more than that. They were our children, they were our future, they were people who had the same rights as we do but who, unfortunately, are often overlooked: Overlooked, forgotten and ignored. But why? Because they have no economic or political power ; they have no consumer clout; they are not easily organised into a cohesive political force and, besides, many of them are too young to vote. It is an obsolete notion that the homeless in our society are an insignificant proportion stereotyped as dirty old men in gabardine costs with metho bottles in one hand and cigarette butts retrieved from the gutter in the other. A recent Age article puts the lie to this convenient labelling by publishing a report by a Melbourne welfare agency, the Hanover Welfare Services Centre, which asserted, amongst other things, that about 4,000 people sleep outdoors or in shelters for the homeless in the inner suburbs each night, that about 1,000 of these people have no shelter at all and that another 6,000 people living in the inner suburbs , mostly in single rooms, also rely heavily on services for homeless people. The age distribution of homeless people is similar to the general population up to the age of 55. Beyond that it drops off. It appears that the lifestyle is not conducive to longevity, the report says. The naive amongst us might think that exposing significant numbers of our young people to a lifestyle not conducive to longevity might be considered a crime against humanity. That is wrong; it is homelessness that is a crime against the state with the victims of our inequitable society being the scapegoats yet again. Perhaps we should compel these people to be stamped with a warning: 'Homelessness is a health hazard'. Of course, it is another myth that homelessness is confined to the inner suburbs. As the House is aware, I represent Casey, an outer eastern electorate of Melbourne. The electorate suffered high casualties as the recession spread because of the disastrous policies of the Fraser Government. With the spreading of general unemployment came the high youth unemployment and increasing homelessness amongst these youth. I would like to draw attention to a document published in April this year called 'No Fixed Address' and subtitled 'An investigation into factors contributing to youth homelessness in the outer east region of Melbourne'. It is a report by the School of Environmental Planning at Melbourne University to the group which commissioned it, the outer east youth needs group. Data for the investigation came from information collected when the young people made their first request for emergency accommodation, and it is a grim, bleak picture that emerges. One thousand six hundred and twenty seven requests were made for emergency accommodation in the outer east between May 1980 and March 1983. Most of these requests were from those in their mid-adolescence, from 16 and 17, but 10 came from children aged under 12. A significant proportion, 18 per cent, were from people aged 20 or over. This is a group for which most emergency accommodation services in the region do not cater but, then, only a handful of the places were available for any age group. It is a drop in the ocean of misery and desperation. Of those accommodated, 14 per cent were still at school. However, most, over 60 per cent, were unemployed and were thus relying on government assistance, although some had no financial support at all. Support by friends or parents was negligible. Fifteen per cent report sleeping through the rough night before requesting emergency accommodation. Two-thirds of these young people required long term accommodation; that is, over six months. Mr Goodluck —Their parents should be looking after them. Mr STEEDMAN —Only one-fifth required short term accommodation. A common criticism of the emergency accommodation by these young people was the lack of long term accommodation: The endless search for accommodation, the endless succession of transitory, often one night, stands at friends' flats takes its toll mentally as well as physically. Amidst the disastrous accommodation merry- go-round these young people find themselves on, they hanker for the stability and security of a roof over their heads. As the researchers say, what did come through in interview was that the people did want to settle down, did want to have comfortable, stable accommodation. A number of subjects interviewed expressed home and family as long term goals. Unfortunately, an increasing number are realising that while their desires are normal they are unlikely to be able to attain them. In the meantime they are faced by an endless round of musical beds. So much for the Australian dream of home sweet home, which is nothing but an elusive mirage for many of our young people. The stock answer, of course, from many of the unfeeling segments of society, such as reflected a moment ago by way of interjection, is: 'Why do they not go home?' It is a good question and it deserves investigation. We must accept that most young people will eventually leave home anyway. Growing independence is supported, in theory at least, by our society. Secondly, not all homes are worth returning to. In the words of the researchers, notions of returning young people to the parental home assumes that a parental home exists, and that the parents are sane and safe to be with. The experience of many of those who participate in this study suggest such is often not the case. When it comes to parenthood many are called, but there are quite a few who should never have been chosen. Certainly once out of the parental fold, for whatever reason, any young person forced to exist on any form of government benefit will experience intermittent and chronic housing problems. Severe shortage of rental housing in the outer east means that competition is fierce for this scarce resource and consequently rents are high. Moreover, the initial costs in taking over a house are frequently beyond the slender financial resources of these young people. I refer to bond money, advance rent, fees for the connection of essential services, let alone the money to buy a refrigerator, table, chairs and beds, and other household items. Even if these young people can miraculously muster the money necessary to set themselves up they must still negotiate the adult world, competing with married couples and families for a scarce, precious resource, a resource which should be available to all in an affluent society such as ours. For the average real estate agent and landlord, unemployed young people are seen, inevitably, as the least desirable occupants. Real estate agents are therefore rarely encouraging, and one of the difficulties for young people is actually finding out what is available. They are often cheated, given sub- standard housing and placated with promises of imminent improvements and repairs . Dealing with the public sector is hardly any easier for these young, inexperienced and often poorly educated people. A Pandora's box of fragmented services involving any one of the three levels of government faces them. Moreover, many of the emergency accommodation services are run by voluntary groups, sometimes funded by government, which often adds another layer of complexity to assist that which already smacks of adhockery. We expect our youngsters to cope with a situation which would defeat the powers of the most resourceful astute adults, were they obliged to operate within the same financial restraints. It is a Catch 22 situation. You need a fixed address to get and hold a job; you need a job to get and maintain a fixed address. As the researchers point out, one of the recurring characteristics of the homeless young people who participated in the study was their sense of frustration in not being able to improve the condition they were in. Occasionally this frustration explodes into senseless violence. Should this frustration and violence surprise us? I think not. It is inevitable that we will all pay a heavy price if we do not move quickly to remedy the situation. Our jails, mental institutions and hospitals are already paying the price of our inhumanity and shortsightedness. Mr Speaker, I call on the Government to reconsider its recent Budget appropriations relating to public housing and crisis accommodation and immediately reallocate funds to assist this needy section of our community. In this changing and complex society many are being left behind and we, as the Government, must face up to our responsibility or the youth of today will have no future in the Australia of tomorrow. Mr SPEAKER —It being almost 2 p.m. the debate is interrupted and I put the question: That grievances be noted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr PEACOCK —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I refer him to his statement yesterday that: 'We are paying in this Budget for the deficits of the coalition'. Assuming that table 2 on page 9 of Budget Paper No. 8 is correct, does it indicate that Commonwealth Government securities on issue will almost double to about $30 billion as a result of the Treasurer's two Budgets representing an annual rate of rise three times as high as the average under the coalition and double that of its last Budget? Will the total annual interest bill on these totally new borrowings by the Hawke Government to finance its own Budget deficits total about $1.7 billion? Will the Treasurer now concede that the great bulk of the rise of $2.2 billion, or 70 per cent in the public debt interest bill in his two Budgets, relates not to the previous Government but to his own Government's excessive spending program? Mr KEATING —No, I do not admit to that at all. The fact is, Mr Speaker, that you will notice that the Leader of the Opposition, in his predication of the question, talks about the Hawke Government's first two Budgets, but quite obviously the first Budget, in terms of the prospective Budget deficit for 1983- 84, involved the infamous $9.6 billion deficit-- Mr Donald Cameron —That is a lie! Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Moreton will withdraw. Mr Donald Cameron —I have to withdraw. Mr SPEAKER —I call the Treasurer. Mr KEATING —Mr Speaker, that was part of the infamous $9.6 billion deficit in prospect. Yesterday I mentioned the minute which I received from the Secretary to the Department of the Treasury who said that the fiscal deterioration in Australia was unparalleled in its post-Depression history and unparalleled in the Western world. We have been paying for the $9.6 billion deficit. This Government finally brought in the deficit at $7.9 billion. So if anything we diminished the impact of public debt interest on the public account by reigning in the disastrous fiscal inheritance left to us by the former Treasurer. I will mention the savings again; $1.2 billion of savings were exercised by this Government in 1983-84. The Leader of the Opposition now says he would mostly spend that again by rejecting all of the measures which we introduced to bring down the structural deficit. The $1.2 billion in savings on outlays and the $600m in tax expenditures, which makes $1.8 billion, came off the $9.6 billion. Then, of course, the growth in revenue under the policies of this Government brought the 1983 Budget deficit in at $7.9 billion. Of course, the public debt costs of that Budget are being borne by this Government. Indeed, to the extent that there is a Budget deficit in evidence at all in this Budget, it is because of the disastrous state of the Australian economy, in its worst recession since the Great Depression, that was presided over by the former Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong. He sat here for five years as Treasurer and watched the economy fall apart in front of his eyes. I do not think any Treasurer has sat here mute while the Australian economy has fallen to pieces in front of his eyes in the way the former Treasurer did between 1980 and 1983. The interest bill of the Commonwealth, apart from the capital inflow which this Government was forced to mop up last year-the 1.6 percentage points which I referred to yesterday as a deduction from outlays for public debt interest caused by the policies of the former Government-is a charge which is well founded and no amount of wriggling by the Leader of the Opposition will get him out of it. Mr Blanchard proceeding to address a question to the Minister for Health- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I am in some difficulty. The Standing Orders provide that names should not be used in a question except when it is asked on notice, unless they are necessary for the question to be intelligible. Is the honourable member asking a general question and illustrating it or is he asking a specific question? Mr Tuckey-Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to the adjournment debate last night when the Minister for Science and Technology objected to any reference in this Parliament to that matter and gave reasons-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I was present for the adjournment debate and know the ruling that was made. Dr Blewett-Mr Speaker, there has been considerable public discussion of this particular case relating to-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I think we are quite capable of solving this without the assistance of those on the back bench. It seems that the honourable member's question goes to the general principle of the administration. I ask him to reword his question to get to that general principle. Mr Blanchard continuing to address his question to the Minister for Health-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The question is out of order. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I refer him to page 190 of yesterday's Hansard where the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations said that the 44.7 per cent, or $2 billion, rise in personal income tax from provisional taxpayers was mainly because of an enormous increase in farm incomes -a statement with which I totally agree. I ask the Treasurer whether the Bureau of Agricultural Economics' forecast of a 30 per cent fall in net farm incomes this year indicates that this $2 billion revenue rise is essentially of a one- off nature. What impact will that have on the size of next year's Budget deficit ? I also ask him why, if provisional taxpayers' incomes, at least from the rural sector, are expected to fall, the Government has artificially boosted this year' s tax collections from them by applying a 10 per cent factor to their notional incomes for tax purposes having in mind that the inflation forecast is only 6.5 per cent. Mr KEATING —I am glad that the former Treasurer is so satisfied with this Budget that he has now asked two questions in two days about next year's Budget. Mr Hawke —And he knows who will bring it down. Mr KEATING —Yes, he quite obviously understands who is bringing that Budget down because it will not be him. I am glad that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has now accepted that the line he and his Leader have been pushing for two days is phoney, and that is that we cannot have an increase in receipts which is unrelated to the tax base. The penny has finally dropped for him that there is a difference between the tax rate and the tax base and that if we are in a recovery of course the Commonwealth will get more revenue. How does he think we will push those deficits down in the future without more revenue? He has seemed to be arguing for two days that what we ought to be doing now is giving all the revenue back; that the Commonwealth is supposed to have big deficits into the future. We are supposed to give all the revenue back. We demonstrated yesterday that the tax cut was way ahead of indexation and that despite that there is still a growth in revenue because the provisional unincorporated business taxpayers and farmers certainly have lifted their incomes because of the breaking of the drought and the activity in the economy. But it seems to have escaped the Leader of the Opposition, his Deputy and some commentators that in a recovery the Commonwealth gets more revenue regardless of the tax rates. In other words, the former Treasurer has finally woken up to the fact that there is a difference between the tax base and tax rates. In the second part of his question he asked me about the provisional tax uplift. Mr Howard —I didn't. Mr KEATING —You did. You asked about the 10 per cent. Mr Howard —No, I asked you about the provisional tax downturn next year due to the projected fall in rural incomes. Why don't you answer that? Mr KEATING —But as a second part of the question he asked about the 10 per cent provisional tax uplift. Mr Howard —No, that is the third part of the question. Mr KEATING —Let us not debate whether it was the second or third part. There will be a downturn in farm revenues if the farm sector does not perform this year as it did last year. As we cannot expect the breaking of the drought to happen twice in two years, of course there will be some decline in the farm sector. But, of course, the framing of next year's Budget will be in the context of a much stronger economy with a much broader recovery. It will be on that basis, hopefully, of sustained recovery that the deficits will finally be worn down to the point where they can be very easily financed. On the final part of the question of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, about provisional tax uplift, I would have thought that he would know that the provisional tax uplift relates not to inflation but to growth in the expected incomes of provisional tax payers. Those provisional tax payers' incomes will go up at a higher rate than inflation will because there has been a rural recovery, a pick-up in farm incomes and a pick-up in the incomes of unincorporated business. I would have thought that after five years in the Treasury he would have learned at least that. Mr BLANCHARD —Is the Minister for Health aware of any manipulation of the Medicare system which has lately taken place in Western Australia? Secondly, can the Minister say what arrangements are being made to ensure that the medical and health needs of the people of Pingelly are adequately serviced? Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker I raise a point of order raised by the Minister for Science and Technology last night. If it was in order last night, it is surely in order today. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for O'Connor has a short memory. He will recall that the point of order was not upheld last night. Dr BLEWETT —I am aware of certain manipulations of the Medicare system that have taken place in Western Australia. Last night in this House certain quite unfounded and unjust allegations were made about that particular case. It seems therefore that, as it is as a result of an administrative decision by me, it is necessary to explain this matter to the House. The doctor referred to by the honourable member last night was a Dr Hood, who on 12 April was convicted on five counts of fraud under the amendments to legislation introduced by the previous Government in 1982. I have given very full consideration to all the details of this very difficult case and the powers provided to me under the Act as amended by the previous Liberal Government. In coming to my decision not to moderate the disqualification against Dr Hood I am very much influenced by the view taken by the previous Government on this particular issue. When the legislation which is applicable in this matter was proclaimed, the Minister for Health at that time, the present honourable member for Mackellar, Mr Carlton, said quite clearly that it would not be necessary for a court to convict before a practitioner was disqualified. He said: It will be sufficient for two charges to be found proven, even though the magistrate may discharge the practitioner without conviction. In this case we have five charges for which a conviction has been recorded. Mr Moore —What about Mick Young? Dr BLEWETT —I will come back to the other bits of it in a moment. Let me say that as an Opposition we supported the position taken by the Minister for Health at that time and we will not run away from that position because there are difficulties now that we are in government. Let us look at the offences that are alleged with regard to Dr Hood; that is, that not only did he make full use of the bulk billing system but also he charged patients $5 above the amount he collected back from bulk billing. That is, he sought not only to exploit fully all the advantages of the bulk billing system but also to collect an additional fee on top of that from many of the patients. He said on television the other night that he was giving a better deal to his patients. What he was doing was charging them $5 per visit, illegally, and apparently refusing even to give receipts for that extra $5. In fact, what he did to his patients was to deny them any access to the gap medicare provisions-those whereby after a certain amount of time people can secure 100 per cent cover if they have paid a number of gaps-because in the system these people were recorded only as bulk billed. It is, therefore, very difficult to see how he was being fair to his patients. Secondly, it is inconceivable that Dr Hood did not realise that he was breaching the law. Mr Hodgman —It is a pity that his name was not Mick Young. Dr BLEWETT —There is a major distinction, which the Opposition may not be able to see, between an honest error freely admitted to and fully exonerated by a legal inquiry and a man committing deliberate fraud and being convicted by a court. I have said that it is inconceivable that this man was unaware that he was breaching the law. The reason for saying that is that Medicare material with which he was provided in February included a letter to him. In that letter the following sentence appears: If a practitioner accepts the patient's assignment of his right to benefit for a service, no additional charges may be made by the practitioner to the patient concerning that service. Quite clearly the statement was made there. Secondly- Mr Peacock —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not want to cast any aspersions on this matter but I think the Minister will understand why I am taking a point of order. Last night in the Parliament the Minister for Science and Technology was of the impression that this matter was on appeal before the courts. If that is so, I ask the Minister to bear that in mind and perhaps wind the matter up. If he is aware that it is not on appeal, obviously he can put the view. Dr BLEWETT —That point was put last night but it was not upheld by Mr Speaker. Secondly, all doctors and in fact all Australians were sent a copy of a pamphlet in which quite clearly it states: When doctors direct bill, they accept the 85% of the schedule fee as full payment and the patient is charged nothing. The most convincing evidence of all is the form a doctor actually signs in relation to direct billing. What is the sentence that appears immediately above the doctor's signature? I will read it out. The form states: . . . that no payments have been sought from the assignor(s)/patient(s) for the professional services specified in the attached assignment forms. The doctor has to declare that no payment has been sought, and the sentence I quoted appears immediately above the space for his signature. So it is inconceivable to me that this doctor did not know what he was doing. Finally, I have only limited powers of discretion under the provisions of the legislation brought in by the previous Government. As the honourable member for Mackellar, the then Minister for Health, pointed out on the day this legislation was proclaimed, any intervention would result from a wish to protect patients, not practitioners. Therefore it was necessary for me to take into consideration the problems of patients in Pingelly. We have had thorough and complete discussions with the Western Australian Government and we are convinced that we can provide appropriate medical services for that town. I have given honourable members my reasons for coming to that decision. The decision could be taken to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, as can all administrative decisions by Ministers. Because of the conviction and the firm attitude of both the Opposition and the Government on this problem, because it is inconceivable that that professional man did not understand his clear obligations, and because of the understanding we gained in discussions with the Western Australian Government that the citizens of Pingelly can be protected, I am confident of the rightness of my decision. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce. In replying I ask him to have in mind the answer just given to this House by his colleague the Minister for Health. Where an unaccompanied baggage statement on goods received from overseas is not required, are goods examined and valued by Customs, as suggested on page 46 of the Black Report of an Inquiry into the Circumstances Surrounding the Making of a Customs Declaration? Did the Special Minister of State, by wrongly completing his statement, avoid that independent valuation? Were his case that of an ordinary citizen, and if, as with the Special Minister of State, that citizen did not attend to collect the goods, would the Australian Customs Service have independently valued those goods, knowing the statement was unnecessary, or would they have so valued the goods because the form was wrongly completed? Mr Howard —Does the note you received from the Prime Minister say: 'Keep it short'? Mr JOHN BROWN —No, it did not say that at all. It is actually a reference to the pillar of moral rectitude who asked the question. The right honourable member's question was long and involved and it requires a deal of technical knowledge of how the Customs Bureau works. I would have preferred the question to be placed on notice. As it has not been, I will refer it to the Minister for a detailed answer, in exactly the same way as I supplied a detailed answer to the right honourable member's previous question. Mr STEEDMAN —I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether the Government is concerned that recent developments in Australia may jeopardise Australia's international reputation as a supporter of international principles of human rights, particularly racial equality? Is the unequivocal Australian stand against racism an important factor in maintaining our relationship with the countries of our region and our standing in the international community? Mr Donald Cameron —Here comes Marco Polo! Mr HAYDEN —He rode a donkey. I will engage the honourable member next time I go on a trip. In response to the honourable member for Casey, who has taken a long term, genuine and concerned interest in the matter of racial intolerance, I have to report that it is a matter of increasing unhappiness for me to be confronted overseas, especially in our region, with statements of concern at the evidence of racist expressions occurring in this country and apparently receiving encouragement in influential political circles. I will give some examples of what I mean. Let me take the honourable member for Denison, of whom we read some reference in Gabrielle Carey's book Just Us: Vaseline slicked, oozing his way into the contemptible barrel of racist bigotry , he is prepared to divide this country, declaring that the lack of moral scruple dividing the country in this way will win 12 seats for the Coalition. The Leader of the National Party of Australia only a fortnight ago was demanding a more homogeneous Australia. In July the Western Australian Liberals demanded a referendum to determine the racial composition of Australia. At least the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory had the courage and the moral commitment to attack the National Party for encouraging non-Asian immigration. The only reaction of the Leader of the Opposition has been vacillating and cynical, as he has been fully preoccupied trying to achieve a full and beautiful recovery from his Medicare-funded facelift. Then we had the new Liberal Party platform on South African Government policies, the accommodating one, interpreted overseas, I discover, as encouraging support for apartheid and greeted by the South African Government as 'a welcome development' . To give another example in this area, in August the National Party Council called for a resumption of sporting contacts with South Africa. What did the Leader of the National Party do? Where was he? He was flushed with the success of his latest garage sale of slightly used silver coffin fittings. If he makes enough out of the sale he may pay some of that $430,000 tax he fiddled a few years ago. I now come to the association of the Opposition parties with the Australian League of Rights-one of the more poisonous manifestations of racist developments encouraged by Opposition policy. I will give honourable members an example. In New South Wales a gentleman named Graeme Maguire-an ex-member of the Nazi Party, a current member of National Action, a fascist body, with more than 40 aliases and a criminal record which would give the painters and dockers a bad reputation -is a spokesperson for the National Party in the Blue Mountains. Then we have the expressed views of Senator Lady Flo Bjelke-Peterson, a fervent admirer of the League. In the League journal, the New Times, of January 1984 we have a report that Flo sent a message of support to the International League of Rights Conference in Canada, which said in part: The League of Rights stands for many good principles. The League of Rights is ever to the fore standing for constitutional government as we know it. Members of the league are the only-- Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. Dr Theophanous —You are a racist. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Burke will remain silent. Mr Sinclair —I ask that the honourable gentleman withdraw that remark. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Burke will withdraw that remark. Dr Theophanous —I will withdraw that statement if the Leader of the National Party makes a statement rejecting racism. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Burke. I ask the honourable member for Burke to withdraw the statement in the usual form and not to address the House. Dr Theophanous —I withdraw, Mr Speaker. Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, the Standing Orders of this place are not designed so that any member, Minister or otherwise, can vilify, selectively and maliciously, individuals inside and outside the Parliament. That is a disgraceful exercise on the part of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and I request that you ask that he terminate his remarks forthwith. Mr SPEAKER —I call the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Mr HAYDEN —I conclude the quote from Senator Lady Florence Bjelke-Petersen: The League of Rights stands for many good principles. The League of Rights is ever to the fore standing for constitutional government as we know it. Members of the League are only thinking of the good of Australia as a whole. The January edition of the New Times, the League's publication, contains evidence of the League's-- Mr Sinclair —This is disgraceful, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the Minister for Foreign Affairs of standing order 75 which provides: No Member may use offensive words against either House of the Parliament or any Member thereof . . . I ask him to take some note of that. Mr HAYDEN —The New Times in January contained evidence, of course, of these fervid racist attitudes. On anti-semitism it says: Judaism is implacably anti-Christian and it is by definition an incarnate lie. That is one example. Then there is the way in which the League has used the National Party to spread unfounded lies about the Vietnamese. Mr Sinclair —Can you verify those statements as being accurate? Mr HAYDEN —The right honourable member for New England, the Leader of the National Party, is interjecting with a display of high moral rectitude. I am reminded of his interview in Playboy of July 1984-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs not to pursue that particular line. Mr HAYDEN —He said this: Any politician worth his salt would like to feel that he could jangle The Lodge keys in his suit pocket. Mr Burr —I rise on a point of order. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I call the honourable member for Wilmot. Mr HAYDEN —The only jangle he would hear from his suit pocket would be of the petty cash that he stole from George. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister for Foreign Affairs will resume his seat. Mr Burr —Mr Speaker, I ask you whether, for the sake of the reputation of the parliamentary institution, there is any way under Standing Orders that you can stop this scurrilous use of parliamentary privilege? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister for Foreign Affairs is in order. Mr HAYDEN —I will conclude with my final illustration. It concerns the way in which, at the National Party Conference in Portland, Victoria, in April 1984, metropolitan delegate Mr Alex Psalti declared that up to 60 armed Vietnamese had been sighted conducting exercises in full military uniform in the Charlton area, 100 kilometres south-west of Bendigo. That was investigated because of its seriousness and was found not only to a total lie, but to have been manufactured and disseminated by the League of Rights, obviously with the assistance of the National Party. Mr Sinclair —You are disgraceful, Hayden. Mr HAYDEN —There has been nothing more disgraceful than the way in which the Liberal and National Parties have sold out any sense of moral rectitude in this matter. Mr Howard —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. A couple of months ago there occurred in this House an incident which was, I believe, in the eyes of decent people on both sides of the House, disturbing. I believe that on that occasion the Minister for Foreign Affairs made a speech which contributed to a rational and calm response to something which-- Mr Keogh —What is your point of order? Mr Howard —If the honourable member would wait he would understand the importance of taking an intelligent and mature approach on this issue. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the honourable member ignore the interjections . Mr Howard —My point of order is that you, Mr Speaker, invite the Minister for Foreign Affairs to exercise the balanced and good sense that he exercised on that occasion and which, in the interests of political expediency, he has totally thrown away today. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has not made a point of order; he has made a point. Mr STEELE HALL —I ask the Special Minister of State whether he will give an undertaking that writs for an election will not be issued until bound divisional rolls are available for purchase by the public and political parties. Government members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I must be lacking in a sense of humour. I did not see anything humorous in that question. I ask the House to remain quiet while we hear the question. Mr Griffiths —Why didn't you have the courage to ask it yourself, Andrew? Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for Maribyrnong will cease interjecting. Mr Howard —It is the Labor Party that is trying to make it an issue. Mr Peacock —Absolutely. Mr Griffiths —Are you getting upset, Andrew? Mr Peacock —Yes, I am upset about this, and so are a lot of people. Mr Sinclair —You have every right to be. Mr Steedman —You let the monkey off the leash; now you have to wear it. Mr Sinclair —You are the monkey, lad. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. It has been evident to me in the last few days that the advent of the television experiment has had an effect on the behaviour of members. They expect my goodwill to extend to not suspending members so that they may take part in it. I ask the House to be of some assistance. Mr STEELE HALL —I return to the central theme of the Government's actions at the moment and that is its headlong rush to an election. I direct the second part of my question to the Special Minister of State. Will the Minister guarantee that the Government's rush to the polls will not prevent electors from getting answers to inquiries necessary because of extensive redistribution changes, nor prevent interested parties from cleansing rolls and performing other normal electoral activities? Mr YOUNG —I think the Prime Minister has made it known that the Australian people will have a lot more notice about the next election than they had about the last one. The 250,000 people, at least, who were robbed of a vote in 1983 will not be robbed of a vote in either 1984 or 1985 because of the changes to the law by which more notice of an election must be given. Mr Carlton —What did Wran do? Mr YOUNG —I do not know why the Opposition is so apprehensive about facing an election. It was always very optimistic about the last three or four, but it seems to be on tenterhooks about any discussion about elections. The Opposition knows what has occurred with the redistribution of boundaries. Mr Hodgman —The boundaries have been rigged. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I have already warned the honourable member for Denison. If he offends again he will be named. Mr YOUNG —As Minister responsible for the Commonwealth Electoral Commission I say that every commentator who has looked at the redistribution that has been carried out by the independent Electoral Commission has said that it is a fair and democratic redistribution. Mr Steele Hall —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Minister's reply is simply not relevant to the question that was asked. Is there not a standing order that requires relevance? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Special Minister of State is in order. Mr YOUNG —I say to the honourable member for Denison that that would not be an allegation he should cling to. I think most commentators and observers of the Australian political scene would agree that the redistribution has been carried out in a very fair manner. It might have shifted a couple of sub-branches out of Prospect that we did not want to lose. After the next election, thanks to the honourable member for Boothby, there will be another 23 members of the House of Representatives. We would like to express our gratitude to him for giving us the idea. This Party has always expressed its sincerity about electoral reform and the establishment of the independent Electoral Commission will see that the Australian community is better serviced in every possible way at the next election than it has been at any election since Federation. Mr ROBERT BROWN —My question is directed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. What role will the Government's prices and incomes accord play in the successful implementation of the Government's economic strategy as outlined in the Budget? Is the Minister confident of the continued success of the accord? Mr WILLIS —The accord is basic to the Government's economic strategy in 1984-85, as it was in 1983-84. Everyone can now see that, as we said at the outset, the accord was a real policy. It was never an election gimmick. Its basic objective was to enable a sustained economic recovery to occur so that we could fight inflation and unemployment simultaneously. The accord's role in the last financial year was to enable a successful transition from the wages pause of the previous Government to a system of wage fixation which was conducive to economic recovery-the centralised system of indexation with the no extra claims commitment. That system allowed an expansionary budgetary policy to stimulate the economy with results that are absolutely outstanding. As the Treasurer said in his Budget Speech, the results for the economy in 1983-84 are record highs in output and employment growth, along with falling inflation, and substantial falls in real labour unit costs. Opposition members have spoken a lot about labour on-costs. If they look at page 33 of Budget Paper No. 1 they will see there the graphs relating to real labour unit costs. They will see that there are two indexes because there are two ways of doing the calculations and both of those show that real labour unit costs have fallen back to the levels of the late 1960s and early 1970s. There has been a substantial decline and that is something which the previous Government could not bring about and which the wages policy of the accord has enabled us to produce. This has been a major factor in economic recovery. Those labour on-costs include superannuation, workers compensation and even payroll tax. There is the whole gamut there. Taking all those into account, there has been a decline to the levels of the late 1960s and early 1970s. The accord's role in 1984-85 is to enable the continuance of the progress begun in 1983-84 and the wages policy is clearly conducive to a continued high growth of output and employment and falling inflation. The Budget forecast of a 4.5 per cent growth through the year in non-farm gross product, a 2.5 per cent growth in employment and inflation of only 5.25 per cent all indicate our expectation of that continued success. Of course the award rates will only increase in a national wage case which will not be decided until April of next year. The increase should be less than 3 per cent and the only other increases that will come in award rates will be through some anomalies cases. These will add some small amounts to the national wage case next April but obviously the increase in award rates in 1984-85 will be historically very low indeed. The average weekly earnings forecast of 5.25 per cent picks up the fact that there will be some increase in hours worked and also some flow-over from the last national wage increase into earnings showing up in 1984-85. With average weekly earnings increasing at 5.25 per cent and inflation at about the same rate, it is likely that real labour unit costs will again fall in 1984-85. That is something which the Opposition should bear in mind when it continues to attack this Government's economic policies. These policies are producing by far the best prospects of sustained economic recovery that this country has had for many years. Finally, the honourable member for Hunter asked about the likelihood of continued adherence to the accord. We are very confident that the accord will continue to hold in 1984-85 and beyond. It has had almost complete adherence from the trade union movement. The Australian Council of Trade Unions remains strongly supportive of the accord. The tax cuts in the Budget have reinforced the accord and they have been totally accepted by the ACTU as substantial and real tax cuts for its members. This will ensure that we will have in place an accord which will continue to assist this Government to produce record economic results again in 1984-85. Motion (by Mr Sinclair)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the National Party of Australia from moving: That this House censures the Minister for Foreign Affairs for his intemperate and bigoted introduction of racism into the proceedings of this Parliament. Motion of Censure Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(2.46) —I move: That this House censures the Minister for Foreign Affairs for his intemperate and bigoted introduction of racism into the proceedings of this Parliament. There is no subject that is more divisive in this community than that introduced by the migration policies of this Government. If those policies were not bad enough-I will speak of them in a moment-they were inflamed beyond any reasonable or rational approach by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) a few moments ago in answering a question from one of his colleagues, a question designed to encourage the thought that somewhere in this Parliament there is support for the League of Rights, when he himself identified the fact that there are in the Australian Labor Party those who seek to divide the nation on racist grounds. This side of the House-the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia-is totally opposed to the suggestion that the racism they wish to promote should be in any way condoned. Only a few weeks ago the Minister for Foreign Affairs was in Geneva trying to inflame and deteriorate relations between the United States of America and Australia. He now comes into this Parliament and suggests that in some way there is sympathy for the policies of the League of Rights, sympathy for the thought that there are racial divisions in this country. That is totally unacceptable. This Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has wandered around Australia suggesting that our side of the House is introducing racism. Let no Australian be mistaken. What the Foreign Minister did today was to guarantee that everywhere there are those from non-Anglo-Saxon and non-European origins there will be concern because this Government has ensured that racism will be an election issue between the parties . From our point of view we have already expressed our concern that in the policies introduced by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) there have been changes in the components of those who are migrants in this nation. I draw the attention of the House to an article in the Bulletin on 28 August. On page 74 the figures suggest that all the arguments put by the shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs have identified quite properly a concern at the changing package of the ethnic origins of our migrant intake. It is quite proper that we should try to maintain in this country a homogeneity among all people who reside here. For years in government we have promoted bipartisanship in trying to encourage the Labor Party not to embark upon the racist course which the Minister for Foreign Affairs pursued today. Today the Minister for Foreign Affairs identified by innuendo and inference a suggestion that some publication of the League of Rights authentically broadcasted the views of members from this side of the House. Mr Speaker, I can assure you that in no way and at no time has my Party, and I know, certainly not the Liberal Party, condoned the policy of the League of Rights. The only thing that I accept about the League is that at least it continues to recognise the monarchy, and that is far more than many members of the Labor Party do. It is totally false to suggest that there is any sympathy at all with League of Rights attitudes towards racists and racist prejudices. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has followed a course that is becoming more and more apparent. It puts the 'con' into 'consensus'. We have the Prime Minister wandering around the country saying that he is trying to bring the country together. He is talking about having big business, big government and big unions all wrapped into the prices and incomes accord. What have we seen today? We have seen the Foreign Minister putting the knife into the whole consensus concept. Of course, we already know that the Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister enjoy such harmonious relationships. I know that the telephones ran hot after that ridiculous exercise by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in Geneva. As if that were not bad enough, today he has actually brought into this Parliament by innuendo, inference and slander an issue which he has used against the views and attitudes of people on our side of politics. He has introduced racism into this community in an extraordinarily divisive way. It is not acceptable that we have the views and attitudes of a bigot like the Minister for Foreign Affairs cast into the realm of public debate. Let no man or woman in Australia believe that there is anybody on this side of the House who wishes to advocate racism. It has become an issue in the Parliament significantly because the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs , the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues, including the Minister for Foreign Affairs decided that they were going to change the ethnic package. Honourable members will remember that they listened to the Australian Council of Trade Unions. As a result, skilled migrant intake was cut down. Mr Hodgman —Slashed. Mr SINCLAIR —'Slashed', as my colleague says. Secondly, they decided that in the package of those who were coming into Australia within the family reunion program they would not allow people from all national origins to come in equally . If honourable members like to look at the figures-I referred a few moments ago to the figures in this week's Bulletin-they will see what I mean. For the specific period July 1983 to January 1984, the figures quoted by David McNicoll on page 74 of that publication indicate that the approvals were as follows: United Kingdom and Ireland, 6,433; north Europe, 2,934; southern Europe, 2,973; a total of 12,340. In the same period the figures were: For the Middle East, 2, 442; Asia, 15,386; a total of 17,800. Nobody on our side of politics wants to promote a suggestion that those who came into Australia should not be integrated into our community. Nobody on our side of politics wants to see divisions between Australians, new or old, whatever their ethnic origins. What we seek is the maintenance of a program that allows the maximum possible assimilation of Australians old and new, a program that allows Australia to maintain a homogeneity which has been characteristic of programs that have been pursued ever since the late Arthur Calwell was Minister for Immigration so long ago. But all that has been cast to the winds. We have suddenly got a reformist Prime Minister. We have a Prime Minister who advocates consensus and a Foreign Minister who sticks his knife into it. We have a program in the immigration field which is designed not to encourage homogeneity but to divide one Australian from another. It is very sad indeed, in respect of the immigration pattern, to have a Minister come into this House and totally abuse the procedures, the processes and the Standing Orders by trying to heap infamy after infamy on individuals from this side of the Parliament simply because he happens to feel he is losing out in his round with the Prime Minister . Of course, we know the Labor Party is faction ridden. We know the difficulties they are having in trying to get the Left, the far Left, the far, far Left and the socialist Left into some type of unanimity. Honourable members opposite can laugh but can they tell us how their pre-selections are going for all the new seats in New South Wales? I know how harmonious they are. I know just how it is going to be so easy for those in the centre, the Centre Left and the Socialist Left to come to unanimity in trying to determine who will be the selected candidates. Of course, today the Minister for Foreign Affairs spoke in the way he did in this place not because he genuinely believes that the answer he gave was one that the subject deserved but because he feels he is missing out to the Prime Minister. This whole Parliament is being dictated to not by the wishes and wills of good government but by the determination of those internal forces of the Labor Party to try to achieve dominance. There is no consensus in Labor today; there is no consensus in the community today. Sure, big unions and big government occasionally like to see themselves getting together. That is what the accord is about; that is what the Budget is about. Goodness only knows, tax cuts were introduced simply because the ACTU held the gun at the Prime Minister' s head, not because they were rational and properly considered. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) in the matter of public importance he raised in this House yesterday spoke about consensus in the determination of this Budget. There was as much consensus in that case as there was in the answer given today by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. There was none at all. These tax cuts are highly illusory. What they do is ensure that the Government takes more and more from the taxpayers, that the taxpayers get a little handout and God help them if they object to it. But this Government is so concerned with trying to resolve the internal differences within the Party that it is not really worried about how inflammatory it becomes in approaching subjects as sensitive as the racial structure of this society. It is important that we find a way by which we can keep Australians together. Trying to divide one citizen from another simply on the basis of race is totally unacceptable to this side of the Parliament. How sad it is. The Prime Minister has alleged that in some way it was we who introduced racism into the immigration debate. The figures deny it. The Foreign Minister, by his actions today, has denied it. The Foreign Minister, in his argument today, showed how lethal the subject can be. What he has tried to do is say that on this side of the Parliament there are a lot of people who want to pursue the bigotry of the League of Rights. As I said a moment ago, that is totally anathema to every member on this side of the House. I long ago condemned the League of Rights for its views and attitudes and I in no way resile from that affirmation given in the Central Methodist Mission in Victoria in 1972. The sad thing about the Foreign Minister is that we know there are problems within the Labor Party. We understand his concern that he was stabbed in the back by the Prime Minister. We all remember Blanche d'Alpuget's comments about the Prime Minister's ride to power. We all know that the Foreign Minister understands that he was not treated in an honourable way. After all, the Prime Minister does it to everybody. Look at David Combe. How badly could one treat someone who was a colleague, a former national secretary of the ALP, no matter how heinous his crime. The decent thing would have been to say to David Combe: ' Look, there are very serious allegations being made by a departmental officer against you'. Mr Tuckey —But he has got the numbers. Mr SINCLAIR —Of course. But instead of saying to David Combe in a proper and comradely fashion that it would be in his own interests for him to present his side of the story, the Prime Minister ran roughshod over him. So he did to Hayden. Of course, here we have the Special Minister of State at the table-our Irish friend. How we love his Irish jokes. Of course, the sad thing is that the average citizen in the community would not have been treated in the preferential way with Customs declarations as the Special Minister of State was. He certainly would not have had all those lurks and perks from the ministerial coffer that the Minister received while he was being stood aside-not stood down, mind you, Mr Speaker-while his action of wrongly completing those Customs forms was being investigated. Oh, no! Again, we have the fact that within the Labor Party there are those who have the numbers and those who do not. Good old Mick has the numbers, and look where he is at the moment. But what if one does not have the numbers? Look at poor old Hayden; he is now out there as Foreign Minister. What he is trying to do is to make sure that within the ranks of the Labor Party there are those who will promote these matters. It does not matter how low or how debased the issue; it does not matter what sort of antagonisms racism generates in this society; he is going to promote them. If it helps his cause, if it gives him a bit of muscle against the Prime Minister, so be it. It does not matter what sort of corpses lie in the path. That is his attitude. It does not matter that racism could so easily divide this society. Of course that is the problem-the Foreign Minister is not really concerned about the sincerity with which he should approach his task. In introducing the subject as this Foreign Minister did, he has shown himself to be unfitted to the high office which he now holds on behalf of this nation. Shortly in this Parliament we will be debating a matter of public importance regarding the whole question of the deterioration of the United States-Australia relationship. Mr Young —No, you won't; not today. Mr SINCLAIR —The Special Minister of State said: 'No, you won't'. There we have an example of the threats and the cajoling. That is his approach to our relationship with the United States. I often wonder how those great figures of the Australian Labor Party of the past would regard those who are now its parliamentary leaders. Just think of John Curtin. We will remember that during the 1941-42 sad state of deterioration of our security environment in World War II it was the Labor Prime Minister who said that we needed to get into a closer relationship with the United States. What do we see now? This Foreign Minister is trying hard to sever the relationship. Not only is he trying to sever and cruel our foreign relationship but also he is trying to cruel our domestic relationships. There is absolutely no basis on which a man who comes into this House to play faction politics should be allowed to debase the argument on something as sensitive as the racial relationships of this society. The answer he gave to a question without notice in this House today is one of the lowest and seamiest responses I think any Minister has ever given in this place. It is important that people in the Australian community realise that there are no steps too low for this man to take. Sure, he will use his smart and witty phrase; he will tend to blacken people wherever he might and he will try to lower himself and the tenor of his arguments to subjects that any right-minded Australian would regard as abhorrent. That is not good enough. This man has to understand that the responsibility he exercises for the time being is one he carries out on behalf of all Australian people. Few among those who are shortly to be called on prematurely to go to the polls would believe that the introduction of that racist argument into this Parliament is acceptable. Mr Speaker, it is unacceptable for this Government to pursue the cause of racism in the way it is. Many people in this community are properly concerned at the way the migration intake has been changed and, thank goodness, as a result of our canvassing the issue in this House the Prime Minister has realised how wrong his Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs was. It is only because it was canvassed in this Parliament that the Government has drawn a halt to the imbalance in the figures I referred to a moment ago. But it is not to that area alone that we now turn our attention, for the Foreign Minister is trying to ensure that that subject suddenly rises again as a major and significant issue in this Parliament and in the Australian electorate. My colleague the shadow Treasurer and honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard ) said a moment ago that the Minister could have played some part in tempering the matter. Racism should not be condoned. We will not ensure consensus with divisiveness, and introducing into this Parliament an argument suggesting that there are those on this side of the House who would promote the arguments of a radical right wing group is totally unacceptable to us. There is no basis on which this nation can go ahead unless we can to the maximum preserve, develop and foster the homogeneity of the Australian people. Certainly we need to maintain a diverse migrant intake but we need to make sure that wherever Australians come from, native born or new arrivals to this country, they can live together, alongside each other, and the policies that we on this side of the House pursue are directed to that end. We thought and hoped that a Government that had in opposition lived with us in a bipartisan approach to immigration might have followed the same course but, no , sadly we have seen that that is not to be so. We have seen a Foreign Minister who has been prepared to thrust in what he thought was a smart rhetorical way innuendo and inference against individuals over here. Why? Of course it is because of the faction fighting within the Australian Labor Party. We know that Labor members are all so intent on trying to attain their own individual cliquey positions. We know of the battles between the socialist left, the Left and the centre right for positions. We know that old Marmaduke Wran, the Premier of New South Wales, has left his tar brush on the Prime Minister and the Treasurer (Mr Keating). We know the degree to which the propriety of government under Labor control is suspect but, Mr Speaker, there is absolutely no basis on which the tenor and tone of response that the Minister for Foreign Affairs pursued today should be introduced into this House. This Parliament should try to bring people together. Forget the 'con' in consensus, for that is all it is; forget the divisions of the Labor Party. Let us worry about trying to make this nation a nation that can live and work together. Let us make this nation a nation where people can live alongside each other in perfect harmony. Let us not have a Foreign Minister who pursues his personal vindictive way simply for the sake of a moment of temporary political glory. This is a very serious motion. It is not lightly that we embark on an attack on this Foreign Minister. We do not do it simply because we regard him as being inadequate in his task; we do it because in this place on this day during Question Time he introduced an element of divisiveness that runs so totally contrary to the precept that the Prime Minister allegedly is running around the country preaching. The Foreign Minister has shown how illusory consensus is. Is it consensus when the Foreign Minister is quite intent on promoting racism in the forthcoming election debate? Mr Speaker, it is with regret but with total condemnation of the Foreign Minister that I have moved this motion and I ask all members of this House to support it. Mr SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? Mr Howard —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs)(3.07) —What an extraordinary performance by the Leader of the National Party of Australia and right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair). He wears hypocrisy and humbug like a cocked hat. Fancy him parading in this House as some sort of paragon of moral rectitude with the record he has behind him of abused hopes, misused funds and total dishonesty whenever it suited him. That probably explains why he could not address himself directly to the issues that he implied are at the heart of the contention in this debate. The fact is that for the past several months there has clearly been developing a pattern of policy statements and expressions of views by spokespeople from within the coalition parties which could only come together as a mosaic of racial intolerance. That is the fact. It is not as though there was a debate in May which suddenly flared, as the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), would have us believe and after which peace, quiet and common sense subsequently prevailed. Ever since then the Opposition parties have been assiduously white-anting this community by propagating policies based on racial intolerance. A little over a month ago, as recently as 12 July, the Opposition spokesperson on immigration matters, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), whose contemptible presence in this Parliament will soon be removed, thank God, by the grace of the electoral processes-- Mr Howard —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. That remark by the Foreign Minister, particularly in the climate of the debate in which we are now engaged, is offensive and needlessly provocative, and he should be asked to withdraw it. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —The Minister for Foreign Affairs will please use less colourful language when he is addressing the House on the censure motion. Mr HAYDEN —Yes, Madam Chair. On 12 July a report in the Age of comments by the honourable member for Denison, speaking for the masses of the coalition parties, stated: The Federal Opposition will use immigration-- for that read racism-- as a major issue in the next election and expects the controversy to give it 12 marginal seats. The report goes on: Mr Hodgman said: 'I will do anything and everything to bring about the defeat of the Hawke socialist government, which I believe was elected on massive false pretences'. Later he qualified his statement by adding, rather lamely, the words 'within reason'. So far as the honourable member for Denison was concerned there was no reason, and there was neither reason nor integrity in the presentation of immigration matters by the right honourable member for New England when he spoke a few minutes ago. The right honourable member referred to the changes in the proportions, in the composition, of our immigration take-up. If one looks at the numbers of people coming here and at the Asian composition and if one analyses the figures-the latest I have available are half-year figures for 1983-84-one finds that some 23,000 were expected to come in during the fiscal year which ended a few weeks ago. Since 1979-80, in all instances the number has been higher. In 1981-82, when the right honourable member's Party was in government, 26,500 people came to Australia from Asia. For the year just completed the number will be something like 23,000. A few facts ought to go on the record about why we have this number of Asian people coming to Australia. What were the circumstances which led to this? I recall them quite vividly because I was quite active in the anti-Vietnam War campaign in this country. Like many members who sat in this House and were removed in huge numbers in the 1966 election for taking that position, I opposed that war. I remember opposing that war along with many other concerned Australians. We opposed it on moral grounds, and extraordinarily we had to pay a high electoral price for that. We now find that, because of the consequences of that war, people are fleeing Vietnam. People came to this country in boats and still do, although in fewer numbers. We in Government are accepting these people under a program which the previous Government, the coalition parties, established. We are accepting the consequences of the immorality of involvement in that war, an immorality which was studiously promoted by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), who was then the Minister for the Army. We are accepting the consequences of that immorality as a moral obligation for this country. Those people are leaving Vietnam as a direct consequence of the upheaval in the wake of that war. Whichever way it goes, we are not allowed to win with these people. The facts in practical terms are these: If we do not have an orderly departure program, with its consequential obligations about family reunion, people will come to Australia in a disorderly fashion. They will come out in an unorganised fashion in boats, as they have done in the past. People will come who are not the sorts of people we would prefer to accept, through the processing system. The thorough misrepresentation, the total dishonesty, of members of the Opposition regarding this matter was reflected once again here today with a display of hypocrisy and humbug by that master craftsman in the field, the right honourable member for New England. He thoroughly misrepresented the situation in a desperate grab for some sort of political opportunism. Watching the right honourable member for New England trying to perform the role of someone who is morally upright, downright and outright is like watching an elephant trying to walk a tightrope. There is just too much wobble there to be convincing. Let us look at the quality, the fibre, the moral standing of the Leader of the National Party of Australia. In April this year he was interviewed by George Negus on the program 60 Minutes. Other people, such as Mr Ken Davidson, were present. Mr Davidson said: In a press statement . . . you said that the Sinclair Pastoral Company would pay Reliance Investment Group $430,000 . . . He asked Mr Sinclair whether he had made the payment. The Leader of the National Party said: Like most people I meet my legal obligations, Mr Davidson. Davidson and Negus must be suspicious people; they were not prepared to accept that. They knew him well. Negus said: You did in fact say that you would pay back the money involved? Mr Sinclair replied: No, all I said . . . There was a pause, and George Negus said: Has the money been paid back? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! I suggest to the Minister for Foreign Affairs that he re-read the terms of the censure motion. Mr HAYDEN —Madam Deputy Speaker, I think it is pertinent to address myself to some of these matters because in presenting both the motion and the case in support of it the Leader of the National Party sought to adopt the moral high ground, declaring his rectitude in all matters. He ranged over many issues. In those circumstances it is not unreasonable to draw the attention of the House to the record. It does not show much morality and shows even less rectitude in his dealings in business matters. Can we take his word? I refer to an interview in Playboy in July this year. Mr Tuckey —I raise a point of order. The Standing Orders are very clear on the requirement about attacking another member of this place. The Standing Orders require that a substantive motion be moved against that person. There is a substantive motion against the Minister and he should not proceed by attacking another member. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. I remind the House that if an honourable member takes unto himself a certain latitude when he is speaking he will have to accept a certain latitude from other speakers. I remind the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the standing order regarding imputation. Mr HAYDEN —I also draw the attention of the House to the simple fact that I am under attack by way of censure and I am entitled to defend myself rather broadly to substantiate my standing. In doing so I am entitled to question the standing of the Leader of the National Party. I refer to the Playboy interview. Mr Sinclair said: I go to church occasionally . . . I don't uphold myself as a great paragon of moral virtue or anything, but I certainly believe in God . . . I think the application of Christian moral principles in our society is very much to the advantage of the individuals who live in it. He was asked: But you have lied. He replied: I think most people lie sometimes. Mr Peacock —Despicable. Mr HAYDEN —Oh, Andrew, what lovely eyes you have. They have all the innocence of an 18-year-old. Opposition members interjecting- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. The interjections on my left will cease or I will deal with the interjectors in turn. Mr HAYDEN —Let me move on to the Leader of the Opposition, the man with jelly vertebrae. He needs to get a bit of spine into him on these issues and stand up to the people he is supposed to be leading. What did he say about the Australian League of Rights? On the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program PM he was questioned about his unusual running mates on the issue of racism. He said that he was running parallel with them. He tried to make some distinction between running parallel and being in tandem. They are on the same track. Those are the sorts of associates the Leader of the Opposition prefers in matters such as this . If people are on the public record expressing themselves in a racially intolerant manner they must expect that their views will be quoted back to them by people in our society who hold liberal values. If the Leader of the Opposition prefers to run parallel with the Australian League of Rights that will be quoted back to him. If members of the National Party declare their faith and favour for the League of Rights, as Senator Lady Florence Bjelke-Petersen has in a copy of the New Times, that will be quoted back to them. If they misrepresent the immigration intake for obvious racist motivations, that will be exposed and quoted back to them also. This matter arose because my Department was required to investigate reports at a National Party conference this year. A metropolitan delegate, Mr Alex Psalti, had alleged to the conference that up to 60 armed Vietnamese had been sighted conducting exercises in full military uniform in the Charlton area of Victoria. That matter was broadcast widely in the community. That sort of thing adds to the ferment of concern among ordinary Australians: 'What is happening to this country? Perhaps Mr Sinclair is right in his description of the way in which Asians are coming here and upsetting the nation'. When the matter was investigated, as it had to be, given its nature, by intelligence and by police, not only was it found to be untrue, but also the police reported that this was an unfounded rumour that had been spread by the League of Rights. But the National Party was prepared to propagate that sort of rubbish. So we have heard the Opposition on immigration and apartheid policy and we know of its association with the League of Rights. We know of its attitude in respect of land rights for Aboriginals. The Leader of the Opposition made this glorious and sensitive statement: I want to make it quite clear that I understand the relationship between people and the land. I well understand that Aboriginals have an affinity with the land. I have it with my farm in Victoria. For God's sake, could anything be more offensive and insensitive than that? The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party recalled a contribution I made in a rather turbulent atmosphere in the Parliament earlier this year. That was when this issue first flared. It did not flare as a result of any initiative on this side of the House; it arose on the other side of the House. As the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has such a good memory, let me recall for him a brief conversation we had about the matter which took place in the House near the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) as the debate was getting underway . I said to him: 'For God's sake, John; I hope you people will not go too far down this road'. He replied: 'We will not go too far down this road, but believe me, we will go down it'. The Opposition was willing to travel down a road of racial intolerance, bigotry and division. It should not preach humbug and hypocrisy in this House . Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(3.22) —In seconding the motion, let me respond to the way in which the question was answered by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) today. I say this genuinely because, despite the comment that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has just made and the distortion that he made of a private conversation which we had, I still entertain some regard and liking for him. Until he started to answer that question today I thought he was exercising a moderating influence on a very difficult issue. Let me recall what the Minister for Foreign Affairs said on 8 May during the debate on immigration in the speech to which I drew attention during my point or order. On that occasion he said: I want to say, from my extensive experience in this place and I think my fairly wide knowledge of honourable members on both sides of this House, that I know of no member of this Parliament who is a racist. The Minister for Foreign Affairs believed that on 8 May 1984, and I agree with him. I believe that on 8 May 1984 the Minister for Foreign Affairs made a genuine and honourable contribution according to the genuinely liberal values that I believed him to hold on immigration and race. I applauded the Minister for Foreign Affairs for the remarks that he made on that occasion. But I believe that his contribution today, which was nothing more than a sleazy component of the Government's election campaign, has removed the credit that he won for himself on 8 May of this year. I, along with many other members of this House, was frankly frightened by the atmosphere that was created on 8 May. Both the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), to their credit, said on that occasion that the most important thing was not to look for blame and not to try to attribute blame to either side of the House, but to lower temperatures, to take the argument off the boil and back to a basis of decent objective debate and discussion. The Prime Minister, to his credit, showed leadership in saying that. The Leader of the Opposition, in a very generous effort of support, was prepared to take a bipartisan approach to that question. I believe that since then there has been a more sensible debate on this issue. Of course, many people in the community have tried to inflame it and of course there are some people in the Liberal Party who have more discriminatory views on race and immigration than others, as is the case in regard to some members of the Australian Labor Party. The Labor Party has a long tradition of having far more rigorous views on race. Everybody knows that the Labor Party historically was an upholder of the white Australia policy. Successively, Labor leader after Labor leader, with the exception of the honourable member for Oxley, supported, basically, a far more restrictive approach to race than is now embraced by either the Liberal Party or the Labor Party. Those points ought to be remembered . A few things have been quoted back to people today. I remind the House of the attitude of the former Labor Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, towards taking refugees from South Vietnam when the Vietcong were taking over South Vietnam in 1975. The Special Minister of State (Mr Young), who is at the table, ought to ask his old friend the former member for Hindmarsh about the attitudes of Prime Minister Whitlam towards taking refugees from war-torn Vietnam. He did not want to take anybody, no matter what were the compassionate grounds. No member of the Australian Labor Party who sat in this House behind Prime Minister Whitlam should lecture, hector and moralise at members on this side of the House about attitudes towards race, because they do not enter this debate with completely clean hands. One of the things that sickens me about this debate on immigration is the way in which we on this side of the House, and others who dare to ask questions about immigration, have been criticised and categorised as racist. Of course it is a sensitive issue and of course there are many people on both sides of the political arena who are disturbed about the possible social implications of fast change in our migrant and ethnic content. It is very important that we try to have a bipartisan approach and that we completely avoid the kind of cheap jack point scoring that the Minister for Foreign Affairs engaged in today. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has described the statements of the Opposition over the last few months as representing-and these are his words, not mine-'a mosaic of racism'. Is the Labor Party now saying that over the last few months we in the Liberal Party and the National Party have put together a mosaic of racism? Is it seriously arguing that we are trying to introduce race in a divisive and serious way into the immigration debate in Australia? All of our actions since 8 May have been in the opposite direction. I remind the House that at the New South Wales convention of the Liberal Party held only two weeks ago I was successful in moving a motion on immigration which was carried overwhelmingly, as my colleagues who attended that convention will testify. It recalled, amongst other things, that past coalition government policies were built upon a non-discriminatory approach to immigration and a level of intake and a pace of change. During that debate, which was reported fairly extensively by the media, I expressly rejected the proposition that the Liberal Party should take a stand against Asian immigration. I supported the policies of the former coalition Government which were humanitarian and liberal in the true sense of the word. We were prepared to take, with the Labor Party's generous support, people from war-torn parts of South East Asia. We were prepared to persuade people around Australia to accept that policy. We were prepared to preach tolerance and liberalism. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, in the name of scoring some cheap political points in front of his supporters at the commencement of a campaign, is greatly dishonouring many people in his Party who are worried about this issue, and of course, he has done great dishonour to the statements that he made in this House a few months ago. We must be very careful when we adopt the high ground on such a matter. We must have very long memories. That applies to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and also to the people who sat behind Prime Minister Whitlam in this Parliament. That included the honourable member for Robertson, the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen), who engaged in one of the most moralising lectures of all in Sydney a few weeks ago when he addressed a Jewish gathering and accused many Opposition members of being racist. He sat behind Prime Minister Whitlam. I did not hear him raise his voice in criticism of the attitude that Prime Minister Whitlam took on that occasion. All of us have to have long memories, and none more so in this debate than the Prime Minister. In 1977, he was the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the refugee boat people from South Vietnam were an issue. They were arriving here in unprecendented numbers and were causing a very difficult problem which the then Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs was trying to grapple with, and with very great credit to him he grappled with it extremely well. We were asking for understanding and tolerance, and the then President of the ACTU, who was of course speaking at the beginning of an election campaign, just as the Minister for Foreign Affairs is now, said: Of course we should have compassion, but people who are coming in this way are not the only people in the world who have rights to our compassion. Any sovereign country has the right to determine how it will exercise its compassion and how it will increase its population. Of course, the Prime Minister was then conscious that immigration and unemployment were potential issues in that election campaign and he was fairly short on liberalism and fairly strong on opportunism in the remarks that he made in 1977. He did not mind if those remarks were interpreted by Australian workers as hitting out against Asian immigration and the potential threat that that might represent to the jobs of Australians. He went on to say: Obviously there are people all around the world who have a strong case for entry into this country and successive governments have said we have an obligation, but we also have an obligation to people who are already here. They are unexceptional remarks perhaps in another climate, but in a climate in which our Government was grappling with a very difficult issue and trying to balance practicality with humanitarianism, the remarks of the then leader of the ACTU were designed to exploit a political situation, so he hoped, to the embarrassment of the then Liberal Government. So do not let anybody on the Labor Party side come into this debate and give us moralising lectures. If we are really serious and really faithful to the principles that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition enunciated on 8 May, if we really want to keep race out of debate in Australia, if we really want to keep the temperature off the boil, the honourable member for Casey (Mr Steedman) and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who cooked up the disgraceful question today-he had a copy of the question and he was all ready for it-ought to apologise to the House for what they have done because it is they who have broken the understanding that I thought we were starting to arrive at. A few weeks ago I received a letter from a gentleman in Sydney with whom I attended university. He is a very well known member of the Jewish community in Sydney and he was a close friend of mine at the Sydney University. He has very high connections in the Australian Labor Party. He wrote a letter to me as a friend saying: 'It is very important that all of us on both sides of the political fence do everything we possibly can over the next few months to make sure that racism does not in any way intrude into the election campaign. I will do my best within the Labor Party, and many of my friends are going to do the same within the Labor Party, to bring that about, and I ask you to try to do the same within your Party'. He said: 'It is six of one and half a dozen of the other so far as the difficulties are concerned and both of us have an obligation to see that nothing gets on to the boil'. I agreed very much with those sentiments and they were expressed in a very genuine fashion. I think there are many people in the Australian Labor Party who would echo those sentiments and would echo the sentiments that the Prime Minister expressed on 8 May. Of course the Opposition asserts the right to argue immigration in a bona fide manner and it is perfectly obvious that the Labor Party has set out to put the tag of racism on the Opposition so as to intimidate us into silence on the immigration issue. I say to the Government that, consistent with everything that I have said in my remarks about the desire and the need to avoid any suggestion of racism, we are not going to allow the smear and the tag of racism to prevent us raising legitimate questions about immigration. We will not allow the Government to describe us as constructing a mosaic of racism by raising legitimate questions about immigration. We will raise legitimate questions about immigration and we will raise them without fear of proper criticism on racist grounds because, after all, it was the Liberal Party's immigration Minister, Harold Holt, who formally ended the white Australia policy. It was the Liberal administration under Malcolm Fraser which introduced and conducted that humanitarian refugee program whereby Australia took on a per capita basis a larger number of refugees from war afflicted Indo-China than any other country in the world. With those kinds of credentials, what earthly right has any member of the Australian Labor Party, with its record and the contradictions that lie in its historic past, to come into this House and lecture us about racism? Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(3.31) —I remind the House in this debate today of what occurred in this very chamber last May. Everyone in Australia knows that it was the Opposition which first raised this issue. There were accusations that the Australian Labor Party in government was deliberately Asianising Australia. When Professor Blainey said at Warrnambool that the policies of the Labor Government under my administration in introducing too many Asian people into the Australian community were getting ahead of community opinion, the Opposition unfortunately was only too willing to jump on that bandwagon. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) knows it, the Opposition's spokesman on immigration knows it and everyone else in this chamber knows it. I believe the events of last May in this House were disgraceful. It is a fair measure of the opportunism of the Opposition that they occurred. I remind honourable members of what was said and what has continually been said since then, albeit thankfully in an ever decreasing and now even low key way, but nevertheless it is being said; that is, that we discriminate against British people and that we discriminate positively in favour of Asians. Of course, that is not true. I will be making a statement to the House quite soon in which I will be reporting to honourable members the results of the 1983-84 intake. Given that certain irreversible facts and trends have occurred over the last few years , honourable members will see that the figures show that everything I have said and this Government has said in refuting the charges of Professor Blainey, the Opposition and others is in fact true. Why has the Opposition raised this issue? That question has continually puzzled me because there are people on the Opposition side who, frankly, I did not think , would be interested in raising this political red herring. I have come to the very obvious and simple conclusion that the Op position simply has had no other issue to run with. It has been going along so badly that it has taken up the issue and run with it, despite the damage that it knows this will cause to our long-standing immigration policy. I think the way the Oppo sition has been treated in the media since it brought this matter up has made a lot of its members have second thoughts. Never have I seen such vicious cartoons against the Leader of the Opposition and his spokesman as I have seen them receive on this issue. Never have I seen such hard hitting editorials against an Opposition which opportunistically against its better judgment tried to run with an issue that it knew it should not. No wonder the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) registers concern today. Representatives of our neighbours in South East Asia have come to me and told me how much they deplore what has been going on. They have sought assurance from me , as the Minister, that we would not be influenced by any of these charges that have been made against us and that we would not panic. I assured them that we would not panic. I said that if there is one thing in which I have faith it is the good sense of the Australian community. I know that, even though a small uninformed minority may try to attack us on this issue, when it comes to the crunch the majority of straight-thinking Australians will not change their vote on this issue. I believe that, basically, the majority of modern Australians, after an infusion of 3.5 million people from overseas over the last 30 years, are no longer racist. But representatives of neighbouring nations to our north have registered their concern with me. On my recent trip overseas to the United States of America and Central and South America, the same sorts of expressions were put to me. I assured those people that our policies will continue as I have enunciated them in this Parliament. A great deal of confusion has been caused, I think unnecessarily, by people who really ought to take more trouble to examine the facts. Mr Cadman —Including the Foreign Minister. Mr WEST —I could include, initially, people such as the Leader of the Opposition , the Opposition spokesperson on immigration, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) and even Professor Blaney. Professor Blainey had much to say about this. He continually says that he has a right to say these things, and I agree with that. But he continues to say that immigration ought to be cut by 50 per cent, totally ignoring the fact that over the last three years settler arrivals have already been reduced from 118,000, first to 93,000 and now down to 70,000. If we were to take the advice from some of these people and cut immigration by half, the figures would be down to 30,000 or 35,000 this financial year. We would have to cut in half the family reunion intake, cut in half the refugee intake, cut in half the very small numbers of independent skilled labour immigrants and cut in half business migration. The right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) in his contribution raised a point that I thought the Opposition had dropped. He still called for balance in the program. I wish quickly to address that point again because it is important. He said that we need to increase the number of skilled labour and business migration immigrants to restore balance. That request totally ignores the fact that in December 1982 the now Opposition, then in government, through its then Minister for Immigration, Mr Hodges, first cut the number of categories in the skilled labour areas from 77 down to 21; that virtually created the scenario which savagely reduced the number of skilled independent people coming into Australia. I subsequently reduced the number to 13. It is another story, which I will not digress into now, how we have devised a new manpower immigration planning system. The fundamental fact is that, when the Opposition calls for balance in the racial content by increasing the number of skilled people from Europe, it ignores the fact that the number of settler arrivals in that category has declined from 75,000 three years ago, to 49,000 and then down to 21,000 last financial year. It was the previous Government which first commenced that reduction. I wish to state that, despite the fact that the Labor Government continued this trend-we will continue it, increasing the numbers slightly-we will not seek to use this category to redress the balance in the racial mix of the program, even if it would work. I will tell honourable members why. It is because it would not be successful anyway. In the high technology areas from which we are now taking skilled labour, immigrants are just as likely to be Asian people as Europeans. We are not taking people from the old blue collar trades areas now but from the more high technology areas such as architecture, engineering and so on. People in those categories are just as likely to come from countries such as Japan, Singapore, Malaysia and Hong Kong as from Europe. So the whole basis of that balance strategy is wrong not only on race grounds but also on actual procedural grounds in the sense that it will not produce the people whom the Opposition expects it will. At any rate, we do not believe that Asians are inferior to people of European stock and, therefore, we do not believe that there is anything to balance. That is the fundamental point of the matter. I have a pretty thick skin but I found it very hard earlier this year to accept that the people who got us into the Vietnam war, and who rightly commenced a program which under their Administration produced 80,000 Vietnamese and Cambodian refugees and a few Laotians over the last six or seven years, had the audacity to accuse me of the Asianisation of Australia. I could never come to grips with the logic of that. Eighty thousand people from Indo-China came in under the ministerial direction of the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), who is at the table, then the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) and then the former honourable member for Petrie. We are diversifying the refugee program. We have cut the Indo-Chinese category from 15,500 to 8,000 and we have quite correctly lifted the orderly departure family reunion segment from Vietnam to 5,000 this year. That means that we are not reducing the numbers on racial grounds; we will have more this year than last year. We are changing the emphasis to family reunion for those already here and we are not perpetuating an ever increasing haemorrhage of refugees from Cambodia and Laos, many of whom ought not to be resettled anyway because it is often not in their best interests and many of them are not properly designated United Nations refugees. For the first time we are having our voice heard on the councils of world refugee authorities, such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and in bilateral relationships with the United States and other resettlement nations. No longer are we just a nation which does what it is told and resettles refugees. We now put forward policies to seek political solutions-solutions other than just resettlement-such as voluntary repatriation and so on. Now we are diversifying and taking people from other parts of the world. That has given us the clout to make our voice and our policies heard to ensure that our approach to world refugee problems has some degree of influence when policies are being created. I have said that I will make a definitive statement soon, and I will, but without pre-empting the figures that I will officially give later, I make it perfectly clear to this House that we will continue with our refugee programs. We will not be diverted. Although we will try to downturn them, manage them and diversify them, we will not be diverted on racial grounds. Mr MacKellar —What do you mean by downturn? Mr WEST —I have said that we may reduce the numbers of people coming out of Indo -China under refugee programs while we turn up the wick in respect of those coming from Vietnam under family reunion. The overall numbers are not falling but they ought to be managed in favour of family reunions, and other solutions to resettlements should be sought because the current outflow cannot go on forever. But we will not be diverted on racial grounds. We will seek to expand the family reunion component. There are currently 40,000 applications in the pipeline from Vietnamese seeking to bring their relatives from Vietnam. Quite frankly, they are the people who must get increasing priority. We will take the United Nations refugees and people under the special humanitarian programs who within their countries suffer human rights difficulties. We will continue with both those programs. Why should we do that? First, we have an international commitment to do so and we are well respected throughout the world for our policies. Secondly, we have a commitment to our region, to be integrated into the region and increasingly to become trading partners with nations in our region. That is very important. The third point is that it is better to have orderly departure and organised refugee migration programs than to have disorderly programs, that is, unauthorised boat arrivals. In conclusion, figures can be very misleading. I have just looked at the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics immigration figures, which were released today. I see that they are worked out on a calendar year and that in the 1982 calendar year 27,170 people from Asia settled in Australia as compared with 29,700 a year later in 1983; that is, 2,500 more people. I wish to ask Professor Blainey and some others whether they are really concerned about the fact that 2,500 more Asian people came to Australia in 1983 than came to Australia in 1982. Certainly , there are fewer Europeans but that reflects the figures I gave earlier, the huge drop in the arrival of skilled migrants from 1981-82 to 1983. The majority of British people who were coming in at that time did not come in under the family reunion scheme but were skilled migrants. So the intake of Asian migrants is not going up in figurative terms; the European intake is coming down, but I have given the very good reason for that. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(3.51) —Let us return to the subject of this debate. I will read out the motion once again to the House. It reads: That this House censures the Minister for Foreign Affairs for his intemperate and bigoted introduction of racism into the proceedings of this Parliament. This motion should gain the support of every member of this House because the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), in an answer at Question Time today, sunk to a new low even for him. He gave an absolutely disgusting reply to a question which should never have been asked. The honourable member for Casey (Mr Steedman), who asked the question and who has denigrated the standard of language in this House to a new low, should be thoroughly ashamed of himself. The Foreign Minister has reached a new low in personal abuse. Time after time in this House we have heard the Foreign Minister direct personal remarks at members of the Opposition and at people outside this House, and he did it again today. The Foreign Minister, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) time after time have sought to restrict debate on the immigration program by crying 'racism'. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is sitting at the table now. I well recall a marvellous cartoon which appeared a few weeks ago in the Australian. It features the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs . There is a crying outside the window and the Minister is saying to his assistant: 'Keep yelling ''racism'' until I think of something to say'. That is what this debate is all about. The Government recognises that there is community concern regarding the immigration program currently being undertaken by this Government. What does it seek to do about that? Does it undertake to allow a proper debate within the community regarding that concern? Not a bit of it! It seeks to denigrate people such as Professor Blainey, who seeks to draw attention to his concern. The Government tries to denigrate people from this side of the Parliament because we seek to bring on proper debate with the Government in relation to its immigration policies. It denigrates us by crying 'racism'. It is a cheap, nasty and unworthy way of dealing with a problem on a question which is of the utmost concern to all Australians, past, present and future. There is absolutely no doubt that the future composition of the Australian population is of rightful interest to all Australians. The sheer cheek and effrontery on the part of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and other Government speakers in accusing this side of Parliament, this side of politics, of racial intolerance beggars the mind. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has already drawn attention to the record of the Australian Labor Party in its previous period of government. We all remember the record of the then Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam. What did he do? What was his response to the catastrophe in South East Asia? What was his response to the plight of hundreds of thousands of people fleeing from the imposition of communist rule in their homelands? What was his response? 'Keep them out,' he said, 'I will not have any more Asian Baltic-type nations in this area'. That was his response. How many people did he let in? Only a very small proportion of refugees from Indo-China were admitted. Where was the tolerance? What else did the then Prime Minister do? For the first and only time in Australia's history he required those refugees to sign a statement saying that they would not involve themselves in the political life of this country. He muzzled them. Where are these great democrats now, these great defenders of civil and racial rights from the Government side? Where were they then? Where were the voices of the members of the then Government? Why did they not take exception to the attitude of the then Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, towards Indo- Chinese refugees? There was not a peep or a squeak. Where was the honourable member for Casey then? Why was he not calling for a positive response from the then Government? One of the first acts of the Fraser Government in 1975, and I was the Minister responsible, was to release those people from that signed undertaking not to take part in the full liberties which are available to all Australians. It was a disgraceful and discriminatory requirement and it was never once repudiated by the Labor Party. So honourable members opposite should not tell us we are racist . Their record in the past is one of intolerance and of racial bigotry and they should never be allowed to forget it. I hoped that we could get away from this issue, but the Foreign Minister time and again, both inside this House and outside, uses the Goebbels approach of: ' You tell a lie often enough and people believe it'. In the House today he spoke of our racial intolerance towards migrants coming to Australia. That is one lie. He said our intolerance was exemplified by our support for the League of Rights. That is another lie. He said it was exemplified by our pro-apartheid policy. That is another lie. He said time and again-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! I suggest to the honourable member for Warringah that he use another word. Mr Speaker has, on precedent, asked that it not be used in the House. Mr MacKELLAR —Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. The fact is that the Foreign Minister, on every occasion that he gets the opportunity, repeats statements which he knows to be untrue. It is a measure of the quality of the man that he should seek to do this and that he should continue to do this. This man, who holds himself out as the future Prime Minister of Australia, comes into this House seeking to garner the support of the left wing members of the Labor Party. By responding to the disgraceful question from the honourable member for Casey he seeks to build up his numbers in the Caucus. He regularly repeats statements which he knows to be untrue. In looking at the questions of a racist approach and the immigration program we should examine the past. I will quote from my speech given in 1978 which outlined the then Government's policies. Page 3153 of Hansard records that I said: Few issues have attracted so wide a spectrum of sentiment, from the extreme of the virtual open door to the absolute of the door nailed firmly shut. The question of immigration is rarely argued in detached terms. This is because each of us has a personal stake in the future of Australia which we see through our own frames of reference. The issue of Indo-Chinese refugees has brought all Australians face to face with the reality that no longer are we insulated and isolated from immigration questions of immense significance. The Government has been conscious of diverse attitudes and has, in its deliberations, tried to find that consensus from which democratic government draws its strength. Immigration ought to be above partisan political polemics, and largely it has been. That is what I said in 1978. My statement was the result of a policy pursued by the then Government. A Green Paper on immigration was prepared in 1976 and tabled in 1977, and the policies were announced in 1978. Here was a process of consultation. Here was a process which allowed all the diverse elements within the Australian community to put their points of view. What a marked contrast that is to the attitudes of this present Government and this present Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. We understood the reality of people's concern about the future composition of the Australian community. We sought to involve the people in the process of deliberation. We sought to bring a sense of understanding to the changed circumstances that applied in Australia. What has this present Government done? In a snide, underhand way it abolishes all those aspects of consensus. It abolished all those advisory bodies which would have allowed it to have an understanding of a diverse range of views. The Minister in the ivory tower of his ministerial office imposed his views on the Australian community. There was no attempt to involve it in the deliberations or to bring it into the preparation of policies. This snide, underhand way of dealing with things was exposed because people became concerned. People have a right to be concerned. This concern will not be set aside by cheap remarks about racist attitudes. I will not have the suggestion that Australians are any more racist than anybody else in the world. I do not for a moment believe that to be a fact. In fact, I believe that Australia's record of accepting into this country migrants from all over the world is second to none. I cannot think of another country which has managed to integrate successfully into its community as wide and diverse a range of people as Australia has in a very short time. That is a great credit to this country. It should never be set aside; it should never be denigrated. We need to acknowledge that some people have racist views. They are not on one side of politics alone. We need also to acknowledge that. The fact remains that it is not racist to talk about the composition of the intake. It is not racist to worry about the direction of the composition of the future population of Australia. It is not racist to worry about the rate of change. That is simply not racist. It is proper to be concerned about the successful integration into this country of migrants from whatever source. That is a proper concern that is being expressed widely in the community. The Government ought to attach some importance to that concern. It should not slough it off with some cheap and snide remarks suggesting that only a racist would dare question the direction of the Australian Government's immigration policies. It is not racist so to do. It is quite proper for people to suggest that they have an abiding interest in the future of this country, the directions its immigration policies will take, and the size and type of the population we will have. It is quite proper for them to be concerned about this. There are two sides to any immigration debate. There are the people who want to come to the country. We all know that if Australia had an open gate immigration policy hundreds of thousands of people would come because it is an attractive place to live. Therefore we cannot have an open door immigration policy. We must have a selective immigration policy. That does not mean for a moment that it need be discriminatory. It is not discriminatory. The previous Government's policy was not discriminatory. This Government's policy should not be discriminatory. It simply must be selective because decisions have to be made about the competing claims of various applicants for entry. It is irresponsible for any government to continue an immigration program which does not have the continued support of the broad Australian community. That way disaster lies. The measure of the success of any immigration program is the success of the integration into the community of those people coming into the country. If the people coming into the country face difficulties, intolerance or animosity, the people who are responsible for the implementation of the program must look very carefully at their policies. At present, because the Minister has been secretive and not opened himself to advice from a wide range of people and because people are concerned that unskilled migrants are competing for jobs with unskilled people in Australia-the unskilled area being that area of unemployment most difficult to overcome-there is community concern. It should not for a moment be suggested that that concern is based on racism; it is not. It would not matter where the migrants came from. In difficult economic circumstances any migrant from whatever source competing for scarce jobs will be criticised and in many cases resented. That is a fact of life. It has been seen time and again throughout the world wherever migration flows occur. The size of migration flows and the sources of the people involved are legitimate concerns for the host community. That must be recognised by this Government or the concern of the people of Australia, which is not generally being expressed in a racist way, will come home to haunt this Government. To accuse the shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), of racist attitudes forgets the news release that he issued on 5 August. I seek leave to table that statement because I think it demonstrates once and for all the falseness of the accusations of a racist approach towards immigration into Australia that have been levelled at the Opposition and in particular at the shadow Minister. Leave granted. Mr MacKELLAR —It is simply not true, and it does the perpetrators of that snide and cheap comment very little credit. The Minister for Foreign Affairs is rightly censured for his attitude and the words he used when he answered a question in this House today. He has done himself no credit whatsoever. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(4.08) —Much of this debate has centred on racism and immigration. I want to address the House about the racism that bedevils society, not on the basis of problems with immigration policy but on the basis of the problems which every Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, has had to deal with, not as an exercise in political rhetoric but as a day to day problem in terms of white-black relationships in this country. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) , is quite correct when he points to the history of the Liberal Party and says it was the Holt Government that ended the white Australia policy. He is absolutely correct when he says that it was the Fraser Government which responded to the needs of the boat people. It is regrettable that he did not say that on those two issues he had the support of the Opposition. It was the fact that this Parliament was able to speak with a united voice on these important issues which made it easier for the government of the day to deal with those difficult and complex problems. In the area in which I have to deal, Aboriginal affairs, we are bedevilled by racist attitudes. Unfortunately, they abound in a politically organised way in certain sections of Australian society. It would be false and specious to say that organisations which are frankly and overtly racist do not exist in Australian society. I refer to the most active of those organisations, the Australian League of Rights. Time does not permit me to deal with the full history of the League. That has been done with some skill and competence by my colleague the honourable member for Casey (Mr Steedman). I commend to the House his speeches made on 3 May and 9 May and printed in Hansard. The track record of the League of Rights since before the last World War is one of anti-Semitism and racism. As I said in the House last night, the League of Rights, through its spokesperson, Mr Eric Butler, described the great British wartime leader, Sir Winston Churchill, as being in the grip of international Jewish financiers. He said the same thing about President Roosevelt in the League of Rights publication. That man condemned the founder of the Liberal Party, Sir Robert Menzies, who in his capacity as Prime Minister simply went to a Jewish function and wore a yarmulke. That is the man who has published an anti -Semitic book, The International Jew. His Heritage Bookshop is the only place in Melbourne where one can buy the notorious Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. That is the man's track record and that of his organisation. No matter how well motivated some members of the Opposition might be when they say that the average Australian is not a racist, they are hiding their heads in the sand if they do not recognise that organisation for the anti-Semitic racist organisation that it is. I, for one, repudiate the League of Rights, Eric Butler and all his ways. I do not believe-and no decent Australian could believe-a single word he says about the Jewish people. If we cannot believe what he says about the Jewish people, how is it that he is wined, dined and feted in rural parts of Australia as a spokesman on Aboriginal people and their hopes and aspirations? The problems confronting members of this House on issues of immigration, Aboriginal land rights and the attitudes of our indigenous people are complex in themselves. They need to be debated. Aboriginal leadership throughout Australia has said that it wants to enter into debate on these issues with pastoralists, cattlemen and members of the Opposition. The Aboriginal people want their position to be understood because they believe-and I hope they are right-that if they are listened to and their aspirations are understood, they will get a fair go. I think that the average Australian believes in a fair go, and as we approach our bicentennial he is concerned to see that these problems are resolved. In this situation we have meetings around Australia being addressed, financed and organised by the League of Rights, which is saying several things. First, it says that Australian sovereignty is under threat as a result of Aboriginal land rights. That is nonsense. I have repudiated it and the Government repudiates it, yet it is said time and time again. Then there is an ex-communist, a Mr Geoffrey McDonald, who is on the League of Rights bandwagon, who has produced a booklet called 'Red Over Black'. This booklet purports to say that land rights is not something that is held deep in the hearts of Aboriginal Australians, but is a communist conspiracy-something that was dreamed up in the early 1930s in the bowels of the Communist Party of Australia and that Aboriginal people are just being manipulated by a group of communists. There could be no more racist or demeaning concept of the aspirations of our Aboriginal people than that. My concern is that this propaganda is being spread on a daily basis. League of Rights spokespersons are going to rural communities and saying to decent, average Australian citizens: 'Land rights is all about claims on your own farm. Nobody's home is safe.' That is palpable nonsense. I have said time and again that there will be no land rights claims on private property. My problem is this: It is not that these propositions are being mouthed by anybody other than the League of Rights, but that organisations like the National Party are influential in these areas. When I see League of Rights spokesmen on the same platform as National Party members of parliament, I am concerned. When I see an advertisement in country newspapers advertising meetings sponsored by the League of Rights, advertising Mr Geoffrey McDonald, the man with the thesis of the communist land rights conspiracy, and that advertisement is headed with a picture of the Premier of Queensland-and I believe he is a prominent member of the National Party-I am concerned. The Premier of Queensland is quoted in the advertisement as saying: 'I think that Geoff McDonald's message is extremely important to Australia's defence and sovereignty. All Queenslanders should take the opportunity of hearing him.' The advertisement goes on: 'What is behind land rights? Geoff McDonald speaks with the unique authority on communist efforts to exploit land rights, to establish a separate black nation in northern Australia. As a former communist, he not only exposes its aims with inside knowledge, but also has the documents to back it up .' Am I not entitled to be concerned? Are not the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) and National Party spokesmen in this House entitled to be concerned? It is no good coming to the House today and saying: 'We are not racists.' I do not believe that they are but what I want them to do is to use the prestige and the authority they have as members of the National Party to say to the Premier of Queensland: 'We publicly disown that position and we repudiate it.' That has not been done and it will not be done. Then there is the action of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). I hope that this incident was a moment of aberration because I have known him a long time and I do not believe he is a racist. I never have thought that and I do not believe it now. Let me go on record as saying that. But I am entitled to be concerned when he appears on a program and is asked this direct question by the interviewer: 'You have some unusual running mates on this issue, that is the League of Rights and Mr Butler'. What did the Leader of the Opposition say? He said: 'They do not run with me, sorry; parallel.' When one is running parallel with a racist anti-Semitic organisation, it means that one might be on a different track but nevertheless one is going in the same direction and is hoping to arrive at the same destination. I hope that that was a slip by the Leader of the Opposition because I personally believe that he is better than that. But I find it extraordinary that today the Liberal Party can claim, 'look at our record, we are not racists' while the leader of that Party is saying to the people of Australia, of a body like the League of Rights-a notorious anti- Semitic, racist organisation-'We are running parallel'. It is an extraordinary position for the Opposition, with all its good intentions, to be running parallel with an organisation which is currently in Melbourne trying to prove that the holocaust never happened. If the Leader of the National Party wants to put these issues up for serious debate in the House he should get up and repudiate here and now the League of Rights and condemn it in particular for its pernicious campaign which is being conducted throughout National Party electorates-- Mr Sinclair —What did Mr Justice Helsham say about you? Mr HOLDING —The Leader of the National Party wants to make statements that he is not racist but he is perfectly happy to have the Eric Butlers of the world wandering around country electorates telling decent honest country people that their homes and their lives are under threat-- Mr Sinclair —Mr Justice Helsham is the bloke you want to worry about. Remember what he said about you. Mr HOLDING —What does the Leader of the National Party do about it? He says: ' Well, there might be a few votes in that. We will not get too close. They can fan the flames and we will collect the rewards.' Mr Sinclair —No wonder Helsham thought you were so hopeless. Mr HOLDING —I was in Geneva just ahead of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). In terms of international perception, in something less than two years in areas dealing with indigenous people, other parts of the world are looking to Australia to create important social models-- Mr Sinclair —Aborigines do not think much of you; neither does Judge Helsham. Mr HOLDING —Oh possum, why don't you shut up? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Minister should ignore the interjections. The Leader of the National Party has already been asked to stop interjecting. If he continues I will warn him and I will name him. Mr HOLDING —I want to make the point that people are increasingly looking to Australia to give leadership in international affairs in terms of our relationship with indigenous people and the South Pacific. I commend the work that has been done by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in this matter. The Minister for Foreign Affairs is entitled legitimately to point out the concerns that he and I think every decent Australian feel when they see the once great Liberal Party and the National Party moving in a particular direction in an area in which it is essential to maintain a level of consensus and being ready to adopt the very terminology of organisations such as the League of Rights. I commend the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for the way in which he used his influence at his Party's convention to destroy a resolution which used terminology such as: 'We support the large body of Australian citizens who oppose the Asianisation of our country'. Those forces are at work in our society . From the point of view of the Government and the Labor Party let me say that I want to see a Liberal Party and a National Party that are able to get over the top of those forces and create a climate in which these great issues can be debated in a way which will unite this nation and at least allow these issues to be dealt with calmly and rationally. I move: That the question be now put. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Before I put the question, I point out that the honourable member for St George has indicated to me that he wishes to make a personal explanation. Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented in this debate? Mr MORRISON(St George) —Yes, I do. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr MORRISON —I object to the assertions made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and repeated by the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) that those associated with the Whitlam Government were guilty of some form of racism against Indo-China. I would like to remind the House that following the fall of Saigon the Whitlam Government made arrangements for orphans to be evacuated from Saigon. I was responsible for that evacuation. Mr Tuckey —I take a point of order. In a personal explanation it is incumbent on an honourable member to explain his own position and not the position of a government. Mr MORRISON —If the honourable member for O'Connor had been listening, he would have realised that I was explaining my personal involvement. I will repeat it for the honourable member. I was reminding the House that following the fall of Saigon the Whitlam Government made arrangements for orphans to be evacuated from that city. I was responsible for that evacuation and returned with the orphans on a Qantas charter flight. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question is 'That the question be now put'. Question resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Sinclair's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 68 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Lloyd, B.Blunt, C. W. Lusher, S. A.Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S.Cadman, A. G. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Donald MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ian Macphee, I. M.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Coleman, W. P. Moore, J. C.Connolly, D. M. Newman, K. E.Cowan, D. B. O'Keefe, F. L.Dobie, J. D. M. Peacock, A. S.Drummond, P. H. Porter, J. R.Edwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fisher, P. S. Ruddock, P. M.Goodluck, B. J. Shipton, R. F.Groom, R. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Jacobi, R.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. McLeay, LeoCampbell, G. Maher, M. J.Charles, D. E. Mayer, H.Charlesworth, R. I. Mildren, J. B.Chynoweth, R. L. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Morrison, W. L.Dawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Everingham, D. N. Reeves, J. E.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.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.Hawke, R. J. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Fife, W. C. Uren, T. Question so resolved in the negative. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —On behalf of Mr Speaker, I present the report and financial statements of the Reserve Bank of Australia for the year 1983-84, together with the Auditor-General's report thereon. This action is required of Mr Speaker pursuant to the Reserve Bank Act. Copies are being released to the media by the Bank. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Defence) —Pursuant to section 147 of the Defence Act 1903, I present the annual report of the Royal Military College of Australia covering the period 1 February 1983 to 31 January 1984. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Temporary Assistance Authority report on filament lamps. The report was made available to honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce) —For the information of honourable members I present Industries Assistance Commission reports on the following matters: Southern bluefin tuna; agricultural wheeled tractors and certain parts; industrial overalls; rural adjustment; computers, et cetera; metal working machine tools; robots; and interim reports on electric motors; agricultural wheeled tractors and certain parts; and tableware and other goods of ceramics. All these reports were made available to honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the evaluation of the Vietnam Veterans' Counselling Service Part 1, together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs relating to the report. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission annual report for 1983. The report was made available to honourable members during the recess. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —Pursuant to section 63M of the Audit Act 1901, I present the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority financial statements for 1981-82, together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs relating to the document. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —Pursuant to section 39 of the Australian Maritime College Act 1978, I present the annual report of the Council of the Australian Maritime College for 1983, volumes 1 and 2. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —Pursuant to section 30 (3) of the Canberra College of Advanced Education Act 1967, I present part 2 of the report of the College for 1983. This report contains the financial statements of the College for 1983 together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs relating to the report. Limited copies of the report are available from the Bills and Papers Office. Copies will be made available to all honourable members within the next two weeks. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation to correct a statement I made to the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —The Minister may proceed. Mr BARRY JONES —When the case of Dr Hood was raised by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) during the adjournment debate last night, I took a point of order because as I said: I think this matter is really sub judice. My recollection is that I am the defendant in an action in my former capacity as Acting Minister for Health. My recollection was faulty. I am being sued ex officio by a plaintiff named Croft, not Hood. I knew it was a short Anglo-Saxon name with architectural connotations, but I recalled the wrong one. It was a Freudian slip. I regret the error. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the right honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SINCLAIR —Yes. During the debate on the condolence motion on 21 August in memory of Sir Alister McMullin I made reference at page 22 of Hansard to one of my constituents whom I had believed to be his grand-daughter. I have since been advised that she is not his grand-daughter; she is a relation. I apologise to the family for my mistake. But nothing I said lessens in any way the sincerity with which I spoke in his memory. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr TUCKEY —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In his preliminary to an answer today the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) referred to a speech made by the member for O'Connor during the adjournment debate last night and to inaccuracies occurring in that speech. I have looked at the speech again and can find no inaccuracies of fact. I thought it might be of interest to reread the very short passage concerning this matter: A question has been asked in the Senate of the Minister representing the Minister for Health and some interesting things came out of that response. Senator Grimes, in answering, said: In signing the Medicare claim form for assigned patients, the form DB1, immediately above the doctor's signature is the statement 'no payments have been sought from the . . . patients for the provision of services supplied in the attached assignment forms'. I continued: That was put down as one of the main reasons why this man should lose his livelihood. But another form was presented to the Parliament today. A Minister of the Crown said: The three packages consigned to me which have arrived, and are due to arrive, at MELB per QF002 on 29.6.84 contain my bona fide unaccompanied baggage for the abovenamed voyage. That is right above his signature. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member places the Chair at a disadvantage. He refers to matters on the score that he has been misrepresented but he has not satisfied the Chair as to the misrepresentation. He made the broad charge that another member of this Parliament had described his remarks as inaccurate. On that basis the Chair is not in a position to hear the honourable member further. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of the House, I table the Government guidelines for official witnesses before parliamentary committees and related matters. I seek leave to make a short statement on the matter. Leave granted. Mr DAWKINS —The Government's guidelines respond to a recommendation by the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration that conventions relating to appearances of officials be set down in a consolidated form for the guidance of officials. The previous Government informed Parliament of its own proposed guidelines on 28 September 1978, and undertook to review them in the light of experience. The Government's guidelines take into account that experience, and the helpful comments made by parliamentary officers and others. As well they are guided by the principles of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 as further elaborated by this Government's legislation and draw on relevant recommendations in the exposure draft of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. The guidelines are grounded in the principle that it must be for Ministers to advocate or defend policy, but recognise the rights and duties of officials as citizens and the importance of informed public debate. The Public Service Board' s guidelines on official conduct of Commonwealth public servants relating to public comments have been revised commensurately and will issue shortly. While the Government's guidelines are primarily for officials, they will nevertheless be of considerable interest to honourable members. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —by leave-The Opposition has no objection and indeed supports the recommendations and the tabling of the guidelines that have just been presented to the House by the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins). We note that the recommendations came from the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration and there are a number which I think all members of this House would find to their advantage. In particular, I draw the attention of the House to some matters that flow from the guidelines in relation to annual reports which appear in Attachment B. The first is that all authorities are to provide annual reports as soon as possible after the end of the financial year, if possible in time for the Estimates debate in the Budget sittings. Sadly, over the years many authorities have presented reports to this place far too late for proper consideration by the Parliament. I believe that guideline is one that needs to be drawn to the attention of all authorities and all areas in which annual reporting is required. The obligation which sets down that the deadline for the submission of reports to Ministers is within six months from the end of the reporting period is another one which I endorse. On the question of the subsidiaries which are mentioned on page 11, I draw the attention of honourable members to the fact that details of subsidiary companies formed or interests acquired in existing companies are to be provided. It is suggested that it is only a desirable practice to include the annual reports of such subsidiaries. I do not believe that is sufficient. I believe it is absolutely essential that full details of any subsidiaries be tabled in this place. As one who had some difficulties in the subsidiary operation of the Australian dairy industry, to wit Asia Dairy Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd, I believe it essential that full reporting be made, for that body operated without the knowledge of successive governments beyond the authority that was conferred by this Parliament on the Australian Dairy Corporation. I believe that full reporting from subsidiaries is not only desirable but essential and should be required to the degree that it is practical. The presentation of an annual report should be obligatory. Finally, I note that on page 12 under A (7) under the heading 'General Principles' there is a suggestion that as reports are to provide information on the operation of departments rather than to promote them modest standards of production are desirable and appropriate. I think there is much to be commended in that suggestion. I have little doubt that the Minister for Finance would endorse that recommendation. I do not believe it is necessary to have a great gaudy political production, as regrettably some have been under this Government. I believe it is necessary that there be a factual and legible presentation. Obviously that is to be desired. Of course, properly, within the business world there is competition in determining the excellence of balance sheets. Many authorities see the report as their balance sheet. To the degree that there is competition within that area one can understand the desire to present facts in the most legible and comprehensible form. However, I think there is some limit on the degree to which public funds should be spent on providing an excessively glossy publication. If the report becomes an exercise in political propaganda that, in my view, is totally reprehensible. With those qualifications, the Opposition concurs with the guidelines handed down by the Minister for Finance. Mr Dawkins —With the approval of the Opposition and your own, Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to have the guidelines incorporated in Hansard. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Before inviting expression of the attitude of the House on the matter I inform the House that Mr Speaker has given consideration to the request against the guidelines brought down and because of their importance considers that leave could properly be granted. Leave granted. The guidelines read as follows- GOVERNMENT GUIDELINES FOR OFFICIAL WITNESSES BEFORE PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES AND RELATED MATTERS Contents Paragraphs Introduction 1-2 A. Parliamentary Committees 3-14 Preliminaries to an inquiry 5-7 Preparation of written material 8-15 Conduct during hearings 16-21 Protection of submissions and witnesses 22-23 Claims by ministers that information should not be disclosed 24-32 Evidence provided in confidence 33-36 Publication of evidence 37-40 Statutory committees 41 Committees concerned with administrative aspects of government 42 Committees investigating the actions of individual ministers or officials 43 Official witnesses from statutory authorities 44 B. Party Committees 45-51 C. Non-Parliamentary Public Inquiries (including Royal Commissions) and Speeches 52-60 Speeches 52 Foreign Service 55 Royal Commissions 56-58 State inquiries (parliamentary and other) 59 Courts 60 D. Guidelines Relating to Access by Individual Members of Parliament to Public Servants and Officers of Statutory Authorities 61-67 GOVERNMENT GUIDELINES FOR OFFICIAL WITNESSES BEFORE PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES AND RELATED MATTERS Introduction 1. These guidelines are based on the proposition that reasoned public discussion of the factual and technical background to policies and their administration leads to a better understanding of the objectives and process of government. In the Australian system of parliamentary government, and consistent with the traditional understanding of ministerial responsibility, the public advocacy and defence of government policies and administration has traditionally been, and should remain, the preserve of ministers, not officials. But subject to this, the guidelines are aimed at encouraging the freest possible flow of information between the public service, the Parliament and the public. 2. The guidelines apply primarily to the preparation of submissions and the provision of evidence to parliamentary committees by officials. The relevance of the guidelines to contexts outside parliamentary committees, including party committees, royal commissions, speeches, public inquiries and court appearances is noted in sections B and C. Section D contains guidelines for the provision of information to individual members of parliament by officials. A. Parliamentary Committees 3. The purpose of the guidelines is to assist officials appearing before parliamentary committees, by informing them of the principles they are required by the Government to follow, recognising that the Parliament is entitled to be properly and adequately informed on the operation of the Executive. 4. The Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege (the ' Privilege Committee') has prepared an 'exposure report' for consideration by Senators and Members. Although the report has not yet been considered, officers should note the recommendations which have particular relevance to the guidelines as indicated below. Preliminaries to an inquiry 5. As a matter of practice, requests for an official to attend a committee inquiry in an official capacity, or to provide material to it, are made through the relevant Minister. 6. A Minister may delegate to the departmental Secretary the responsibility of deciding the official(s) considered by the Government most appropriate to provide the information sought by the committee from the department. It is important that the official(s) selected should have sufficient responsibility or be sufficiently close to the particular work area to be able to satisfy the committee's requirements. 7. Witnesses are to prepare themselves thoroughly before hearings including, as appropriate, by consultation with the Minister (and, if required, the Minister representing him or her in the other House), e.g. on possible claims that it would be in the public interest to withhold certain documents or oral evidence or requests for the hearing of evidence in camera. Officers might also make themselves aware of recommendations of the Privilege Committee relating to the rights of witnesses (R.35, based substantially on current Senate practice) and matters which may be treated as a contempt of the Parliament (particularly R.28) . Preparation of written material 8. In the normal course, a committee should be provided with a written statement on which subsequent oral evidence will be based. In addition, where written questions have been forwarded by the committee, written replies should also be provided. All initial and supplementary written material (authorised in accordance with these guidelines) should be forwarded to the secretary of the committee. 6. When the interests of several departments are involved, adequate consultation is to take place in preparing material and making arrangements for witnesses to attend. 10. Departmental submissions to parliamentary committees should be cleared within the department, and normally with the Minister, in accordance with arrangements approved by the Minister(s) concerned. 11. Any such submission should not take policy positions, that is, it: (a) should not advocate, defend or canvass the merits of government policies ( including policies of previous Commonwealth governments, or state or foreign governments) (b) may describe those policies and the administrative arrangements and procedures involved in implementing them; (c) should not identify considerations which have led to a ministerial or government decision or possible decision, in areas of any sensitivity, unless those considerations have already been made public or the Minister authorises the department to identify them; (d) may after consultation with the Minister, and especially when the Government is encouraging public discussion of issues, set out policy options and list the main advantages and disadvantages, providing that it does not reflect on the merits of any judgment on those options which may have been made by the Government, or is otherwise partisan to a particular viewpoint. The Privilege Committee has recommended that 'A departmental officer (should) not be asked to give opinions on matters of policy, and shall be given reasonable opportunity to refer questions asked of him to his superior or to the appropriate Minister'. (R.35 (14)). 12. In relation to the matters prescribed in 11 (a) above, the proper course is for ministers to make written submissions or to appear-or to arrange for ministers representing them to appear-personally before committees, or to invite committees to submit questions on policy issues in writing. 13. In relation to 11 (c), the normal course is for ministers to canvass the material in these categories, but departments should ensure that if departments are to canvass such material, it is clearly brought to attention when the submission is submitted for clearance. 14. Other matters may be considered for inclusion in a submission which are factual or are only background material, but which also have wider implications because they are within an area of public or party political controversy, or because of the timing e.g. in a pre-election period. This points to the need for those preparing material to give thorough consideration to any wider ramifications of the matter under inquiry, and to bring any such matters to the Minister's attention. 15. A request for more time to prepare evidence may be made to a committee by the Minister (or the department acting on his or her behalf) if the notice is considered insufficient. (The Privilege Committee has recommend- ed that 'a witness shall be given reasonable notice . . . and an indication of the matters expected to be dealt with' (R.35 (3)).) Conduct during hearings 16. The role of an official witness is to speak to any statement provided to the committee and to provide factual and background material to assist understanding of the issues involved. 17. The guidelines outlined above relating to written material apply also to oral evidence. 18. In addition, officials should not answer questions nor undertake to provide documents which could give rise to a claim of public interest immunity, unless the question of immunity has already been considered (see paragraphs 24-32 below ) and a decision arrived at. 19. It is envisaged that an officer may ask the person chairing the committee to consider whether questions are in order, in accordance with paragraph 11. If an official witness is directed to answer such a question, and has not (in line with paragraph 7) previously cleared the matter with his or her Minister, the officer should ask to be allowed to defer the answer until such clearance has been obtained. 20. As an alternative to the approach suggested in paragraph 19, it may be appropriate for the official witness to refer to the written material provided to the committee and offer, if the Committee, wishes, to seek elaboration from the Minister or to request that the answer to a particular question be reserved for submission in writing. 21. It is important as questions are answered during hearings that witnesses should take care not to intrude into responsibilities of other departments and agencies (see also paragraph 9 above). Where a question falls within the administration of another department or agency, an official witness may request that it be directed to that department or agency or be deferred until that department or agency is consulted. Protection of submissions and witnesses 22. Where a written submission is made to a committee at the invitation of the committee, whether it be of a general nature or directed specifically to the department concerned the preparation and making of that submission is protected by parliamentary privilege if received as evidence by the committee. In particular, it would follow that such a submission would enjoy absolute privilege with respect to defamation. However, protection would not automatically extend to copies or the substance of the submission unless the committee authorised publication. The privilege would also not extend to any unauthorised disclosure of the submission. Where written material that has not been sought by a committee is prepared and submitted to it, it cannot be assumed that such material would be protected by parliamentary privilege until such time as it had been formally received as evidence or publication authorised by a committee (see also paragraph 40). (The Privilege Committee has recommended legislation to declare that absolute privilege cover, among other things ''all things said, done or written . . . by any persons ordered or authorised to attend before . . . any Committee, sub-committee or other group or body of senators or members appointed by or with the authority of (Parliament).'' (R.1). ) 23. It should be noted that officials who appear as witnesses before a parliamentary committee may be obliged to answer questions or produce documents which might tend to be self incriminating (see also paragraph 41). In such cases parliamentary privilege protects them against only that evidence itself being used against them outside the parliament, e.g. as evidence against them in proceedings before the courts. A witness may request the committee to take the evidence in camera in those circumstances. (The Privilege Committee has recommended a procedure for considering claims by a witness that he or she not answer a question on grounds of self-incrimination (R.35(9)).) Claims by ministers that information should not be disclosed 24. Claims that information should be withheld from disclosure on grounds of public interest (''public interest immunity'') should only be made by ministers (normally the responsible Minister in consultation with the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister). 25. The guidelines, and particularly paragraphs 11 and 30-40, should be read in the context of the Freedom of Information Act 1982. The Act establishes minimum standards of disclosure of documents held by Commonwealth departments and statutory authorities. Any non-public document or material which would not be exempt under this legislation should (with the knowledge of the Minister in sensitive cases or where the Minister has a particular interest or has been involved) be produced or given, on request, to a parliamentary committee. Moreover, it may be in the public interest to provide to the Parliament a document or information which would technically be exempt under the Act, and the exemptions in the Act should thus not be applied without proper regard to the role and functions of the parliament. In particular the following different circumstances apply in relation to Parliament: (a) the possibility of evidence being tendered confidentially to a parliamentary committee and being protected against disclosure or publication ( see paragraphs 33-36); under the Freedom of Information Act the exemption provisions represent the only protection from disclosure to the world at large; (b) the need to balance the public interest in protecting the documents with the public interest in Parliament pursuing its investigative functions. 26. A number of the exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act relate to matters in respect of which a claim of public interest immunity might be made- see guidelines 30 and 31 below. In the case of the other exemptions, the matters with which they are concerned would not ordinarily provide a basis for a claim of public interest immunity but do provide guidance as to circumstances in which it would be appropriate to raise the possibility of evidence being tendered in confidence to a parliamentary committee-see guideline 34 below. 27. As far as practicable, the question whether a claim of immunity should be made should be decided before a hearing, so that a certificate by the Minister can be produced. 28. As a matter of practice, before making a claim of immunity, a minister might explore with a committee whether the information it seeks can be provided in a form or under conditions which would not give rise to a need for the claim (including in camera, as provided below). Note also that the Privilege Committee has recommended that ''A witness (should) be invited to produce documents or records relevant to the committee's inquiry and an order (should) be made only where the committee has resolved that the circumstances warrant such an order'' (R.35(2).) 29. If an official witness, when giving evidence to a committee, believes that circumstances have arisen to justify a claim of immunity, the official should request a postponement of the evidence, or of the relevant part of the evidence, until the Minister can be consulted. 30. Documents-or oral evidence-in respect of which ministers may wish to consider claiming immunity depending on the balance of public interest, may include matters which fall into the following categories that coincide with some of those appearing in Part IV of the Freedom of Information Act dealing with exemption provisions (for a more detailed understanding of these, reference should be made to the Act and to separate guidelines on its operation issued by the Attorney-General's Department): (a) documents whose disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause damage to national security, defence, or international relations; or relations with the States; including disclosure of documents obtained in confidence from other governments ; (b) Cabinet documents and other documents disclosing any deliberation or decision of the Cabinet, other than a document by which a decision was officially published or to the extent that the document contains purely factual material where its disclosure would not reveal a decision or deliberation not previously officially published; (c) Executive Council documents and other documents disclosing any deliberation or advice of the Executive Council, other than a document by which an act of the Governor-General-in-Council was officially published or to the extent that the document contains purely factual material where its disclosure would not reveal a decision or deliberation not previously officially published; (d) internal working documents which would disclose matter in the nature of, or relating to, opinion, advice or recommendation obtained, prepared or recorded, or consultation or deliberation that has taken place, in the course of, or for the purpose of, the deliberative processes involved in the functions of the Government of the Commonwealth, where disclosure would be contrary to the public interest; (e) evidence affecting law enforcement or protection of public safety which would, or could reasonably be expected to: prejudice the investigation of a possible breach of the law or the enforcement of the law in a particular instance; disclose, or enable a person to ascertain the existence or identity of, a confidential source of information, in relation to the enforcement or administration of the law; or endanger the life or physical safety of any person ; (f) evidence subject to legal professional privilege. 31. In addition the following considerations may affect a decision whether to make documents or information available: (a) secrecy provisions of Acts: the requirement on officials to observe the secrecy provisions of enactments may vary from case to case and advice should be sought from the Attorney-General's Department when occasions involving such provisions arise; (b) court orders: in circumstances where the giving of evidence would appear to be restricted by a court and public disclosure could be in contempt of court the advice of the Attorney-General's Department should be sought. 32. Documents, and oral information relating to documents, given one of the usual national security classifications of 'confidential', 'secret' or 'top secret' would normally be included under one of the categories in paragraph 30, particularly 30 (a). Before producing a document bearing such a classification, an official witness should seek an appropriate clearance. (Note: It does not follow that documents without formal security classification may not be the subject of a claim of immunity. Nor does it follow that classified documents may not in any circumstances be produced. Each document should be considered on its own merits and, where classified, in consultation with the originator.) Evidence provided in confidence 33. There may be occasions when a minister (or, on his or her behalf, the department secretary) would wish, on balancing of the public interests involved, to raise with the person chairing the committee the possibility of an official producing documents or giving oral evidence in camera, and on the basis that the information be not disclosed or published except with the Minister's consent ( see also paragraph 37 below). 34. These circumstances might include: (a) cases where, although a claim of immunity could be justified under 30 (a)-( f), the Minister considers that the balance of public interest lies in making information available to the committee on the basis that it be heard in camera and not disclosed or published except with his or her consent; (b) cases where, while a claim of immunity may not be justified, there are other special considerations justifying the committee being asked to take evidence privately. Examples, which parallel other exemption provisions in Part IV of the Freedom of Information Act 1982, are: (i) evidence affecting law enforcement or protection of public safety which would, or could reasonably be expected to prejudice the fair trial of any person or the impartial adjudication of a particular case disclose lawful methods or procedures of law enforcement in a way that might prejudice the effectiveness of those methods or procedures prejudice the maintenance or enforcement of lawful methods of protecting public safety; (ii) evidence public disclosure of which would have a substantial adverse effect on financial or property interests of the Commonwealth; (iii) evidence public disclosure of which would prejudice the attainment of the objects or effectiveness of procedures or methods for the conduct of tests, examinations or audits of a Commonwealth agency; (iv) evidence public disclosure of which would have a substantial adverse effect on the management or assessment of personnel, or on the proper and efficient conduct of the operations of a Commonwealth agency including the conduct by the Commonwealth of industrial relations; (v) evidence unreasonably disclosing information relating to the personal affairs of any person; (note also that the Privilege Committee has recommended that a committee may consider taking evidence reflecting on a person, in camera (R.35(10)); (vi) evidence which would reveal business affairs, including trade secrets or other commercially sensitive information; (vii) evidence, public disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to have a substantial adverse effect on the management of the economy or on the conduct of business generally; (viii) evidence containing material obtained in confidence; (c) cases where similar or identical evidence has been previously given in camera to other hearings of the committee or other committees of the Parliament and has not been made public. 35. If when giving evidence to a committee an official witness believes that circumstances have arisen to justify a request that evidence be heard in camera, the official should make such a request if the possibility has been foreshadowed with the Minister (see paragraph 7) or should ask for the postponement of the evidence or of the relevant part of the evidence until the minister can be consulted. (The Privilege Committee has recommended that ''A witness who makes application for any or all of his evidence to be heard in camera (should) be invited to give reasons for such application, and may do so in camera. If the application is not granted, the witness shall be given reasons for that decision in public session (R.35(6)).). 36. In the event of an official being asked by a committee to give evidence ' off the record', the official should request a postponement until the Minister can be consulted, unless the possibility has been clearly foreshadowed with the Minister. Publication of evidence 37. Authority for the publication of evidence, whether in public or in camera, is vested in the Houses and invariably delegated to committees (see sub-section 2 (2) of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, standing order 340 of the House of Representatives, standing order 302 of the Senate and resolutions of appointment of committees). It is to be noted that evidence taken in camera is confidential and its publication without a committee's consent could be determined to constitute a contempt of either or both Houses (see Privilege Committee report, R.29). It should also be noted that section 46 of the Freedom of Information Act respects privilege in relation to material submitted to parliament. 38. If a committee proposes to publish in camera evidence given by an official witness and seeks concurrence of that witness, the matter should be taken up first with the Minister or with the Secretary to the department acting on the Minister's behalf. It is normal practice for a committee not to authorise the publication of in camera evidence without the concurrence of the witness, although such concurrence is not legally required. (See also paragraph 41.) 39. After perusing the record of their evidence, official witnesses should propose for the committee's consideration any necessary corrections for incorporation or noting in the published record. Where these affect the substance of the evidence previously given, it may be necessary to seek the agreement of the committee on the way in which the correction should be made, e. g. by tendering a subsequent statement. The Privilege Committee has recommended that ''Reasonable opportunity (should) be afforded to witnesses to request correction in the transcript of their evidence and to put before the committee additional material supplementary to their evidence (R.35(15)). 40. If an official witness believes, after perusing the record, that he or she has omitted to give some relevant evidence, the official should, having consulted with the Minister (or department Secretary), seek leave of the committee to lodge a further statement supplementing the earlier evidence or to give further oral evidence. All supplementary written material (authorised in accordance with these guidelines) should be forwarded to the secretary of the committee. Note, however, that it cannot be assumed that such correspondence, other than that either sought by the committee or formally received as evidence or ordered to be published, would be protected by privilege (see paragraph 22). Statutory committees 41. The Public Works Committee Act and the Public Accounts Committee Act provide for the summoning of witnesses and raise some special considerations, e. g. in section 23 of the Public Works Committee Act special provision is made in relation to the hearing of evidence on confidential matters and in section 19 of the Public Accounts Committee Act and section 25 of the Public Works Committee Act in relation to self incriminating evidence. In these and similar cases, the special provisions of the relevant Act take precedence. Committees concerned with administrative aspects of government 42. Where a committee is one which, by its nature, concentrates on the administrative aspects of government and the subject of the committee's inquiry is directed towards the examination of departmental administration and practice, it is for the Secretary to the Department, with the general consent of the relevant Minister, to use his or her discretion as to the extent to which aspects of these guidelines, such as the clearing of written evidence and the selection of witnesses, are to be followed. Committees investigating the actions of individual Ministers or officials 43. Where a committee is inquiring into the personal actions of a Minister (or official) and seeks information from officials, there may be circumstances where it is not appropriate for the requirements set out above for clearance of evidence to be followed. Official witnesses from statutory authorities 44. Members of authorities which have statutory public information and education roles clearly are able to express views on the policy responsibilities of their authorities. However, care should be taken to avoid taking partisan positions on matters of political controversy. In other respects these guidelines should be followed as far as is relevant including in relation to claims of public interest immunity (see paragraph 25). The guidelines apply fully to the staff of statutory authorities. B. Party Committees 45. Officials are made freely available to brief Party committees to assist them in understanding the technical and factual background to government policies and proposals. The guidelines for submissions to and appearances before parliamentary committees apply, subject to the following, to briefing of Party committees by officials. 46. Ministers may authorise officers of their departments, or of statutory authorities for which they are responsible, to appear before Government and Opposition Party committees to provide briefings or background material on government or ministerial decisions and proposals, including details and/or explanations of proposed legislation. 47. Committee requests for briefing in the above terms should be directed to the Minister concerned. The Minister may then authorise the department or authority to take in hand the necessary arrangements. It will also be taken to ministers to initiate proposals for briefing of committees, where they consider this to be desirable. 48. In providing briefing, officials will not be expected or authorised to express opinions on matters of a policy or of a Party political nature (see paragraph 11). 49. Where considered necessary or desirable, ministers may elect to be present at discussions with Government Party committees, to deal with questions of a policy or Party political nature. 50. Where the Minister does not attend the committee proceedings, officials should keep the Minister informed of the nature of the discussions and of any matters not able to be resolved by the officials to the committee's satisfaction . 51. Party committees do not have the powers or privileges of parliamentary committees, and consequently officials appearing before them do not have the protection afforded to witnesses before parliamentary committees (see paragraph 22 and 23). C. Non-Parliamentary Public Inquiries (including Royal Commissions) and Speeches 52. The guidelines for submissions to and appearances before parliamentary committees are to apply to officials' submissions to and appearances before other public inquiries, and to the preparation and presentation of speeches by officials in their official capacity, with the exceptions and additions contained in paragraphs 53-60. Speeches 53. Officers, other than in areas where national security or other reasons demand confidentiality, and subject to these guidelines, should regard it as a normal part of their duties to make themselves available to attend and address conferences in their areas of professional expertise. Speeches in such circumstances should aim to provide the necessary factual information and analytical material to promote informed public discussion. Such speeches and appearances should be regarded as part of the normal interchange of information with community groups. 54. In the case of submissions and speeches in non-parliamentary contexts the Minister may decide to authorise the Secretary to the department to clear material himself or herself, with reference of the material to the Minister at the Secretary's discretion. Within ministerial guidance the Secretary will institute such rules in the department as he or she considers appropriate. Apart from prepared submissions and speeches, officials will often find it necessary to speak in their official capacity without having the opportunity to clear the substance of their comments (for example, in relation to open discussions at public seminars). In such cases officials should pay particular regard to rules laid down by the departmental secretary, and the Public Service Board Guidelines on Official Conduct concerning public comment by public servants. In particular, they should avoid taking partisan positions on policy issues or matters of public controversy. Foreign Service 55. Head of Australian diplomatic or consular posts and senior officials serving abroad have the responsibility in countries to which they are accredited to explain, advocate or defend the Government's international and domestic policies through public speeches, conferences, media enquiries, appearances before host government parliamentary committees, etc. The opportunity may not arise for clearance by ministers or department secretaries, as appropriate. It is expected, however, that public comment will be consistent with authorised policies in all respects. Royal Commissions 56. Officials appearing before Royal Commissions established by the Commonwealth should also take note of the provisions of the Royal Commissions Act 1902. The categories of evidence enumerated in paragraph 30 above are appropriate also to claims of public interest immunity before a Commonwealth Royal Commission. The circumstances in which the Commission might be asked to hear evidence in camera are also likely to be the same as those listed at paragraph 34 above. 57. Except in limited circumstances, an official appearing before a Commonwealth Royal Commission may not refuse to answer a question (or to produce a document or other thing) on the ground that the giving of the answer or the production of the document or thing might tend to be self-incriminatory. This rule does not apply where the offence in respect of which the official might be so incriminated is an offence with which the official has been charged and the charge has not been finally dealt with by a court or otherwise disposed of. 58. Where guidance is required regarding counsel for officials-including about legal aid-advice should be sought from the Attorney-General's Department. State inquiries (parliamentary and other) 59. Where additional guidance or counsel is required regarding officials' appearance before and evidence to State inquiries, advice should be sought from the Attorney-General's Department. Similarly where a claim of public interest immunity may be under consideration, advice should be sought from the Attorney- General's Department. Courts 60. Where officials require further guidance or counsel in respect of their appearance before and evidence to courts of law-particularly concerning possible claims of public interest immunity-advice should be sought from the Attorney- General's Department. D. Access by Individual Members of Parliament to Public Servants and Officers of Statutory Authorities 61. Requests for information are usually made through the responsible Minister, but it is recognised that direct approaches to officials for routine factual information, particularly on constituency matters, are traditional and appropriate. 62. In any event, an official should inform the department secretary of any request for information and the response, and inform the Minister of any matter which is likely to involve him or her. 63. When a request by a member of parliament amounts to no more than a request for readily available factual information, the information should obviously be provided. 64. There may be other occasions where, in the judgement of officials, a member 's request raises sensitive issues, for example, where expressions of opinion are sought of government policies or alternative policies, as distinct from explanation of existing policies. Officials will not be expected or authorised to express opinions on government policies, policy options or matters of a Party political nature. Information provided may, however, include details of administrative arrangements and procedures involved in implementation of approved policies or legislation. 65. Where a request is made which seeks expressions of opinion on government policies or policy options, it would be appropriate to suggest that the member pursue the matter with the Minister. Similar action would be appropriate if a request raised other issues of a sensitive nature, or where the answering of a request would necessitate the use of substantial resources of the department or authority. 66. Care should be taken to avoid unathorised disclosure of classified or otherwise confidential information, for example, where a breach of personal or commercial privacy could be involved. 67. Where an official considers that the terms of a request would require going beyond the authorised scope of the above arrangements, the official should so indicate to the Member, and will be at liberty to raise the matter with the Secretary to the department or authority and the Minister and, if desired, with the Public Service Board. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion. namely: The damage to Australia-United States relations caused by Government policy and statements of the Foreign Minister. 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 MacKELLAR(Warringah)(4.46) —Mr Deputy Speaker-- Motion (by Mr Young) put. That the business of the day be called on. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. C. Millar) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 42 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. McLeay, LeoCampbell, G. Maher, M. J.Charles, D. E. Mayer, H.Charlesworth, R. I. Mildren, J. B.Child, J. Milton, P.Chynoweth, R. L. Morris, AllanCohen, B. Morris, PeterCross, M. D. Morrison, W. L.Darling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Steedman, A. P.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J.Hurford, C. J. Adermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Howard, J. W.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. Lusher, S. A.Cadman, A. G. McArthur, F. S.Cameron, Donald McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ian McVeigh, D. T.Carlton, J. J. Macphee, I. M.Coleman, W. P. Newman, K. E.Connolly, D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Groom, R. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele White, P. N. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Uren, T. Fife, W. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed. The Bill. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Defence)(4.56) —It is not my intention to delay the Committee. I should explain that one of the amendments I have moved relates to the minor penalties, provisions and powers of the Chief of the Defence Force and Chiefs of the Services in regard to making rules and to the necessity for those rules to be treated in the same way as regulations under the Act, which would be disallowable by either House of Parliament. The provisions were not included in the original Bill because that action was not seen to be necessary. The Senate has indicated that, because of its regulations and ordinances review procedures, it requires the provisions to be included in the Bill. We have acceded to that request. It means in effect that there is an amendment to the Bill which treats the rules under which minor penalties can be applied within the Defence Force in a manner similar to regulations. That amendment is one of the amendments which has been moved by the Government and it has been distributed. Mr SINCLAIR(New England) —Leader of the National Party of Australia) (4.58)-I confess that I have not examined in detail the last amendment to which the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) referred. It sounds as though the principle of the amendment is one we would accept. Having heard of it, I will now peruse it and, if we have any comments on it, before the matter is debated in the other place I will canvass it with my counterpart in that chamber. On that basis I do not oppose that addition to the amendments the Minister has moved. Amendments agreed to. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(4.59) —I move: Page 66, after clause 86, insert the following new clause: Application of income tax rebate in respect of termination payments for Defence Force personnel '86A. For the purposes of the application of section 160AA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 in relation to eligible termination payments within the meaning of section 160AA made pursuant to the provisions of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973, the reference in paragraph (b) of the definition of ''residual amount'' in sub-section (2) of that section to the age of 55 years shall be read as a reference to the age of 45 years.'. While we would have preferred-indeed, the Minister referred to it-to reduce the eligibility requirement to 35 years of age, which would by then have incorporated all other ranks, it is extraordinarily difficult in an area such as this to provide an amendment to accommodate our purpose. The Opposition is, of course, committed to repealing the lump sum superannuation tax introduced by this Government, and this provision would be redundant under a coalition government. However, under this Government it is true that something like 93 per cent of all servicemen retire before the age of 55. Indeed, the figure may be even higher. If the statistics that were presented by my predecessor, Sir James Killen, in an answer to the now Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) on 28 October 1981 at page 2644 of Hansard remain correct, it shows that the average age of retirement in the Navy for officers in 1980-81 was 47 and for other ranks 39. In the Army, officers retired at 45 and other ranks at 43. In the Royal Australian Air Force officers retired at 45 and other ranks at 43. At that time the then Minister gave age levels for the preceding two years. I do not have figures for subsequent years. We introduced this amendment because while it is true that some of those who are other ranks do not make the Services a full life career, it is also true that everyone who serves as an officer does so. It is our view that the discriminatory treatment which is part of the reason for the introduction of this Bill should be removed and should certainly not provide the disincentive for servicemen that it represents. As I said in my answer to the second reading speech of the Minister for Defence , the difficulty that we see in the whole application of these superannuation provisions is that they discriminate significantly against service men and women . They deny them the opportunity of some aggregation of capital at the end of a service life. Certainly every service man and woman moves significantly through their years in the service. They rarely spend more than two years in the one posting. Few have an opportunity to buy their own home. Part of the advantage of this benefit in the past has been that through the payment of that capital sum they have been able to purchase their own home. Some have been able to purchase a business and have been able to start a civilian life while still relatively young. But these penal provisions, which apply exclusively to them, now deny them the opportunity to do so. I am not happy that this provision should apply only at the age of 45 years. Indeed, that seems to be the only basis for the Minister's criticism. In my view it is absolutely essential that provision be inserted in the legislation so that this discriminatory treatment against members of the services with respect to the aggregation of defence force retirement and death benefit entitlements will not continue. It is on that basis that I moved the amendment that has been submitted in my name. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Defence)(5.04) —The Government cannot accept the amendment. The age at which the tax on lump sum superannuation would apply was debated at length and was the subject of lengthy consideration in various areas. A number of other areas in the community have similar retirement provisions. The air hostesses have run a fairly substantial campaign in this area. It is not normal procedure for a person to retire at the age of 45. It is normal for persons who leave their current employment-and there are a number of areas in which that occurs-to move to other areas of employment. Because of the way in which the defence force death and retirement benefit scheme is structured, the opportunity to do that exists over a fairly wide spread of years for persons who would benefit from this amendment. In the normal course of events the only persons who would remain in the Defence Force past the age of 45 would be officers of the ranks of captain, major or above. A small number of non-commissioned officers remain in the Defence Force past that age. They in fact have a statutory retirement age well beyond that. Majors and captains have a spread of years in which they are able to retire prior to the due date, as do other officers in the Defence Force, and they can retire without loss of benefit. For instance, the retirement age for a major or captain is 47 years. This would bring them into this qualification. They have the opportunity, in order to gain civil employment or to enter any business which they might wish to pursue, of retiring as early as 42-that is below the age at which this benefit would apply if this change were made-without loss of pension benefits. I indicated at the end of my second reading speech that some 85 per cent of members of the Defence Force retire before the age of 45. This change would benefit a very small number of members and would place them in a beneficial position compared to other members of the Defence Force. The Government has provided special considerations to meet those circumstances which were mentioned by the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) in that an additional commutation is made. I note that in his speech in the second reading debate he indicated that certain losses were involved. It has been my experience that where taxes are applied to any section of the community they normally result in a reduction in the income which the person who is being taxed receives. In these circumstances members of the Defence Force have been given the opportunity to protect the level of their commutation with a relatively small loss compared to that of other members of the community who are affected by lump sum superannuation payments. A major who took the opportunity to retire at 42 or 47 years of age and who took the additional years commutation would benefit by an amount which, if invested at a reasonable rate of interest, such as that given by Commonwealth bonds, would exceed the amount of pension that he would lose by not taking that amount. The provisions the Government has made are the only provisions for any section of the community with respect to off-setting the effects of lump sum superannuation. This amendment would deal with a handful of members of the Defence Force and would place them in an advantageous situation compared to other members of the Defence Force. The Government cannot accept the amendment. Amendment negatived. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Defence) —by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a third time In moving the third reading I respond to a matter raised earlier by the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) relating to section 12 of the Defence Act which applies to the ability of a member of the Defence Force to sue the Commonwealth for wages or allowances which are not paid and which are due. I inform him that the matter is under consideration. That section of the Act has never actually been utilised and there are some considerations as to how it could be used. At a later stage I will inform the honourable member of the results of those considerations. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Bill presented by Mr Hayden, and read a first time. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs)(5.10) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to provide for amendment of the existing passports legislation in three main areas: To prohibit the issue of Australian passports to people who are not Australian citizens and to remove the present distinction in the Passports Act between British subjects who are not Australian citizens and other non-citizens; secondly, to simplify the procedures whereby passports may be issued to unmarried children in those exceptional circumstances where they are unable to comply with the existing provisions contained within the Act relating to the obtaining of consent; and, thirdly, to make certain decisions under the Passports Act and passport regulations subject to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. For reasons that have now become historical the authority to issue passports to British subjects was included in the original 1938 Passports Act. It is now several years since Australian passports were issued regularly to British subjects. In rare emergencies documents of identity are still issued to British subjects until such time as they have been able to obtain a passport from their own national representatives. This will continue; the measure therefore will not affect Australia's ability to meet its obligations to provide consular assistance, including the issue of a travel document, to citizens of Commonwealth countries who are unable to obtain the assistance of their own national representatives. The Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking in its 'Interim Report No . 2-Passports' recommended that the issue of Australian passports be limited to Australians, to help to provide tighter controls over the issue of Australian passports and to assist in establishing the identity of passport applicants. The problems involved in the issue of passports to children may be complex. Section 7A, which controls the issue of passports to children, was included in the Act in 1979 as a result of concern felt by the government of the day over the use of Australian passports as the travel document on which children were removed from Australia against the wishes of a person entitled to guardianship custody of, or access to, the child. However, unforeseen difficulties have arisen in the administration of section 7A. For example, frequently a person whose consent is required cannot be located by reasonable effort, and the alternative of obtaining a court order to permit the child to leave Australia may be unreasonably expensive. Again, many of these problems involve application by children who are outside Australia. In these cases the consent requirement must be weighed against the denial to an Australian citizen of the facility to return to Australia. The inability of many applicants to obtain the required consent has led to administrative delays resulting in the frequent necessity to seek ministerial approval to override the consent provisions and issue passports in deserving cases. To streamline this procedure, this Bill proposes to insert in the Act a provision by which the Minister may designate a senior officer of the Department who may, having regard to the circumstances of each case and guidelines laid down by the Minister, approve the issue of a passport where, because of circumstances, a required consent cannot be obtained. It should be stressed that decisions by a designated senior officer will be made under strict guidelines, will be subject to reversal by the Minister and, like other decisions made under the Act, will now be subject to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I intend issuing the following guidelines to the approved senior officer, who would be designated by me: Guidelines Issued Pursuant to Sub-section 7A (6) of the Passports Act 1938. The approved Senior Officer may waive the requirement for the consent of a person entitled under a law of the Commonwealth or a State or a Territory to custody or guardianship of, or access to, a prescribed minor for the purposes of Section 7A of the Passports Act 1938 in the following circumstances: (a) the person whose consent is required (i) is medically incapable of providing written consent, (ii) has had no contact with the child for a substantial period of time, or (iii) cannot be contacted or located within a reasonable time, or (b) there is a legitimate need for a child who is already overseas to return to Australia or to travel to another country. There is broad agreement that decisions under the Passports Act should be open to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Any decision to issue, renew or endorse a passport, or to refuse to do so, or to cancel a passport or endorsement, may be subject to review. However, where the Minister, in taking a decision under paragraphs 7E (1) (b) or 8 (1B) (b) of the Passports Act has certified, at the time of taking that decision, that Australia's international relations were the determining factor in that decision, the Tribunal may only affirm the decision or remit it to the Minister for reconsideration in the light of the Tribunal's findings. It is intended that in these cases where the Minister rejects the recommendation of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal he should table in Parliament his reasons for that rejection. The proposed measures are not expected to have financial implications for the Department; nor is it anticipated that the volume of applications for review will place undue pressure on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Bill makes a number of other useful procedural and drafting changes, which will be evident to honourable members. I do not need to delay the House by elaborating on them at this stage. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Consideration resumed from 21 August. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(5.16) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the restructuring of the repatriation determining system following the Government's consideration of Report No. 20 of the Administrative Review Council tabled in the Senate by the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) on 16 November 1983. This Bill was passed by the Senate on 15 June. The Bill now before the House makes amendments to the Repatriation Act 1920, the Interim Forces Benefits Act 1947, the Repatriation (Far East Strategic Reserve) Act 1956, the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act 1962 and the Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act 1940 to incorporate proposals developed by the Government in response to the conclusions and recommendations of the Administrative Review Council report. The Administrative Review Council report focuses on deficiencies in the existing determining system and the urgent need for reform. The most acute effect of these deficiencies is identified as undue delay in the final disposition of claims for disability pension. The Government acknowledges the Council's criticisms of the existing repatriation system. The New Determining System The Government, with minor exceptions which I shall mention shortly, has adopted the three-tiered framework for decision-making and review recommended by the Administrative Review Council. This Bill provides the legislative framework for the restructured determining system. Primary Decision-Making The Administrative Review Council's first recommendation is that Repatriation Boards should be abolished and the Repatriation Act 1920 amended to provide that all claims for disability pension should be determined in the first instance by delegates of the Repatriation Commission. This same conclusion was reached by Mr Justice Toose in the Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Repatriation System which was presented in 1975. The Government has accepted this recommendation. Delegates of the Repatriation Commission will have the same powers as the present Repatriation Boards in considering claims for disability pension. They will be required to have regard to information provided by the claimant together with information obtained by the Department of Veterans' Affairs when the claim is investigated. In line with current practice delegates will supply to claimants written reasons for all determinations made in respect of disability pension entitlements or assessments. Review of Decisions-Intermediate Level of Review The Administrative Review Council recommends that a statutory intermediate review body be established to review on the merits of the case primary decisions made by delegates of the Repatriation Commission on claims for disability pensions. The Government agrees. This intermediate review body will be known as the Veterans' Review Board. This title identifies clearly the Board's function of reviewing the Commission's decision in the light of all the evidence available at the time of review. In the language of administrative lawyers, proceedings before the Veterans' Review Board will be a hearing de novo, a complete rehearing of the claim. The Veterans' Review Board will consist of a principal member, senior members and members appointed on either a full time or part time basis by the Governor- General for terms of up to five years. Members will be eligible for reappointment until they reach 65 years of age. The Government will continue its efforts to have women represented on the Veterans' Review Board as well as on other repatriation determining authorities. In carrying out its functions, the Veterans' Review Board will consist normally of a panel of three members including the principal member or a senior member, a Services member and one other member. The Services member is to be a person appointed to the Veterans' Review Board from a list of names submitted to the Minister by organisations representing ex-service persons or their dependants. In special circumstances, subject to prior approval by the Minister, the principal member will be empowered to constitute the Veterans' Review Board by a senior member or member sitting alone. This may be of advantage if workloads cause unnecessary delays in the disposal of cases. The Veterans' Review Board will consider applications for review by a claimant dissatisfied with any aspect of a decision by the Repatriation Commission. A claimant will have 12 months in which to lodge an application for review of a Commission decision rejecting a claim for disability pension. Where the Commission refuses to grant an application for increase in the rate of disability pension the time limit will be three months, the same limit as in the present legislation. Upon receipt of notification of intention to proceed or of a formal application for review, the Secretary to the Department of Veterans' Affairs will be required to arrange for a report to be prepared of all available relevant evidence. The Bill provides that this report will be sent to the claimant for comment. Thus the claimant will have an opportunity to correct factual errors or to supply additional information in support of the claim. This procedure is aimed at ensuring that the whole of the evidence relevant to the review will be before the Veterans' Review Board. At the Veterans' Review Board a claimant will have the opportunity of an oral hearing. Country people will be given the option of a telephone conference hookup. A claimant will also have the right to be represented by a lay advocate if desired. As the original decision-maker, the Repatriation Commission will have a right to be represented at a Veterans' Review Board hearing. Representation will be on the same basis as allowed to claimants. Recommendation 12 of the Administrative Review Council is to the effect that no restrictions should be placed on a claimant's freedom to be represented by a person of his or her own choice. The Government has considered this recommendation in the light of the views expressed by the Advisory Committee on Repatriation Legislation Review. At page 18 of its report, the Committee expressed the view that legal practitioners should not appear before the Veterans' Review Board. The Government accepts that view and the Bill provides that a claimant or the Commission may not be represented before the Veterans' Review Board by a legal practitioner or by a person who has a degree in law. Consistent with current administrative law practice, the Veterans' Review Board will be able to affirm, vary or set aside the Commission decision under review. The Board will be required to supply written reasons in support of its decision. Final Review on the Merits In its report, the Administrative Review Council expresses the view that a two- tiered system of review is desirable in a large volume jurisdiction such as in repatriation disability pension matters. It is believed that many cases will be resolved at the Veterans' Review Board by relatively expeditious, economical and informal means of review. It is considered necessary, however, to provide a final review tribunal on the merits which will provide an opportunity not only for individual cases to be considered in greater depth but also for consideration to be given to the development and enunciation of principles of general application for the future guidance of primary decision makers and the Veterans' Review Board. The Administrative Review Council recommends that the present Repatriation Review Tribunal be abolished and jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans' Review Board be conferred on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Government has accepted its arguments. The Bill confers full jurisdiction for repatriation disability pension matters on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Government does recognise, however, that there are special factors in the repatriation system. It is proposed that a special repatriation division be established within the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Again, this is consistent with the recommendations made by Mr Justice Toose in 1975. The Government will seek to appoint to this division members with special expertise and experience relevant to veterans' service conditions and post-service situations. It will consult with veterans' organisations in making these appointments. Access to the Courts Since 1979, the legislation has provided for a right of appeal to the Federal Court of Australia on questions of law from decisions of the Repatriation Review Tribunal. Although this Bill repeals Part IIIC of the Repatriation Act, which established this right of access to the Court, the right will not be lost. Sections 44 and 45 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 make similar provision and those sections will apply to decisions of that Tribunal in this jurisdiction. Right of access to the Court on questions of law, therefore, will remain on a similar basis to that provided for in the present legislation. Internal Review The Administrative Review Council recognises the obvious benefit of the Repatriation Commission being able to review a primary decision of its delegate without having to take that decision to a review body. The power not only enables the Commission to excercise a quality control function but also has the advantage of permitting the Commission to concede a claim which is subject to an application for review at the Veterans' Review Board or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Such flexibility, the Administrative Review Council points out , can be a positive means of reducing delays in the system. The Bill maintains the Repatriation Commission's power to review a decision made by its delegate. If the Commission uses the power to vary or revoke a previous decision that is favourable to a claimant, a right of review will lie to the Veterans' Review Board. Service Pension Determinations There is not at present any right to external review on service pension claims, except in respect of the question of whether a claimant for service pension is permanently unemployable. The Administrative Review Council report recommends that the applicants for service pension be granted the same appeal rights as are available to claimants for other repatriation pensions-that is, a right of review from a primary decision by the Repatriation Commission to the Veterans' Review Board and a subsequent right of review from the Veterans' Review Board to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Government supports this approach in principle. However, the potential number of service pension appeals could throw a huge burden onto a fledgling Veterans' Review Board which will inherit a backlog of disability pension appeals from the present system. Until the new determining system is settled in its operation, the Government has decided to adopt a flexible internal review mechanism for service pension decisions at first instance. Primary decisions will be subject to review by a senior delegate of the Repatriation Commission upon request from a dissatisfied claimant. The Bill provides that a right of review from this Repatriation Commission decision will lie to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This will provide the Administrative Appeals Tribunal with the opportunity for settling principles in the service pension area consistent with the principles applicable in the social security age and invalid pension system. Timing of Introduction It is proposed that the new determining system will come into operation from 1 January 1985. The transitional provisions of the Bill provide mechanisms for the handling of outstanding matters at the operative date. Under the present legislation there are no time limits imposed on the lodgment of either initial claims for disability pension or applications for review. This approach has created serious administration difficulties, particularly at the review stages. In some cases claimants have decided to appeal many years after an initial adverse determination was made. Review of such cases has to be delayed to allow up to date evidence to be obtained. In such circumstances the review process is a misnomer since the review body is considering mostly fresh evidence. As I have mentioned previously, it has been decided to impose a 12-month limit on a claimant's right to seek review at the Veterans' Review Board of a claim for disability pension rejected by the Repatriation Commission. This limitation will apply only in respect of decisions made by delegates of the Repatriation Commission after the operative date. Under the general provisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 an applicant has 28 days in which to apply for review of an adverse decision. This Bill provides for the general time limit to be extended to three months in repatriation matters. Outside this three month limit late applications will be able to be considered by the Tribunal up to 12 months after the date of receipt of the adverse decision. Financial Impact The cost of disability and service pensions for 1983-84 was $2017m. It is estimated that this will increase over the next few years, with the total cost of pensions in 1986-87 being $2746m. The cost of maintaining the present determining system, which is estimated to have been $7.628m for 1983-84, could rise to $13.243m by 1985-86. Initially, the new determining system will involve additional costs. If introduced from 1 January 1985, these costs will be incurred largely in the first 18 months of operation. Clerical staff will be needed to process the backlog of claims. There will be extra costs in setting up the Veterans' Review Board and the training of staff across all levels of the system. Some costs will be saved by the abolition of the Repatriation Review Tribunal but these will be offset by the extra costs in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Once the determining system is fully operational, it is expected that some savings in administrative expenditure will be achieved. Improved decision making at the primary level, based on better investigative processes and precedents flowing from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, should result in a reduction in the number of applications for review. Restrictions on the continual reopening of claims will also have an effect. The estimated full year cost of resources to implement the new determining system is $21m. Much of the additional expenditure will be for additional staff to reduce delays in determining claims and appeals. Further Reforms Contemplated The present changes to the determining system will not, by themselves, correct all the problems in the repatriation area. One of the basic problems is the legislation itself. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has indicated on a number of occasions a commitment to introduce new legislation, probably to be known as the Veterans' Entitlements Bill, at a later stage. The intention of that legislation will be to consolidate and simplify the provisions of the present repatriation Acts. The Bill will be drafted around the recommendations of the report of the Advisory Committee on Repatriation Legislation Review. This Committee, chaired by the National President of the Returned Services League, Sir William Keys, reported to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs late in 1983. In the Minister's second reading speech when introducing this Bill in another place he outlined the main reforms to be incorporated in the proposed consolidated legislation. Within the Department of Veterans' Affairs administrative reforms are also being undertaken to overcome the present delays in the determining system. New procedures are being introduced to enable the smoother handling of claims and appeals. Training programs are being developed to equip the staff handling this part of the departmental responsibility. The Government has agreed that the delays in the processing of claims and appeals should not be tolerated and has agreed to make available more staff resources so that the backlog of work can be attacked and the delays which have grown into the system of recent years can be reduced and avoided. Conclusion The Bill now before the House reflects, as I have said, the first legislative action of the package which the Government has agreed to adopt to enable the repatriation system to discharge effectively the Government's responsibilities to the veterans whose incapacities have arisen in their service to their country and to the dependants of those whose deaths have been caused by their service. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Ruddock) adjourned. Mr FRY(Fraser) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, I present the Committee's report on proposals for variations of the plan of layout of the City of Canberra and its environs-eighty-second series, third report-together with extracts of minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr FRY —by leave-The report I have just tabled reports on the final item in the eighty-second series of variations to the city plan and involves a proposal to construct the final section of the lake cycleway from Kings Park via the Jerrabomberra wetlands through to Barton. The proposed cycleway would cost approximately $1.35m. The Committee has given thorough scrutiny to this proposal, and has inspected the area and taken evidence. The focus of the Committee's attention was on the section of the proposed cycleway route through the Jerrabomberra wetlands. The other sections of the cycleway appear to be largely uncontroversial and the Committee received no objections to these sections. The reason for the sensitivity of that part of the proposed cycleway route which goes through the Jerrabomberra wetlands is the potential for disturbance of a very significant waterbird habitat. The wetlands is the most important wetland habitat in the Australian Capital Territory and interacts closely with other regional aquatic systems such as Lake George, Lake Bathurst, Googong Reservoir and Lake Ginninderra. It provides an important feeding, refuge and breeding environment for large numbers and species of resident and migrant waterbirds from as far away as Siberia and Japan. Fish and aquatic mammals such as platypus and water rat also form part of the wetlands ecological system. The National Capital Development Commission, in proposing the suggested alignment of the cycleway, believed it had struck an appropriate balance between the construction of a cycleway which would have real recreational appeal, and the protection of the wetlands as a waterbird habitat. Under the proposal a continuous moat would be constructed along the cycleway through the wetlands to segregate physically the bird refuge area from the cycleway. Plantings would also be made to screen people using the cycle path from the waterbirds areas, thus reducing the extent of disturbance to the birds. Although the Department of Territories and Local Government supported the proposed cycleway as part of the eighty-second series of variations, the Department had major reservations about the proposal. These reservations included the effect of the cycle path on the birdlife, ecology and planned environment of the wetlands, the cost of maintenance of the cycleway, particularly because of the impact of flooding, and the priority of the cycleway as a recreational project. Objectors to the cycleway, including the Canberra Ornithologists Group, were concerned that the recreational and environmental objectives had not been properly balanced in the proposal. They believed that the cycleway was located too close to the core area of the wetlands and would cause such disturbance to the waterbirds that the value of the wetlands as an area of waterbird refuge would be significantly reduced. The moat was not seen as offering a sufficient buffer to ensure that there were no adverse environmental effects on the wetlands. The Committee believes that the question of whether the cycleway should proceed as proposed by the NCDC is ultimately a matter for judgment about where the balance should be struck between the accepted objectives of protecting the wetlands as a significant waterbird habitat while allowing it to be developed as an important recreational resource. In the Committee's judgment, the disturbance created by the use of the cycleway as proposed would significantly impair the value of the wetlands as a waterbird refuge area, possibly reducing the diversity of bird life in the wetlands. However, the Committee also believes the completion of the cycleway around the lake is an important project, and it is not convinced that an alternative alignment for the cycleway, away from the core area of the wetlands, would not be appropriate. The Committee therefore approves the sections of the cycleway on the north side of the lake and Molonglo River to the Dairy Flat Bridge, and to the south side of the lake from the proposed interpretation area to the junction with the existing cycleway at Wentworth Avenue, to which no objection was made. The Committee also recommends that the NCDC, in consultation with the Department of Territories and Local Government and concerned community groups, particularly the Canberra Ornithologists Group, develop an agreed alternative route away from the sensitive western area of the wetlands for the remaining section of the cycleway, which the Committee does not approve, and submit another variation proposal to the Committee. The Committee is also interested in the wider planning, development and management aspects of the wetlands, and this report makes recommendations about future planning and management of the wetlands, including developing a policy and development plan, drawing up a management plan , and ultimately gazetting the wetlands as a wildlife reserve. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas) —by leave-I rise to speak on the tabling of the report of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory as it goes to proposals for variations of the plan of the layout of the city of Canberra and its environs, eighty-second series. This is the third report of the Committee relating to that series of plans. It provides a very interesting case study in the way in which the Joint Committee works, and it works in a very positive way. This proposal relates to the building of a cycle path around Lake Burley Griffin. It is designed to complete that path around the entire lake. I think that this is a worthwhile plan. It is in keeping with the nature of the national capital that money should be spent on providing facilities of this sort. Obviously it is a very desirable objective, although, as honourable members have noted, a fair amount of money-I think it is $1.6m-is to be spent on it. The completion of the cycle path demands that it go around what is known as the Jerrabomberra wetlands. That is a unique area that has been developed fairly recently and is used by wildlife and water birds as a refuge area. The cycle path as planned is designed to go through that area, but it was planned to try to develop it in such a way as to protect the wetlands. I find those very much competing objectives. When the Committee heard evidence on the matter, the nature of the competition involved became very clear. We had problems of the order of hundreds of cyclists a day riding on the path, separated from the wildlife area by a moat, perhaps with some plantings along the edge, but providing a silhouette of significant dimension which was likely to frighten the wildlife. When the proposal came from the Committee-this is why it is such an interesting case study-we had only one objection, from Mr Tim McGhie. He put forward his views quite forcibly and well and this prompted the Committee to have a closer look at the matter being put before us. It became clear that the National Capital Development Commission had got everybody together and had tried to get them to agree on the nature of the submission that should be put to the Committee. In essence, they worked very effectively. It is an interesting case study because of the way in which they were able to bring in the Department of Territories and Local Government, the ornithologists and others and talk to them about the matter. It became clear to us that some of these groups were very unhappy about the nature of the compromise they were being asked to accept. I read paragraph 31 of the Committee report: The Committee also received a late objection to the cycleway from the Canberra Ornithologists Group (COG) in the form of the group's correspondence with the NCDC. (Copy of correspondence is at Appendix VIII.) This correspondence, and the evidence given to the Committee by COG on the 31 May 1984 showed that, in discussion with NCDC officers, the Group had been presented with detailed plans and designs for the cycleway which had led it to believe were essentially non- negotiable. In the belief that the proposals were non-negotiable the ornithologists did not think it was helpful to come before the parliamentary Committee and give evidence. I would assure anybody in Canberra who has concerns about proposals that are put forward by the NCDC or the Department of Territories and Local Government that they are free to come before the Committee to put their views, put them forcibly and have them heard. In relation to the cycleway, the Committee came to the view that the route proposed by the NCDC was not appropriate, that it would interfere with the Jerrabomberra wetlands, and that it should come up with another route. That was the view the Chairman put and the view the Committee came to. I wish to read one other part of the Committee's report because we have said to the NCDC that it might like to think about the matter and come forward with further plans. The Committee has this to say in paragraph 43: The Committee notes that, in its recent letter . . . the NCDC proposes to try again to achieve the required gazettal approval of its proposed alignment through the Wetlands after further discussions with interested parties including the DTLG and the COG. If this second attempt failed, the NCDC claimed that the opportunity to complete the cycleway on an alternative and, in its view, inferior route would remain. While the proposal of variations is a matter for the NCDC and the DTLG, the Committee's role in approving variations should be considered. The Committee's judgment of the evidence is that the cycleway should not proceed on the alignment proposed and it is difficult to envisage what other evidence could be placed before it to alter this judgment. I think that point and the strength of that view should be noted. I hope that the NCDC, in reading these speeches and this report, will be aware of it. I hope that it will also note paragraph 46 of the report, which says: It was also of concern to the Committee that no management plan had been drawn up for the Wetland despite the development which is taking place and which will bring large numbers of people into the area for viewing and interpretation of the birds. That is another matter the NCDC needs to take on board. The Committee's view was unanimous and I hope that the strength of those views will be noted by the NCDC and the Department and that in bringing forward any further proposals to complete the cycle path they will take cognisance of the views of the members who sat and heard the evidence in this matter. Debate resumed from 6 June, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(5.50) —Successful biological control in the Australian ecology is of paramount importance, hence the Biological Control Bill 1984 is a timely measure. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) indicated in his second reading speech that the need for this Bill was recognised back in June 1983. The Bill, of course, is broad in nature, concerning any animal, plant or rust pest situation that may arise. However, it has been the echium, commonly known as Salvation Jane or Paterson's curse, debate which exposed the weakness in our present biological control decision making processes. The Opposition supports this Bill. I am grateful to the Minister for the information he gave us about the proposed amendments. Obviously we support them too. The legislation will provide the community with a better decision-making system than the one presently existing. Nevertheless, under the Bill before the House, the Minister of the day, the Minister for Primary Industry, could have broad discretionary powers, including the power to decide whether an inquiry should take place at all. One of the good things about legislation being allowed to lie on the table is that discussion can take place, and that is what has happened in this case. Individual members of the Australian Agricultural Council , of which the Minister for Primary Industry is the Chairman, made representations to the Minister at the Council's meeting in Townsville. The Minister has come up with amendments which ensure that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal has the final discretionary power. This serves to overcome the fears rightly held by the Beekeepers Association in relation to the echium debate. One can understand and support the fears held by the Association when such broad discretionary powers are held in the hands of a Minister of any political party that is in power. That is what was envisaged in the original Bill. Australia is a good place for biological control. The majority of its worst weeds and insect pests, as well as feral animals such as pigs, donkeys and rabbits, came originally from other countries. There are fundamentally two types of biological control. Insects and diseases are used to control other insects as well as to control plants. The cost of using sprays on large areas of land producing relatively low yields is often prohibitive and crippling to the rural industry. Thus, this country, not surprisingly, is pre-eminent in research into this method as sell as other weapons that shelter under the umbrella-term ' integrated pest management'. One of the advantages of biological control-that is, the use of a pest's natural enemies to keep its numbers below levels at which the damage caused becomes economically significant-over chemical methods is that once it is established it is essentially permanent. Regardless of how successful a chemical treatment is, the target is always liable to recover and needs further applications, creating a continuing source of income for the companies producing the chemicals-and there are always dangers of creating resistance and pollution problems. Quite often biological control is the only available practicable approach to a pest problem. For example, how could prickly pear, rabbits or skeleton weed be economically controlled by means other than biological control. The cost of spraying wheat fields year after year would have been economically crippling. The advantage of biological control, if properly exerted, is that once the necessary research has been carried out to locate, test, and establish natural enemies, the situation takes care of itself without further input by man. It is non-polluting and adds no undesirable residues to the environment. It is specific to the pest involved and non-target organisms are not affected. However , biological control has its limitations. Pure biological control works best in a more or less stable eco-system, when the agent can control the potential pest or weed permanently. Agricultural eco-systems are often highly unstable, especially the essential cereal crops which are annual species. Hence we are witness to the debate over echium. The nightmare of biological control is that the introduced biological agent might turn out to be a worse pest than the original one. There have been some spectacular failures. The most widely known is the introduction of cane toads to control sugar cane beetles. Let loose in north Queensland from Brazil during the 1930s, the toad turned from beetles to other insects and now are regarded as noxious pests found as far south as Coffs Harbour. The nightmarish fear of unsuccessful biological control is the grounding surrounding the echium debate. We must recognise that some parties could be economically and otherwise adversely affected by judgments relating to biological control. Hence, in the case of echium control proceedings, honey producers could experience losses. Their only means of protection available was to obtain an injunction on the grounds of common law of private nuisance, where the rights of the individual take precedence over that of the public interest. When the then Mr Justice Stephen-now Sir Ninian Stephen-in 1980 granted the initial High Court injunction without much hesitation, it served to create difficulties and much ill-feeling between various interest groups. Since the Bill was tabled, the Australian Agricultural Council, at a recent meeting in Townsville, as I have already indicated, proposed that clauses 36 and 37 of the Bill be amended. The Opposition fully supports these amendments as they will provide opportunity for legal action to recover damages under certain conditions. It has been recognised that if the release of an agent organism affects organisms which were not intended to be affected, loss or damage may occur. The amendment provides that where the incidental effects of an agent organism could have been predicted but were not, or where the incidental effects were known but not taken into account when making a decision concerning the declaration of an agent organism, there should be an opportunity to take legal action to recover any consequent loss or damages and permit application for review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of a decision of the Commonwealth Biological Control Authority not to hold an inquiry. All such decisions under the Bill are now reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. According to the Federal Council of Australian Apiarists Associations, who have taken up the nucleus of this debate, 'there would be no incentive for anyone to resort to litigation if the process of decision-making is fair and equitable'. The Federation claims that it could live with the elimination of its rights to seek common law redress providing the process is just and proper. Hence its concern over this Bill is the identification of public interest and the adequacy of the inquiry system. In essence, this Bill is to be just that. It is to be understood that in this echium debate not only beekeepers may be adversely affected by echium biological control, where the honey produced from this plant supplied about 10 per cent to 15 per cent of the annual national honey crop at a time where other plants are producing low levels of pollin. But the Federation also claims that many hundreds and many thousands of farmers, particularly in below 80 millimetres rainfall areas, will be disadvantaged, some seriously, if echium now growing on their properties is drastically reduced and eliminated. This is based on the findings of the Keith Turnbull Research Institute in Victoria when the Institute did a report on echium ecology and control which was handed down in June 1976. The principal investigating scientist was Dr C. M. Piggon. After research, Dr Piggon concluded that the plant only became dominant, rank and objectionable in undergrazed situations. Weedicides and pesticides are an element essential to the survival of the Australian rural industry-an industry which supplies nearly half of Australia's exports. According to the Federal Department of Health, in plant quarantine leaflet No. 38, a conservative estimate of the loss of production due to weeds is somewhere in the order of $500m per annum-a loss greater than that experienced through insects and disease. These marvellous weedicides are a godsend to Australian farmers, especially the multi-purpose chemicals such as Round-up. I understand that the patent for this chemical is due to expire in three to four years. However, it is essential to the industry that no extension to this patent be granted. A patent is granted to a company to reimburse it over the term of the patient for the cost of research, development and initial production. However, once expiry dates lapse there is no justification for an extension. Almost every time the price of chemicals declines after their patent' s expiry date. Such was the case with 24D, which declined in the region of 30 per cent to 40 per cent. A similar instance was noted with the weedicide Tordon. Because Round-up has far more potential usage than is presently being exploited , as indicated by a doubling in use over the last four to five years, it will be able to command a far wider volume of the market. I understand that moves have been made to extend the patent of this chemical. There is no justification for this. If granted, we are virtually crippling an industry with artificially high spraying costs which are not based on commercial reality. It is essential that no extension be granted unless we are prepared to pay the consequences. Farmers already face enormous difficulties in meeting international competition. If farmers become further uncompetitive due to costs such as high spraying costs, we will see a loss of many jobs, particularly when we take into account the multiplier effect of a fall in real farm incomes. In essence, this Bill attempts to provide a just and equitable system of biological control where public good takes precedence over individual rights. It is an absolute necessity to have biological control. I take the instance of parthenium weed growing in the central highlands of Queensland. At present there is no method of chemical control. I compliment the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter), the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) and the State member for Peak Downs, the Hon. Vince Lester, for the intelligent interest they have shown in making representations to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation about trying to develop or find biological methods of control. Parthenium weed, just like echium, is a pest. It reduces yields and the grazier's or farmer's ability to get the maximum yield from the land he is tilling or grazing. The Bill serves as a model for corresponding State legislation and confers on the Australian Agricultural Council a good deal of responsibility. Nevertheless, if some unforeseen mistake occurs there still exists methods by which litigation can take place. I understand that the echium debate sparked off this legislation . It is good to see that finality has been reached between the Commonwealth and the States, as the tabling of this legislation relative to the Australian Capital Territory indicates that the States will follow. There will be available mechanisms which will ensure that in the final analysis the common good prevails over the private person's right because unless we are fully aware in a total analysis of the enormous dangers that occur to industry generally by such weeds and pests as echium, we will be putting our farming population in an intolerable position. The Opposition supports the legislation. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(6.05) —The primary purpose of the Biological Control Bill is to ensure that biological programs may be authorised as being in the public interest and, if so authorised, should not be stopped by litigation. Honourable members may recall the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation decision to release three species of insect to control echium plantaginium, or Paterson's curse. This was blocked by an injunction granted by the South Australian Supreme Court to two graziers and two beekeepers on the ground that echium plantaginium was an important basis of their livelihood. This legislation was drafted to enable a democratic review procedure so that litigation does not prevent the eventual introduction of a desirable agent against a target species. The procedure adopted includes the advertising of the target to be aimed at, the agent may be advertised at the discretion of the various governments involved, and a pubic inquiry may be held where it has been established that control of the organism or the target will adversely affect a person or persons or the environment to an unknown degree. The outcome of the inquiry and other reports will then be considered and the Australian Agricultural Council will be consulted and a decision made. The legislation depends on unanimity. All States need to support it. The Agricultural Council, which represents all Ministers, has supported the legislation as amended. The Bill has been introduced with the good will and indeed participation of all parties in this House. To the credit of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), he called together all the affected rural members of this House-both Government and non-Government members-to discuss the legislation. Generally, the record of biological control in Australia has been satisfactory. Honourable members will recall the cactoblastis agent against the target prickly pear; the myxomatosis agent against the target rabbits; and the unfortunate agent mentioned by the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh), the cane toad, to deal with a cane worm infestation. Of course it, as he said, has caused more problems than it has solved. Today we have had mention of Paterson's curse. In years past it was seen as an innocent garden plant but with vigorous growth and rapid spreading through southern Australia, a number of problems have developed. It is true that the other name for Paterson's curse is Salvation Jane, and it has been useful forage which has saved stock. It produces a light honey which has often been used to advantage, for instance, in blending with other honeys for export. The flower provides plenty of pollen and nectar. But the doubt creeps in not in the honey but in the plant, as it is really a far from ideal forage. The plant contains a toxin group called pyrizoladines. This is a group of liver toxins which are especially dangerous to monogastric animals, such as pigs, horses and poultry. Of course cattle are more resistant and sheep even more so. But even sheep can encounter a copper overload as a result of the consumption of Paterson's curse. This overload can lead to death. In fact, over a period of extended feeding-12 weeks on and 12 weeks off-Paterson 's curse caused one in 10 sheep to die. It is interesting that comfrey, which contains the same alkaloids, has apparently just been placed on schedule 7, the poisons schedule, in Victoria. Three queries have been raised with me. The first suggests that the provision for emergency action which would exempt from all the requirements of the legislation is unnecessary because biological pests come gradually and with plenty of warning. The answer to that is that this does not mean it is impossible for an emergency to arise. One day there may be a sudden threat. Another objection is related to the possible use of an emergency by a government to avoid the requirements of the legislation to deal with an agent. If there is emergency action and there is any doubt whatsoever about that action , the public furore which would arise would probably create difficulties for any government which took such action. I believe any government would be wary about taking emergency action without serious consideration. The other query which has been raised with me concerns the effect the legislation will have on quarantine regulations. I think the answer to that is that any agent imported to deal with a target species must still comply with quarantine regulations. The Minister, the coalition parties, the Australian Agricultural Council and all honourable members such as the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) who has made Paterson's curse the subject of interest in this House for many months, have pointed out the problems which have arisen from it, especially in the last season. All those people are to be congratulated on their participation in this legislation. Mr EWEN CAMERON(Indi)(6.11) —We in the Opposition whole-heartedly support this most important piece of legislation, the Biological Control Bill, which will enable biological control programs identified as being in the public interest to proceed in accordance with the law and without interruption by litigation. Until now there has been no provision in existing legislation to authorise legally the release of biological control agents, such as insects, rusts or viruses into the environment, and there have been no equitable means of resolving a conflict of interest concerning biological control programs designed to establish a public benefit. The legislation now before the House seeks to remedy this situation. The Biological Control Bill only allows for the release of biological control agents in the Australian Capital Territory and exempts the Commonwealth from liability for damages if the control agents spread beyond the Australian Capital Territory . It will be necessary for the States to draft complementary legislation and thus enable the full implementation of provisions in the Bill. The Bill provides: First, that public opinion concerning a proposed biological activity will be widely canvassed; secondly, that depending on the nature of any public comment, an inquiry may be ordered and, thirdly, based on the information available, including the report of a public inquiry, if one is held, the program may be declared under the terms of the Act by the Minister for Primary Industry in his capacity as Minister in charge of the Commonwealth Biological Control Authority. Biological control agents may then be released with the full protection of the Act. However, in the event of a control agent moving beyond the known target or host species, there is provision in the Act for legal action to be taken. The Australian Agricultural Council will have the primary responsibility for taking the actions and making the decisions referred to in the Bill. It will make the ultimate decision as to whether a public inquiry should be held regarding any particular target weed or pest. It is important that the greater public benefit take precedence, but it is also necessary to recognise the concerns of those who may be adversely affected. The Bill obliges all proposed targets to be advertised, but there is a discretion as to whether the proposed agents should be advertised. Once the target is declared, the basis on which the agent, such as an insect capable of controlling the target, may be selected is essentially technical and subject to the requirements of the Quarantine Act. However, an inquiry as to the desirability of a proposed agent is also an option under the Bill. An inquiry may be ordered if it is considered that people or the environment will be adversely affected, and declaration will only be made when the Commonwealth Biological Control Authority is satisfied that control of a target would be for the public benefit. Biological control is an exciting and most important technique which may be used to modify pest populations. There are also, of course, chemical, mechanical and other forms of controls but these methods are generally very expensive and often, in the long term, not as effective. It is, however, desirable to have integrated control systems, whereby the best points of all other types of control methods are used to manage a particular pest. Biological control is essentially an ecological process, and this is where considerable care must be taken to ensure that a control agent, introduced to combat a particular weed or insect, is not going to affect other plants or insects of economic or other significance. State and Federal authorities are most concerned at the reported release in Gippsland, Victoria, of a blackberry rust, by some unauthorised person, who has imported it into the country illegally. I understand that it is spreading like wildfire. A major problem, of course, is that blackberries are grown commercially in Tasmania and New Zealand. The blackberry is closely related to boysenberries, raspberries and youngberries, which could also be affected. The spores of the rust are transmitted by wind and could even be carried across Bass Strait and the Tasman Sea. Apparently, some farmers have threatened to release insects to control nodding thistle, a major weed of grazing land. If the control agents are non-specific, they could move on from the thistle to relatives of that plant such as the important commercial oilseed crop, safflower. Many farmers are extremely impatient with what they see as lengthy delays in releasing biological control agents to control weeds and pests. Scientific selection, testing and bulk-breeding of agents can take five years or more, and then there can be lengthy administrative procedures before a release proceeds. However, it is necessary that these controls exist to prevent such occurrences as I have just quoted. Unofficial biological control programs can be a real danger to the economy and the ecology. Every effort should be made to prevent individuals or groups from taking unauthorised action. A biological control agent need not necessarily kill a target weed, but it may weaken it to such an extent that other pasture species can then be grown. The incidence of disease susceptibility in a target weed can be increased by stress. If an insect wounds a plant, it may not kill it, but open the way for disease invasion. Biological control agents can also affect the ability of the plant to reproduce. An insect which eats the seeds of the plant would be an example of this. Most species of weeds have been introduced from overseas, thus removing them from their natural predators. Biological control is achieved by introducing natural enemies from the point of origin. Biological control measures are not necessarily aiming to eradicate the target plant but to maintain its existence at a tolerable level. If the plant's original habitat is similar to that in Australia, it is likely that effective biological control agents can be found in the original habitat. It may take two or three years to conduct careful initial testing of possibly 200 to 300 potential agents, including mites, insects and diseases, which may or may not prove suitable agents against the host plant. About 95 per cent of these will probably be ignored because they attack economic plants. It is essential we use only those that feed on one specific target species and possibly even a few non-economic species. Selected agents from the initial testing are then subjected to a series of host specificity tests and these can take as long as three to five years for each agent involved. Application is then made to the Department of Health for permission to import the agent. The agents are then mass bred prior to release. The release sites need to be controlled in an experimental way. Once the agents become established in experimental areas they can then be distributed into other areas. The experimental areas are carefully monitored so that, if the insect fails, the reason for the failure can be readily ascertained. The evaluation phase is extremely important and is very lengthy and expensive. Some insects are usually retained in quarantine so that subsequent releases can be made if the initial success rate is not as high as was hoped. A preliminary trial was carried out last year into the biological control of red-headed cockchafers. The tests carried out by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the Victorian Department of Agriculture are being tried on a larger scale this year. Red-headed cockchafer grubs cause severe damage to pastures and crops in Victoria and Tasmania. A parasitic nematode, imported from the United States of America, is being used in the trials. The nematodes are mixed in water and then sprayed on to the ground or injected into the soil. The nematodes travel through the moist soil and are attracted to the cockchafers by the carbon dioxide that the grubs are breathing out. The nematodes enter the grub's bodies and release a bacteria which leads to septicaemia, and the cockchafers die within a few days. In last year's trial the nematodes killed an average of 25 per cent of the cockchafers, but up to 50 per cent were killed in some plots after six weeks. Heavy rain drowned the surviving grubs during the winter and inhibited what could have been far higher kills as a direct result of the nematodes. In this year's trial a modified sodseeder was used to inject the nematodes directly into the soil. If this is successful, large areas can be treated cheaply and under different seasonal conditions. It has not been possible effectively to control redheaded cockchafers by chemical means, as they live underground and never come to the surface. The need to have legislation to cover biological control programs in the greater public interest was emphasised in 1983, when a CSIRO program aimed at the control of echium, commonly known as Paterson's curse, was stopped by a court injunction obtained by two graziers and two apiarists. CSIRO scientists have been working for many years to select and test agents which will control this weed. They have received quarantine clearance to import a leaf mining moth, two species of flea beetles and one stem boring beetle. They are also awaiting further quarantine clearance for two varieties of weevil. All of these insects have been thoroughly tested and are quite safe to import. Together they should give some control over Paterson's curse, even though it is highly unlikely that the weed can be eradicated biologically. This control will enable other desirable pasture species to compete with Paterson's curse, which after all is what the farmer is really asking for. The spread of this weed is now so great, that many hundreds of farmers have appealed for the biological control program to be recommenced. It is hard to visualise the many thousands of hectares of good grazing country in eastern and south-eastern Australia now seriously affected by the very vigorous weed, Paterson's curse. Echium can provide green fodder in some circumstances, where no other fodder is available, and it would seem to be valuable for this reason. However, there is sufficient evidence that a long term diet of Paterson's curse can, and does, cause liver damage which ultimately leads to death in horses and sheep. In sheep, the liver damage may be accompanied by abnormally high copper storage, that in itself may be harmful. Even at low intake rates, these effects can build up over long periods and recovery does not occur when consumption ceases. Horses, cattle and sheep, poisoned in the field, after proper investigation have been diagnosed as having been poisoned by Paterson's curse. Poisoning of horses is more commonly observed. It has been alleged that farmers may not associate cattle and sheep losses with poisoning by Paterson's curse because of the length of time needed for effects to show up. A controlled feeding experiment by the New South Wales Department of Agriculture has shown that pigs may be poisoned in a few months by a fairly low proportion of Paterson 's curse in the diet. The Victorian conservation, forests and lands authorities have warned farmers that Paterson's curse has become established in a great many new areas. During the drought, seed was introduced and spread in fodder and also by stock moved to and from agistment. After rain in March 1983, the weed was able to establish a dominance in drought-affected pastures. The Department has urged landholders to use chemicals to control the weed while it is young and easier to kill than when it reaches maturity. However, the wide distribution of Paterson's curse has made this exercise very difficult as well as extremely expensive. A recently produced map of New South Wales shows that the weed is present throughout the State with the exception of small pockets in the greater metropolitan area surrounding Sydney. There are very heavy infestations in central and southern areas of the State. It is essential that this legislation be passed so that a decision can be reached regarding the control of this pest, and in general to provide a suitable legal umbrella for future biological control programs. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Milton) adjourned. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I seek leave to make a short statement as a result of my having been handed the wrong document earlier today when papers were tabled in the House. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Does the right honourable member wish to make a personal explanation? Mr SINCLAIR —No, I seek leave to make a short statement on Government guidelines for official witnesses before parliamentary committees and related matters. I was given the wrong paper when I spoke previously. Leave granted. Mr SINCLAIR —When I spoke on this matter previously, unfortunately I had been handed the wrong document and I spoke to a document which I find is different from that which the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) tabled and which I agreed to being incorporated in Hansard. I therefore wish to make two or three brief observations on the correct document. The document relates to the guidelines for official witnesses-that is, witnesses from departments-appearing before parliamentary committees, and related matters. The document that I spoke to was one that came from the Minister's office but which in fact related to another subject. I therefore wanted to ensure that there would be no doubt, now that I have read the correct document, that the Opposition supports its incorporation in Hansard. I have several brief observations to make on it. The first is that I notice that page 5 of the document refers to the matter of privilege. My colleague the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) has looked at this paper. As honourable members will recall, he is the Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege which recently tendered a very comprehensive report to the Parliament referring to parliamentary privilege. The matter that most concerns me is that paragraph 23 of the guidelines states: . . . officials who appear as witnesses before a parliamentary committee may be obliged to answer questions or produce documents which might tend to be self- incriminating . . . In such cases parliamentary privilege protects them against only that evidence itself being used against them outside the parliament . . . A witness may request the committee to take the evidence in camera in those circumstances. (The Privilege Committee has recommended a procedure for considering claims by witness that he or she not answer a question on grounds of self-incrimination . . . I believe that that is a very appropriate course to be adopted, and I recommend to the Government that that should be done. I feel it would be preferable to this recommendation, as quite obviously there have been occasions-we can all recall one or two in recent times-when officials appearing before a committee have subsequently been involved in litigation surrounding their evidence. Obviously, they should not be put in a disadvantageous position simply because they are public servants and are required to appear before a parliamentary committee. I commend that modification to the Government and an acceptance of that element of the Privileges Committee's report at the earliest opportunity. The second observation concerns access by individual members of parliament to public servants and officers of statutory authorities. Items 61 to 67 of Part D at page 16 of the report deal with the matter of parliamentarians' access to the bureaucracy. This must be maintained. The procedure that is set down in the guidelines contains a number of elements which we would certainly endorse. However, in no circumstances would we accept as members that an individual parliamentarian should ever be denied a reasonable opportunity to contact the public servant responsible for an area expecting that public servant to respond. Certainly, when matters affecting policy are concerned, it would be accepted that there needed to be some variation to that procedure. But in ordinary circumstances we would expect, as parliamentarians, to maintain access to public servants and for them to be able to advise us on those matters which we raise. Of course, that also applies to those of us who as shadow Ministers seek access to departments. Normally that is done, and properly, through the Minister. But in some circumstances where factual information is required it has been the practice to have direct access and I believe that that should continue. The third observation is that as the freedom of information legislation gives significant access to the bureaucracy one would hope that at no stage are parliamentarians denied at least that level of access that is given to members of the public. Indeed, part of our prime responsibility is as a buffer between the citizen and government. It is essential that we should always maintain at least a preferred access to the average citizen if we are effectively to represent our constituents in the way that most of us believe is essential. Apart from those observations, the Opposition supports the document and its incorporation in Hansard. (Budget Debate) Debate resumed from 21 August, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(8.00) —Mr Speaker, the greatest challenge before Australia today is to sustain and expand the fragile recovery and to ensure that all Australians share in it. This Government has been quick falsely to claim credit for an economic upswing largely based on one-off factors : The United States led world recovery; the lifting of the drought; and the previous coalition Government's wages pause. But it has not shown either the leadership or the political courage necessary to seize the rare opportunity before us to build on these factors to achieve a new decade of prosperity for Australia. The goals of my future government are very clear indeed. We want to see every Australian in a job. We want to see more businesses, small and large, profitable and expanding, because growth means jobs. We want to see ordinary people, average Australians, rewarded for their hard work. We want to see Australians keeping more of their hard earned pay and not having it confiscated by taxes. We want to bring the disadvantaged in our community back into the centre of Government consideration, through humane and caring policies. Budgets are not just about statistics and reams of paper. Above all, they are about people and their futures. The economic decisions before us have to be taken with the long term security and the well-being of all Australians in mind. If the economic recovery is to be strengthened and sustained, and if the benefits of recovery are to flow to the unemployed, the Government must create an environment in which people are prepared to spend and in which business has the capacity and the incentive to invest and grow. That means that the Government has to reduce the burden of taxes to increase incentives, that it has to restrain its spending and its borrowing to leave business with the resources to grow. For the second successive year this Government has shown that it does not really believe in these basic facts of economic life. It is a big spending, high taxing Government which has added even more to the national debt and the national interest Bill. Let us look at the facts. After adjusting for inflation, Labor has added more to government spending in two Budgets than the previous coalition Government added in seven years. The Hawke Government is the biggest spender peacetime government in Australia's history. Indeed, it exceeds even the wildest days of Whitlam. To finance its unprecedented spending binge, this Government has inevitably become the highest taxing Government in Australia's history. In spite of this, the Hawke Labor Government has also had further to increase the national debt to finance its projects. Today's income taxpayers are paying over $17 a week just to fund to interest on that debt, and future taxpayers will face an even higher burden as a result of the decisions of this Government-decisions that have added about as much to the nation's debt in the last two years as was added in the previous six years. The big debt and the high spending policies of this Government are unquestionably destroying the flexibility needed to build a sustained recovery, and by establishing a higher spending and higher debt base on which future Budgets must be built it has given the ever rising Hawke tax spiral another boost. The plain and obvious fact is that this Government's Budget strategy has the economic fundamentals all wrong. Far from being the responsible Budget that has been claimed by this Government, this Budget is storing up problems for the future and threatening the basis of sustained recovery. As our economic policy has clearly stated, the next coalition government will put economic policy and the Budget back on the tracks. We will rein in and restrain government spending to ensure that the private sector has room to grow. The reality, Mr Speaker, is that we can achieve a new decade of prosperity if government makes decisions which are far sighted, balanced and fair. Labor's second Budget is a profound disappointment to the great majority of Australians because it does nothing to advance Australia towards real and lasting national development and employment. The Budget and the Government's economic policies lock the nation on a course which is the reverse of the one on which we ought to be travelling. This Budget means higher taxes, fewer jobs and more government. It is therefore short-sighted, unbalanced and manifestly unfair and discriminatory in its treatment of large groups in the community. Let us look at this Budget and Labor's claims to be fair. First, the fact is that the Australian on the average wage, not a wealthy Australian, will still pay 46c income tax on every extra dollar earned. Second, the living standard of the average wage earner will do nothing more than stagnate during 1984-85, despite working longer hours and despite the so-called tax cut. Third, the number of Australians unemployed will be virtually unchanged. All this in a year when there is supposed to be rapid economic growth and a 23 per cent increase in total income tax paid to the Government. It is hardly fair, it is hardly balanced, and it is certainly not the type of Australia we want or need. Now, just under 18 months after coming to office, Labor is scuttling off to another election. If the Hawke Government has confidence in its policies and in this Budget, why race off to an early election? What has it got up its sleeve? It may well produce a few bunnies. The facts about this Budget are, firstly, that many of its measures are temporary in nature, designed to paper over the cracks until the election is held. Secondly, this is a Budget born of backroom dealing. There were consultations with trade union officials and the Australian Council of Trade Unions-locked in the Cabinet room, with everyone else denied entry. Three times they were brought in to determine the nature of the Budget. Is it any wonder that the Secretary to the Treasury, Mr Stone, resigned in disgust five days before the Budget? I can assume only that he did not know whom to report to-the Treasurer (Mr Keating) or Mr Dolan. Thirdly, while the ACTU has had unprecedented control of the Budget process, the needs and aspirations of other groups in the community have been absolutely ignored. Let us look at some of them. Labor has shut the door on taxpayers, on families, on pensioners, on small business, on the unemployed, and on farmers and their families. As a result of the illusory tax reductions and the declining standard of living, families will obtain no relief and find no incentive. Pensioners have been hit by Labor's tax on their retirement security. Small business people will find that Labor has again failed to honour its specific commitments to help them. The unemployed through the continuation of anti-job policies, and farmers and their families through the continued failure of the Government to provide for the special needs of primary producers and rural centres, will also suffer. Furthermore, all those people in this country-this excludes members of this Government-who care about the defence of this nation, who care about the security of our country, know that Labor has cut vital areas of defence expenditure and threatens strategic alliances. The Republican Party produced its platform yesterday, naming its friends in the area. Whom does it exclude? It excludes Australia. We know why. As for the harshness of this Budget, when one weights it up and adds it up, the people who are hit by Labor's second-and let us say, Labor's last-Budget are the ordinary decent Australians from all walks of life and all parts of the country. The ordinary Australian is not in the vocabulary of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke ). When did anyone last hear him talk about the family? When did anyone last hear him talk about ordinary Australians? When did anyone last hear him talk about the worker wanting to improve his lot? They are not even in his vocabulary . Every Australian agrees that in this country we live in an over-taxed and over- governed nation. But what has this Government done to honour the Prime Minister' s 1983 promises? Let us remember that in regard to tax it was a promise of immediate tax cuts for 99 per cent of the community. Less than 18 months later the Treasurer comes into this House and tries to fool people. The fact is that the average wage earner's tax position is already $22 a week worse under Labor. Forty-eight hours ago the Treasurer came in and offered some Australians $7.60, and most of them a lot less than that. They are ordinary, average Australians on average wages. They have lost $22 a week because of this Government. That is hardly a tax cut. Indeed, it is not a tax cut to take away $22 a week and then months later give back less than $8. But people are not fooled by this. What about the deceitful methods used by the Government? The thimble and pea tax trick comes in a shuffling of the tax rates. The hard fact is that even after these phoney tax cuts the average wage earner stays in the 46c in the dollar tax bracket. The average wage earner is in the 46c tax bracket. Those people pay to Canberra nearly half of every extra dollar earned. What it comes down to is that for every overtime hour worked, half an hour goes to the Treasurer in tax. In the next year hundreds of thousands more people will move into the 46c tax bracket and over one million taxpayers will move into higher tax brackets. While Labor will not index the tax scales, it has no hesitation in indexing taxes on petrol, beer or tobacco so that they go up automatically every six months, plus adding another 10 per cent on wine. What is to be remembered is that they go up and up automatically. What is the value of a phoney tax cut? Everyone knows what is in Labor's tax pipeline. Should this Government be returned at the next election, the people of Australia ought to know before that polling day that Labor is poised ready to impose a new capital gains tax, a gift duty and Federal death duties. That is what every faction of the Labor Party is publicly committed to do. So we will have further attacks on those who work and save to get ahead because this is the politics of envy; this is the politics of levelling down; this is the politics of a socialist Government. I make it clear that we will not have a bar of a capital gains tax or a gift duty or Federal death duties. We stand for fundamental tax reform, not this tinkering on the periphery of the tax programs and election tricks that are played out now in the months before an election. The sad reality is that through Labour's tax take there has been a significant decline in living standards in the community. But there is worse to come. We will reverse that trend by getting the tax man off people's backs. When we go to this early election we will offer Australians a clear choice on taxation policy. Our program will achieve genuine personal tax cuts and a net reduction in tax overall. To put it in a nutshell: Labor will tax people but we will encourage people. There is nothing in this Budget for families. There are no increases in the family allowance, no increase in the spouse rebate and little on child care. Yet the family ought to be the key to Australia's future. It is the basis of our approach to government and indeed to our economic management. Our family policies will give families incentives through the maintenance of family allowance, a positive commitment to child care and assistance in achieving that great goal of home ownership. We will ensure that families can exercise a choice in education for the young, that parents have the dignity of a job and that the elderly have security in retirement. The fact is also that this Budget marks another step in Labor's calculated attack on the elderly. For 18 months the elderly have been mistreated by this Government as second class citizens. Pensioners were promised substantial pension increases and they have been given a miserly 45c a week above the Government's Medicare fiddle. The means test on the over-70s, the 31 per cent tax on lump sum superannuation and the assets test are all broken promises imposed after the last election. Labor's assets test means putting the aged through the wringer of interference, confusion and anxiety. It means intrusion into their homes, valuing their personal possessions and filling out forms. Never in the history of this country has any government allowed bureaucrats the right of entry into every pensioner's home simply to check the valuation of their personal possessions. I want to make it clear to those millions of Australians who are retired or nearing retirement that they have a choice. They can do something about those inequities. One of our first acts after the next election will be to scrap this unfair assets test and the 31 per cent slug on lump sum superannuation that will go with it. Our retirement, security and social welfare policies will give a fair go to the elderly and real assistance to those in genuine need. What about small business? We will also make it possible for the dreams of small business men and women to come true. So often it is small business which cannot cope with Labor's deals with big interests. Small businesses cannot afford to absorb the flow-ons of full wage indexation and carry the mounting on- cost burden. There is nothing in this Budget for small business. Yet small business employs over 60 per cent of the Australian work force. There are 700, 000 small businesses in our country and they are a vast source of employment, innovation and healthy competition. Small business is the key to jobs for the 630,000 registered unemployed. We do not take a defeatist attitude to this nation. We believe that we can conquer unemployment and we can do it through a positive partnership between government and small business. This Government continues to ignore the potential of small business and to smother small businesses with tax and red tape. This Government came to office promising small business a program of incentives. Yet after two Budgets those who operate in small businesses are still waiting for action. The truth is that small business just does not fit into Labor's corporate state. Small businesses have been consigned to the too hard basket and , with them, hundreds of thousands of jobs. Our small business policy firmly commits us to initiatives which will allow small business to lead the nation into a decade of prosperity and back to full employment. We will increase investment incentives to business and industry, not scrap them as this Government has done with the investment allowance. The coalition recognises that through incentives business will invest and expand, and in that process it will create more jobs. One does not create jobs in the public sector. Long term jobs can be created only in the private sector, but honourable members opposite refuse to recognise that maxim. We will introduce a flexible industrial relations system which will benefit both employees and employers. What about the rural sector? The harsh reality is that the Government has done nothing for farm families and those in rural centres. They have just come out of the second worst drought if not the worst drought in Australia's history. The fact is that our greatest export earners are still our Australian primary producers. Yet the Government turns a blind eye to the special needs of those in primary industry. Every government around the world recognises that special measures are needed for primary industry. This Government has presided over the dismantling of the income equalisation deposits scheme which is so important to farmers who have to contend with drought and with world wide fluctuations. The Government has cut incentives and dramatically increased charges to primary producers. Let me show how much concern the Australian Labor Party has for the farming community. At its national conference the Labor Party spent 60 minutes discussing whether a Canberra delegate should be someone from the left wing or the right wing of the Party and then proceeded to spend six minutes on primary industry. A similar proportion of this Budget is devoted to rural measures. Our comprehensive rural policy provides country people with a fair deal. We will restore the income equalisation deposits scheme. I give that just as an example. We will improve the drought relief assistance. We will free up the Primary Industry Bank of Australia Ltd so that it can better meet the needs of those on the land. We will provide major assistance for the fishing industry, and we will provide the encouragement and understanding the rural sector so badly needs. The bottom line on this Budget and on this Government is that together they imperil our chances of long term recovery. They are mortgaging the future of this generation of Australians and of generations to come. The annual interest on the debt in this Budget is larger than the total amount that we spend on education. It takes an extra $17 a week from each taxpayer just to pay that interest, on the public debt that the Government is creating. This huge debt means one thing: More taxes and more charges are on the way. How can business and industry maintain the competitiveness that is so vital for investment and jobs when the Government refuses to show the restraint that is required? We have a decade of prosperity within reach, yet each day this Government delays in making the right decisions we move further away from that goal. But there is a better way. The people will have a choice in some weeks or months, whenever the Prime Minister decides to end the uncertainty and his flirtation with the choice of an election date, which he is mulling over without telling anyone. There is a better way. The coalition has set out the programs that are needed now, and it will continue further to spell them out through the lead-up to this unnecessary early election. When it comes down to taws the choice will be between a socialist government which spends more, adds to the debt of this nation and breaks promise after promise and the Opposition, which is dedicated to achieving growth and development through the private sector and to freeing up that private sector through proper economic management of the public sector. We would not have the skyrocketing growth in government that we have seen under Labor. We are pledged to bringing all Australians, particularly the poor and the unemployed, who have been swept to one side in this Budget, back into the mainstream of government considerations. The challenge is before us. We can and will move ahead by exercising the courage and the determination which looks beyond any early election and which looks beyond political self-interest to a better Australia for all of us. That choice lies ahead for all Australians, and they will make the determination. They will see through the phoney tax cuts of this Budget. They will see the diminution in their living standards, as they have felt them for days, weeks and months under this Government increasingly impacting upon them, and they will recognise that the determination that comes from those who look beyond the early election date and political self-interest is better for Australia and better for us all. I have touched on many of the ways that this Budget and the strategy which underlies it are letting down the people of Australia and storing up problems for the future. I would like to expand on a number of themes to which I have already drawn attention. I refer to the way in which this Government has the economic fundamentals for further encouraging and sustaining recovery all wrong; to the ways in which the Treasurer and the Prime Minister have been caught attempting to deceive the people of Australia about the so-called benefits of this Budget and the so-called achievements of their so-called strategies. Any thinking person knows that this Hawke Government, for all its rhetoric of responsible economic management, is in fact a Labor government of an entirely familiar sort. It is a big spending, high taxing, high debt government. It is the very antithesis of what is required for responsible management and for building a tentative recovery into sustained growth. This Government has fed its big spending habit with a real spending increase of over 14 per cent in just two Budgets. It has funded this habit by raising the tax burdens to an all time high and by adding almost as much to the nation's debt in two years as was added in the previous six. Some of the decisions made by this Government have been welcomed by the Opposition, particularly those relating to financial markets and the freeing up of the exchange rate. These decisions have the potential to increase the flexibility of the economy. But the Budget strategy that is unequivocally confirmed in this Budget is creating a source of inflexibility that completely overshadows other decisions the Government has taken. When we also take into account this Government's associated support of an inflexible system of wage determination, this Government has set in place a framework of policies that are simply incapable of allowing the adjustments in changing circumstances that are essential to putting Australia back on a sustained path of growth and rising living standards. The massive increases in spending and in the nation's debt imposed by this Hawke Labour Government are not just a temporary shift of resources into the public sector. Rapidly rising expenditure on Medicare and an increasing number of public servants and politicians, to name just a few of the more obvious areas , are locking the public sector into taking a permanently higher and rising share of the nation's resources. This Government is already spending over 31 per cent of gross domestic product. This is an historical high in itself, and the Government clearly intends to take even more in the future. A rapidly expanding public sector becomes increasingly difficult to control and ever more difficult to adjust to changing economic conditions. It hardens the economy's arteries and lays the foundations for future economic ill-health. It builds up long term commitments that taxpayers will be called on to pay, not only this year, but also throughout the future. Let there be no doubt about it: This Budget has created a massive problem for the future. By taking a short term, short-sighted view based on calling an early election, it has set the scene for further increases in taxes and in public debt next year and thereafter. The inflexibility created by this Budget strategy, the growing debt, the growing spending and the destruction of incentives that go with it are utterly irresponsible and particularly inappropriate to an economy poised on the knife- edge between sustained recovery and renewed stagnation. Equally inappropriate in these circumstances is to date the little noticed fact that the investment allowance has been scrapped from 30 June 1985 with nothing to take its place. Let there be no doubt about it: Despite the deliberately confusing form of words used in the Budget Speech, despite the extension of time over which eligible plant and equipment may be installed, any plant and equipment ordered after 30 June next year will not get the allowance. Why? The answer is because it has been scrapped. This decision has been taken in a period in which maximum incentives are required to restore private sector investment to sustain recovery. It has been taken in the context of a Budget in which support for general and scientific research has also been cut by 6 per cent in real terms. What sort of economic responsibility is revealed by these decisions? The answer is clear: Less than none. The economic irresponsibility and increasing inflexibility created by the Budget strategy is further compounded by Labor's commitment to the terms of the accord and, particularly, to wage indexation. As I have pointed out before, unemployment has been kept unnecessarily high by the refusal of this Government and the ACTU to allow wage adjustments which reflect employers' differing capacities to pay. But as the Budget Papers themselves point out, as recovery and profitability strengthen in some sectors of the economy, the inflexibility of the indexation system destroys the ability of labour markets to respond to changing circumstances and builds up pressures in the more rapidly growing areas of the economy because it provides little scope for changing wage relativities. Maintenance of the accord is also being used as an excuse by the Government for at least implicitly supporting the union movement's thrust into superannuation schemes and other forms of non-wage on- costs, all of which add as surely to labour costs and reduced competitiveness as wage increases themselves. In an economy poised on the brink of more widespread sustained recovery, the policies embodied in and associated with this Budget are not the right policies. The Government's rhetoric of moderation and responsibility is increasingly being revealed as just that-rhetoric without reality. The policy set out in the coalition's economic statement are the right policies for today: Policies of control, policies of restraint in public sector spending, policies of winding back the tax burden and the nation's indebtedness, and policies to increase flexibility in the Budget and in labour markets. While the economic implications of the Hawke Labor Government's Budget strategy are deeply disturbing in themselves, the attempted deception and the attempted misrepresentation with which the 1984-85 Budget has been presented to the Parliament and outside to the people of Australia by the Treasurer and the Prime Minister are at least as disturbing. Worst of all, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister have persisted with the total fabrication that the Budget gives real tax cuts when even the Budget Papers conclusively show that the opposite is in fact true. New heights of falsehood and new heights of attempted deception clearly have been reached when a Budget which increases total Budget receipts to the highest levels in Australian history, to some 27.9 per cent of the GDP-virtually 28c in every dollar produced in Australia-is presented as giving 'real tax cuts'. Caught out in this attempted deception, the Prime Minister compounded the falsehood by retreating into misleading and selective use of statistics. He said that gross PAYE income tax receipts would increase after the so-called tax cuts by 10.7 per cent, not much more than the expected increase in average earnings plus the increase in the number of taxpayers. But it is net PAYE receipts, after allowing for refunds, that more truly reflect the overall impact of this Government's strategy of tax hikes in a mini-Budget and two full Budgets. Net PAYE receipts will increase by over 3 percentage points more than gross receipts , revealing once again the truth about this Budget. Taxpayers really face a further tax hike this year, not a tax cut. The attempted deception is finally and conclusively given the lie by a further revealing Budget figure, the figure showing a sharp rise in the proportion of total receipts taken through income taxes to over 53 per cent. The real facts are that in a Budget that increases the overall tax burden to an all time high, the reliance on income tax has also been increased to record levels. Mr Howard —That is shocking, really. Mr PEACOCK —It is unbelievable, in fact. The significance of this fact goes beyond its importance to the credibility of the claims made for this Budget. There is now general agreement in the community that the tax system should be restructured to reduce reliance on the income tax and to increase fairness. This Budget goes strongly against that trend by pushing income tax collections, despite the so-called tax cuts, to a record high proportion of Budget receipts. That is yet another example of the Government ducking the fundamental issues and storing up bigger problems for the future. We have said clearly and unequivocally that we support a restructuring of the tax system; that the next coalition government would reduce reliance on the income tax by broadening the sales tax base; and that we would put real tax reform high on our list of priorities. It is not only on the taxing side of the Budget that this Government is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the people of Australia. In the last couple of days we have seen the trickster Treasurer and the Prime Minister trying to convince us that Medicare should be excluded from calculations of Government spending increases because it is largely spending which would have occurred anyway in the private sector. Honourable members should try that for logic! By that criterion he should really be saying Government spending is a tiny fraction of what the figures show. Let us suppose that the ALP National Conference had had its way and nationalised the private schools. Should the extra Budget spending on education that would result be excluded from the Budget outlay figures? Surely no one would agree with that ludicrous proposition, yet that is what the Treasurer and the Prime Minister say should be done with health spending. Mr Rocher —Pathetic! Mr PEACOCK —Absolutely pathetic. What they are trying to do in the case of Medicare is to convince people that it does not matter whether health care is in public or private hands. They are doing it because they want people to think that socialised medicine is no different from health care provided by the private sector, and because they want to disguise the massive growth in the public sector under this Administration. This Government's deceitful use of figures does not apply only to its big spending and its high taxes. There is also the curious case of Australia's inflation rate. The Prime Minister has been saying that Australia's inflation rate will come 'back to the level of the rest of the world'. Either he has not read his own Budget Papers or he is trying to deceive the Australian people. Let me remind the Prime Minister what Budget Statement No. 2 says. On page 66 it says that inflation in the major industrial economies is expected to run at around 4.5 per cent in 1984-85. On page 70, Statement No. 2 says that the consumer price index is expected to rise by around 5.25 per cent between the June quarter of 1984 and the June quarter of 1985 and that the most comprehensive measure of inflation, the non-farm product deflator figure, will be around 6.5 per cent in year average terms in 1984-85. So our prices will be rising at somewhere between 17 and 44 per cent faster than those in the major industrial economies in the coming year. With wages growth of around 7 per cent, the prospect for a long term improvement in this imbalance hardly appears bright . This can only mean continuing pressures on the international competitiveness of our industries and a continuing struggle for them to find new markets. Certainly, the gap between our inflation rate and that of our trading partners has declined substantially, largely because of the previous Government's wages pause and the general effects of the recession. But the Prime Minister of course is not content with claiming credit for reducing the gap; he has to push the truth up to and beyond its breaking point in this as in so many other things. A government which has to go out of its way to misrepresent the achievements of its strategy and the implications of its Budget would do so for one reason only: It knows that its strategy is not responsible and not sustainable. It knows that the majority of Australians are really being hurt by its policies and its deals with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and it is running scared that the reality will become more widely recognised before the Government has time to go to the polls. This Government's natural inclination is to duck the real issues, to dissemble, bluster and misrepresent the truth in the hope that either the issues will disappear or its version of the so-called truth will prevail. Anyone who disagrees with it is abused. For example, the Prime Minister's systematic and unfair attack on officers of the Australian Council of Social Service-- Mr Howard —Bullying. Mr PEACOCK —Absolute bullying and systematically done. I believe that the problems are being stored up for the future. The attack on ordinary Australians' living standards and the irresponsibility of the Government's Budget and economic strategy are being increasingly recognised. I believe that people are seeing that the present Prime Minister and his Government are sailing under false colours and, contrary to his hopes and expectations, this Budget will be the source of his undoing. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(8.45) —I think that it is obvious to everyone who has listened to the speech by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) that this Government has no economic critique to answer. In the last 14 years no Opposition Leader has presented a Budget criticism which was so lacking in economic analysis, so devoid of economic coherence and so filled out with a few tired and vacuous cliches. Let me contrast that with the policy of this Government which has a coherent economic policy with a set of interrelated goals . That coherent policy and those interrelated goals can be seen in and are underwritten by the present Budget. The overriding aim of the Budget is to secure sustained economic growth without inflation, which, of course, the Leader of the Opposition said was his objective . But he gave us no economic analysis of how that objective was to be achieved. That is not surprising because in seven years the Fraser Government was never able to achieve economic growth without inflation. Directly related to that overriding goal and essential to its achievement are two subsidiary aims. First, is the maintenance of the prices and incomes accord between the Government and the trade unions, which is one of the most successful undertakings between government and labour anywhere in the Western world. Many governments have tried it since the onset of the economic malaise in the early 1970s but ours has been one of the most successful. Without a successful incomes policy, guaranteed by the accord, we would not be able to get the growth without inflation which the Western world has been seeking for the past 15 years. The second interrelated goal in the budget is the encouragement of investment by the private sector as a necessary motor for sustained economic recovery. The critical element here in encouraging business confidence is a reduction in the Budget deficit of $1,216m and certain distinctive incentives for business investment. The cost of achieving those two goals in economic policy has left the Government with somewhat limited resources for its third major goal-the substantial improvement in social welfare provision. To achieve this goal we have targeted our resources on those most in need-groups too often neglected by the previous Government, which left these people to bear the real burden of the economic recession. We shall look at those details in a moment and contrast them with the pious platitudes of the Leader of the Opposition. Let us examine in some detail the Government's coherent economic policy which is such a contrast to the shambles we have just been presented with-I suppose I must make some passing reference to the waffle we have just heard. First of all, the evidence for economic recovery is overwhelming-outstanding economic growth, a turnaround in employment, falling inflation, falling interest rates, improving profits and recovering business investment. We have achieved economic growth with falling inflation and we have a better prospect today than at any time since 1973. When the Leader of the Opposition tells us how to manage this recovery the people of Australia need to be reminded that every tentative economic recovery between 1975 and 1983 was aborted by the Liberal-National Party's mismanagement. Every possible recovery in those seven years was either ruined directly by inflation or by government deflationary policies, fearful of inflation. The Leader of the Opposition is not prepared to give us a single iota of credit for the Hawke Government's achievements. He attributes the achievement to the United States led world recovery, the lifting of the drought and the previous Liberal Government's wages pause. There was not one single iota of credit to the Hawke Government for this achievement. We can afford to be more honest and more generous. Of course, the improving international economic climate resulting from the economic recovery in the United States has helped. Of course the breaking of the drought has helped. Malcolm must have regretted that he went before the rains. But the fact that we have had the fastest economic growth in the Western world also owes much to this Government-to its tough decisions in the May economic statement; to its structuring of this and the last Budget to take advantage of those favourable environmental conditions; to the real restraint exhibited by this Government on the expenditure side when the facts are properly analysed; to the pursuit of the appropriate monetary policy; and, above all, to the existence of the prices and incomes accord. Let me also grant the Leader of the Opposition that even the Fraser Government' s wages pause made a contribution to economic recovery. However, it should be remembered that virtually every government-imposed wage freeze or pause in the Western world has been followed by a wages explosion. We have avoided that by a co-operative approach with the trade union movement whereby wage restraint has been backed by social wage and social welfare responses. The real and progressive income tax cuts are the Government's key contribution to the social wage understanding with the trade unions in this Budget, just as Medicare was in the last. The only economic argument, as distinct from the platitudes, that came out of the speech we just heard from the Leader of the Opposition was the effort to disparage those tax cuts as somehow synthetic and to suggest that, despite all the evidence out there in the real world, living standards have declined under Labor. The Opposition Leader's argument on living standards secures what little validity it has by ignoring nearly all the facts. It ignores the greatly increased job security under this Government. It ignores the sharp reduction in industrial disputes and the consequent reductions in the disruption of family incomes. It ignores the benefits of regular wage indexation linked to six- monthly movements in the consumer price index, yielding most workers about $30 a week to date. It ignores the assured and less expensive basic hospital an medical cover provided under Medicare. It ignores the benefit of lower housing interest rates, which leaves more disposable income in family pockets. Now it ignores the $7.60 tax cut for the great majority of Australian workers. To be fair again to the Opposition, let me compare the November 1982 situation-that is after the last Fraser-Howard tax cuts-with the November 1984 situation, when our tax cuts will come into place. Comparing those two periods, workers on $370 a week will have increased real disposable income of $21 a week as a result of those changes. Workers on $420 a week will have increased real disposable income of $13 a week. Now, let me refer to the Opposition Leader's charge that tax cuts are somehow synthetic and somehow a sham. It is an argument which secures whatever validity it possesses firstly from conceptual confusion and, secondly, from the fudging of specific tax issues. First, the Leader of the Opposition muddles the tax base and the tax rates. It is true that there has been a 23 per cent increase in total tax paid by individuals, but that has very little to do with ordinary pay- as-you-earn taxpayers or, if it does, as with the Medicare levy, it is offset by private savings. This expansion in the tax base is due very much to the economic recovery, as one would expect, because with economic recovery one has a much broader tax base. In fact, the Liberal Government never seemed to understand that an expanding economy meant an expanding tax base. It does not seem to understand that now it is in opposition. Let us just look at the chief reasons for that 23 per cent expansion. First of all, there has been a big increase in provisional taxation, which is the direct result of big increases in farm incomes and improvement in business and property incomes. Secondly, there has been a significant rise in the prescribed payments system-a tax, of course, which was introduced by the previous Government and which applies this year for a full year for the first time. Thirdly, as the Opposition constantly mentions, there has been an increase in the revenue collection from the Medicare levy. One reason for the increase is simply that it applies for 12 months and not for five months, as it did in the last year. Not in any sense is this an increased burden because many taxpayers and particularly most lower income earners make big savings when comparing their payments under the Medicare program with those through the old private health insurance system. To judge the impact of the tax cut we need to compare like with like-that is, PAYE payments under Fraser and PAYE payments under this Budget. The important thing is that, as a comparison, both gross and net PAYE tax collections have gone down as a proposition of gross domestic product under this Government. In 1982-83, after the last tax cuts of the Fraser Government, PAYE tax collections as a percentage of GDP in gross terms were 12.7 per cent and in net terms 11.5 per cent. As a result of the cuts made under this Budget, PAYE tax collections as a percentage of GDP will be 11.9 per cent gross and 10.9 per cent net. So we can put those arguments aside, and they are practically the only arguments on which the Opposition has rested its case. Let me turn to another suggestion that crept into the Opposition Leader's speech, though, to give him some credit, he did not have the hypocrisy to pursue it at length. It has been suggested by many in the community, and I believe they have suggested it genuinely, and by many in the Opposition quite hypocritically, that we have neglected the poor, the underdogs in this society. Of course we would have wished to have dome more, to have provided more generous welfare benefits, bigger increases in pensions, more comprehensive social security benefits. But I repudiate utterly that in framing the Budget the less well off in this society were neglected by the Hawke Government. I am encouraged by Mr Gittins, the economics editor of the Sydney Morning Herald, who this morning wrote: The new conventional wisdom that Bob and Paul have got into bed with big business and big unions and are screwing down on the very people Labor is supposed to protect contains a large deposit of codswallop. First, the greatest contribution that any government can make to the poor in our society is to secure economic growth and economic prosperity by producing jobs; by producing more resources for welfare projects; by producing more funds for pensions and benefits. The primary thrust of the Government's economic policy since the day it came to office has been to ensure economic recovery and to secure sustained economic growth without inflation. That is the greatest contribution we can make to the alleviation of poverty in this society. That overriding commitment, and the cost of that commitment, has not prevented redistribution measures through the tax system. The tax cuts we have introduced are biased in favour of low income earners and against high income earners. The restructuring of the tax scales is clearly progressive. Just to take two fairly extreme examples, a taxpayer with a dependent spouse and dependent children with a taxable income of $10,000 will have his tax reduced by 45.7 per cent, while a taxpayer with a dependent spouse and dependent children with a taxable income of $50,000 would have his tax reduced by 0.7 per cent. Underlying the tax cuts is a clear progressive commitment. Indeed, once a taxpayer with a dependent spouse and dependent children has taxable income greater than $28,000 a year, the tax cut reduces both in absolute as well as proportionate terms, and that was a redistributive commitment of this Government. Further, the result of the income tax cut means that the $250 pensioner tax rebate will not begin to ease out until taxable income of $5,534 a year is reached. Single pensioners will therefore pay no tax until their income exceeds $106 per week. Further still, we have introduced a tax rebate for social security beneficiaries. That increase will ensure that social security beneficiaries who are entirely dependent on social security for their income will not come within the ambit of the tax system. Let me now turn to what the Government has done in relation to pensioners. We have provided an increase from November of $2.50 a week for single pensioners and $4.20 a week for married pensioners. Because of the negative CPI for the six months ending June 1984 there would have been no pension increase under the automatic indexation provisions. The Government recognised that this was in part the result of the Medicare impact on the CPI, from which pensioners with pensioner health benefit cards gained no direct benefit, though they do clearly get a number of indirect benefits. We estimate the Medicare impact on the CPI at $2.15 a week and, therefore, we have compensated for that and added a little more. This increase also represents our commitment to raise pensions over the first three years of our Government to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. Without this increase the single rate of pension would have been about 23.2 per cent of average weekly earnings in December. As a result of the increase. It will be pushed up to 23.8 per cent of average weekly earnings. Again, in these particularly difficult budgetary circumstances, we have targeted our additional resources at those most in need-pensioners and beneficiaries with children, pensioners renting privately, the young and single adult unemployment beneficiaries. As I go through the series of contrasts that follow, I ask honourable members to remember the words of the Leader of the Opposition tonight who said 'We are pledged to bringing all Australians, particularly the poor and the unemployed, back into the mainstream of government consideration'. All of these groups in need were sadly discriminated against under the Fraser Government. We have increased additional pension benefits and family income supplements for children by $2 a week. With the $2 a week increase provided last year, this represents a 40 per cent increase since we came to office. In its seven years the Fraser Government could manage only a $2.15 increase. We have increased the supplementary rent assistance to pensioners by $5 a week-an increase of 50 per cent. The Fraser Government could only provide that increase in seven years; we have provided it in 18 months. We have increased the mothers/guardians allowance paid to sole parents by $2 a week. The Fraser Government could only manage a $2 increase over a period of seven years. Last year we raised the junior unemployment benefit by $5 a week. In this Budget we have raised it by a further $5 for those on the unemployment benefit for more than six weeks. Thus again in 18 months we have done more for the junior unemployed than the Fraser Government did in seven years. The single adult unemployed benefit will, like all other benefits, be increased-by $2.50 in November and by a further $2 in May 1985 on top of any consumer price index increases occurring during that time. We were committed to ending the discrimination practised by the Fraser Government against the single unemployed. We promised at the election to close the gap between the benefit and the standard single rate of pension and sickness benefit, and we have gone a long way towards honouring that commitment. So I simply ask again that honourable members remember what the Opposition Leader said, that they look at what the Opposition did when in government and look at what we have done in 18 months in very difficult economic circumstances. Finally, let me mention the utter shallowness of the Leader of the Opposition's economic policy as it was revealed on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program AM on the morning after the Budget. It is true that he had not much time to think about it, but he claimed then that he would have run a $5 billion deficit for 1984-85. That means he would have had to have found $1,745m to get the deficit back to $5 billion dollars. When the questioner asked how the Leader of the Opposition would do that, all he could think of was: 'I'd reduce the number of politicians and I'd do something about socialised medicine'. They were his two efforts. Thirty-six extra politicians will come into Parliament so we can calculate what difference that will make to the $1,745m he is hunting for. I turn, more seriously, to socialised medicine, as he calls it. The cost of Medicare is another area in which Mr Peacock shows his economic illiteracy. The Budget Papers and supporting papers put out by my Department show clearly that the net outlay on Medicare in 1984-85 will be $152m. While this is more than the full year cost of $80m estimated in the Budget speech of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) last year, that cost increase is very small for a new program that involved expenditure of over $2 billion. The estimates were marginally out but for a new program with a lot of uncertain variables, it is a remarkable achievement. That is particularly so, as I say, for a program that has an increased expenditure of $2 billion. That $72m increase in Medicare's cost is only 3.5 per cent of the increased expenditure involved in the program. Let me break down that expenditure. A total of $1,011m is to ensure that every Australian is covered by the 85 per cent medical benefit for the medical services provided by private general practitioners or the specialist of their choice. I do not see what is socialised medicine about that. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Debate (on motion by Mr Aldred) adjourned. Debate resumed. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(9.05) —I have much pleasure in supporting the Biological Control Bill 1984. As a person who has long been concerned with the virtually uncontrolled use of herbicides and pesticides, I am most glad to be part of a Government which realises the vital importance of introducing legislation which will facilitate the biological control of pests. Perhaps it is a pity that the Bill can apply directly only to the Australian Capital Territory, although of course the legislation anticipates the enactment of similar legislation in the States and the Northern Territory. Two important aspects of the Bill are, firstly, that it provides an opportunity for assessing proposed biological control activities to ensure that they are in the public interest and, secondly, it gives authorisation for the release of biological control agents to ensure that, where such activities are approved, legal proceedings cannot be used to prevent the biological control activities being carried out. I have a specific interest in the Bill because of the infestation of blackberries in the Dandenong Ranges, which is wholly in my present electorate of La Trobe. Regrettably, with the introduction of the new boundaries half of the Dandenong Ranges will be excised from my electorate and will become part of the new electorate of Streeton. Blackberries have become a serious menace in the Dandenongs but recently they have suffered from the effects of a rust fungus which was inadvertently, or probably illegally, brought into the area. It would have been far better had this Bill been in operation as the new legislation could then have been used to cover the illegal use of the rust fungus. Presumably the present Bill can still be used to evaluate a proposed authorised biological control program for the eradication of blackberries in terms of establishing the public benefit of such a program. I have received a plea from the Coalition for Jane, an organisation dedicated to preserving Paterson's curse, or salvation Jane as they call it. It opposes the Bill. Mr Beddall —It is dreadful. Mr MILTON —It is dreadful, as the honourable member says. Coalition for Jane argues that the Bill has been drafted in haste, with scant regard for the rights of individuals and groups to challenge its provisions. I cannot accept that argument. The Bill ensures that the common law rights of individuals shall not be allowed to override community interest. Common law rights can be used by a minority to tyrannise the majority and thwart the interests of the public as a whole. The provisions of the Bill provide a means for establishing whether or not a proposed biological control program is for the public benefit, and allows for public input to decision making and public inquiry and review. Coalition for Jane has also argued that the Bill should not overturn a previous court decision preventing a biological control program targeted on Paterson's curse. I cannot accept this argument either because to accept it would mean again that a small minority could override the economic advantages that the control of Paterson's curse could bring to Australia as a whole. It could be that under the new legislation a case can be made that it is not in the interests of the public as a whole for Paterson's curse to be controlled, but those people opposing the Bill should note that a mechanism exists in the legislation whereby the voices of both beekeepers and graziers can be heard and a decision made which is equitable to all Australians. It does seem to me most important for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation not to find itself being obliged to argue in the courts in favour of one party against another party. In the case of Paterson 's curse, the Australian Agricultural Council changed its views on a number of occasions, first asking the CSIRO to mount a program of biological control and then reversing its decision, depending on whether it had been lobbied by the beekeepers or the graziers. In this respect it is interesting to note that some of the people arguing for control of Paterson's curse are doing so on behalf of beekeepers because honey derived from Paterson's curse contains alkaloids which are considered to be carcinogenic. One advantage of this legislation will be that the CSIRO will not be required, in the future, to defend a position which it had not established in the first place. Another aspect of Paterson's curse which should be understood is that while the removal of the weed will economically disadvantage some beekeepers, it will be replaced by other flower-bearing plants. Subclover could be grown in the denuded areas. The production of this plant could provide a new source for the beekeepers. I was most fortunate to be given the opportunity to visit the laboratories of the CSIRO Division of Entomology in Canberra. This Division, which is headed by Dr Max Whitten, is undertaking most valuable work in the control of insect pests . I was particularly interested in a recent talk given by Dr George Rothschild, a senior principal research scientist in the Division, in which he discussed the future directions of biological control. He pointed out that the control of pests is part of a total approach of which biological control is only one component. In the development of resistant crop varieties, a total control approach involves not only the biological controls of insect communication chemicals and growth hormones but also physical methods of control, such as tillage and the time of planting. Computers providing data banks on methods of controlling weeds may, with the use of modelling techniques, be used to predict the more appropriate method of biological control which should be introduced. Another possible use of computers involves the genetic manipulation of various natural enemies of pests which could make the biological controls more effective. Dr Rothschild made particular mention of the growth of new companies in the biotechnology field. As the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) has pointed out on a number of occasions, this is one of the growth areas of industrial activity in which Australia must remain at the forefront. The present legislation will assist the CSIRO to continue its valuable work in the field of biological control and thus assist companies, such as Biotechnology Australia Pty Ltd and Biocontrol Ltd, in their commercialisation of what amounts to biological insecticides. I wish to indicate how valuable I consider the use of methods of biological control can be for the developing countries of South East Asia. In this respect we have an important role to play in transferring our research expertise on projects such as the control of water weeds and terrestrial weeds. It is perhaps worth mentioning that biological control does not mean biological eradication. The target population of pests is reduced to a low level but some elements of the pest always remain. There is an intimate relationship between the pest and its attacker so that each population settles into a lower and less populous level of activity, subject to some fluctuations caused by the weather or some other physical change. For those people who are worried that biological control agents can redirect their attack at a more valuable plant or animal species, that is, a non-target species, it must be borne in mind that most insects are programmed to attack only one species and will die before they can adapt to another species. Plants closely related to the target weed may be attacked but the insect concerned may not be able to complete its life cycle either because of an off-phase season or because the alternative plant is not conducive to the development of the insect's life cycle. I think that I have said enough to indicate the reasons I strongly support the Bill. I believe the introduction of this legislation is long overdue. If it serves only to halt the ever-increasing irresponsible use of herbicides and pesticides in Australia it will have performed a valuable function. However, I believe it will do more than that as it it will provide a vehicle by which the CSIRO will gain strong industry and community support for its important work in the development of biological control agents. My final plea relates to the eradication of European wasps. I believe the CSIRO Division of Entomology is investigating the possibility of a parasite helping to reduce the large population of European wasps which are proving a serious menace in Victoria. I wish the Division success in its endeavours as these persistent pests are causing considerable concern and anxiety in a number of suburban households in Melbourne. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(9.16) —I too rise to support the Biological Control Bill. I will be brief and follow the example of the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) in that so much has been said from both sides of the House in support of the Bill I fear that were I to say a great deal more or endeavour to occupy the time allotted to me I would be much more repetitious than either side of the House would want. I make the point that Australians are already indebted to the biological control programs that exist. Australian farmers have seen, to name but a few of the prominent areas of biological control, the adequate control of skeleton weed, the adequate control, as has been said by previous speakers, of prickly pear and, perhaps most notable of all, the adequate control of rabbit infestation. The introduction of myxomatosis undoubtedly saved the sheep industry, and I would suggest the cattle industry, hundreds of million of pounds in the days when the Australian currency was measured in pounds, shillings and pence and continues in this day to save even more in dollar terms. I suggest to the House that biological control implies introduced control. Agriculturalists in Australia have always been anxious to encourage the natural control of the pests and weeds that face them as farmers, but frequently it has been difficult for farmers to encourage natural control, remain economically viable and retain an economic level of production. Tonight I want to make several points in favour of biological control, offer several reasons for the bipartisan approach to the Bill by members of the House and reassure those who have been apprehensive, understandably, about this legislation. Firstly, biological control rarely results in the elimination of the target pest. It is a characteristic of biological control that the introduced control medium invariably results in a balance between the control medium and the pest. It ought to be a matter of encouragement to the concerned beekeepers and the Coalition for Jane committee, to which the honourable member for La Trobe referred, that we can be almost certain that this balance will be established wherever biological control is introduced. Secondly, biological control invariably works slowly. I bring the attention of the House to the fact that it took the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation-this is no criticism of that organisation-from 1970 to 1980 to establish what it believed would be a safe control medium for Paterson's curse. For that reason, I doubt whether biological control will every be a likely solution to an emergency problem. In fact, I think there is probably little justification for clause 30 of the Bill because it is difficult to envisage an emergency which would be better handled by biological control than by chemical means. Biological control, by its very nature, works slowly. The other point I make is that biological control is environmentally responsible. Clause 2 (3) of the Bill states that the control of an organism by biological means will be justified if that control would be for the public benefit. The means of control of a pest, disease, plant or weed has historically been either by natural or chemical means. When we look at specific pests such as house flies, sheep blowflies, nematodes, aphids or scales, the control has been principally by chemical means plus sundry and assorted other techniques which have been introduced by ingenuous means such as pheromone lures, traps, swats, burning host material and even irradiation. Principally, control has been by chemical means and it has been this emphasis on chemicals forced on Australian agriculture that has tended to give farmers an undeserved reputation as indiscriminate users of chemicals. The farmers with whom I am familiar, and I suggest to the House most of the farmers in Australia, are principally careful users of chemicals, firstly because chemicals are expensive, and secondly, because it is their lives and crops that are in danger. Indeed, farmers have paved the way for the introduction of biological control as we know it today. Many farmers will testify to the success they have had from the increasingly discriminate use of toxic chemicals. They will testify to the examples they have seen of an emerging natural control of a pest as they endeavour to be more and more discriminate and target-oriented in their chemical use. In my experience in the field of horticulture the introduction of biological control mediums, particularly for red scale in citrus, complemented by the assiduous use of chemicals, which has been referred to in this House as integrated control, has resulted in the most successfully controlled medium of all. It has resulted in a dramatic fall in the quantity of toxic chemicals used in the industries with which I am most familiar. Biological control allows a dramatic fall in the use of toxic chemicals. It allows us to break the chemical cycle that we have built up, and it ought to be commended as a dramatic step in making the Australian agricultural environment even healthier than it is. However, I respect, as have all honourable members who have spoken, the need for caution in the introduction of biological control measures. Indeed, the injunction granted by the South Australian Supreme Court to two graziers and two beekeepers that has resulted in the legislation before us tonight was initiated by an element of caution that we all respect. None of us would want to introduce a biological control medium to control a specific weed and find that it attacked , for example, the sub-clovers. That would be a disaster. Given that these precautionary measures exist, that there is a natural caution in the Australian Agricultural Council and that the Commonwealth Biological Control Authority that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) proposes to set up under this Bill will allow ample opportunity for all parties to discuss their concern, I think the potential for environmental responsibility and biological control under this legislation is enormous. I have one or two reservations about the Bill. I wonder whether in some of its approaches it is a little heavy-handed, if it might not act rather like a sledge -hammer being used to squash a micro-organism. I would appreciate the Minister's reassurance about the future of existing State legislation. I wonder how the Commonwealth will have to impose its will on the States that do not introduce what the Minister would see as appropriately complementary legislation. I confess that I have not been concerned enough about the issues I have raised to warrant proposing any amendments to the Bill. I am pleased to speak in support of it and I am pleased to join the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) and the honourable member for Indi (Mr Ewen Cameron) in supporting it. I hope that it paves the way for some exciting increases in Australian agricultural production. I think its potential for innovative agriculture is enormous. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(9.25) —Like the previous speaker, the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew), I do not wish to take up a great deal of time tonight in speaking about this important piece of legislation, the Biological Control Bill, that has a great degree of bipartisan support. However, while I may be referred to in this House as the member for Calare, my colleagues often refer to me as the member against Paterson's curse, perhaps because of the reputation I have had over the last few months in taking up the cause of biological control of the weed Paterson's curse. I therefore welcome the introduction of this important piece of legislation and am glad to make a contribution. The Biological Control Bill 1984 authorises the release of controlled organisms into only the Australian Capital Territory and other Australian territories, subject to certain requirements that are clearly enunciated in the Bill. Further , it resolves the current legal uncertainty regarding biological control activities by providing lawful authority for the release of control agents. Farmers and allergy sufferers particularly welcome this Bill. Even apiarists know that at last they have a clear framework in which to operate. In my electorate the Bill has been referred to as the Paterson's curse control Bill, although it is certainly much wider in its application. Since my election to the Parliament last year I have actively supported initiatives to bring biological control procedures into legislative effect. I also know that that personal campaign has been enthusiastically supported by members of both sides of this House, particularly those who represent electorates in northern Victoria, the Riverina and central New South Wales. As I have indicated before, the Bill has been specifically developed as a response to continuing representations relating to Paterson's curse. However, all honourable members would be aware that the Bill is considerably wider in its purpose. I will highlight some of the comments about this Bill that I have received in my electorate office from both individuals and organisations. In particular, because Paterson's curse has been a real problem within my electorate, such comments specifically relate to this species. It occurred to me in the preparation of these comments that Mrs Paterson, the English grandmother who introduced this attractively coloured purple weed into Albury in 1858, could never have envisaged the trouble her actions would eventually cause. I have obtained information which suggested that during the height of the drought in late 1981 and early 1982, 200,000 hectares of land in Victoria was infested, with another 700,000 hectares lightly affected. Given the sure knowledge that infestation is always worse following the cessation of drought, it stands to reason that in the Riverina and northern Victorian areas, along with central New South Wales, there must have been millions, rather than hundreds of thousands, of acres either heavily or lightly infested by the weed. While the passing motorist or the international tourist may have marvelled at the colourful blanket across the land, rural, producers had yet another problem to contend with. Paterson's curse is harmful to productivity is caused a disastrous to pastoral activity. Tremendous damage is caused to wool because of the added vegetable matter contained in the fleece of sheep that have grazed on country affected by Paterson's curse. Pasture is wiped out and spraying is enormously expensive. A respected grazier near Bathurst told me in April of this year that the cost of spraying is about $5.60 a hectare per annum. I believe that that is a fairly conservative estimate. It stands to reason that an alternative method of control is essential. Furthermore, many people would share my concern, as have many honourable members who have spoken in the debate tonight, about the continuing use of herbicides, particularly 2, 4-D, as a method of tackling very heavy infestations. Research conducted by State departments of agriculture and noxious weed control authorities have concluded that eucalypts have been killed and clover and legume species affected, more than Paterson's curse. It is a vicious circle. By the time the use of spraying had brought weeds down to a manageable level pasture had been devastated. What about the effect on stock? Stock tends to eat the weed in its early stages even though it causes liver damage and finally death. In the later stages of its life cattle shy off it and concentrate on any clover or grass that remains. Finally, bare ground produced in autumn by spraying also favoured the development of Paterson's curse which smothered other plants that were germinating. It is interesting to note that in the August 1911 edition of the South Australian 'Journal of Agriculture' salvation Jane, as Paterson's curse is referred to in South Australia, is written up as 'valuable sheep fodder for more northern areas, particularly the Flinders Ranges'. I am not quite sure whether that view is strongly held today. honourable members would have received a circular from an organisation called the Coalition for Jane which was issued in July last. It was referred to by the two previous speakers. The letter from the South Australian based organisation acknowledged the need for uniform biological control legislation, despite some other rather glaring inaccuracies in its comments. I think it is significant that the signatories' address was in the Adelaide suburb of Medindie. I suggest that one is fairly unlikely to see that suburb ever smothered with weeds such as Paterson's curse or salvation Jane needing extensive biological control. I now turn to some of the specific aspects of the Bill before the House and reiterate some of the comments that have been made by speakers during this important debate. Essentially, this Bill gives the Commonwealth the power to introduce biological control only within the Australian Capital Territory and other Australian territories. But, as we all know, weeds do not really recognise State boundaries and so it was only logical to seek the support of the States to ensure the passage of complementary legislation. Such legislation was basically agreed to earlier this year at the meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council. Draft legislation has been the subject of considerable discussion by the Federal and State governments, and by many rural producer organisations in particular. That is hardly worthy of the accusation of being 'hastily drafted and ill-considered legislation' made by the Coalition for Jane. As the honourable member for Indi (Mr Ewen Cameron) said in his very well reasoned comments earlier tonight, it is necessary in legislation such as this to hasten slowly to prevent individuals and organisations from acting in an unauthorised manner. We must remember that biological control is essentially ecological control. It is not chemical control and it is certainly not mechanical control. As such, unless we as legislators are convinced, as the scientists are convinced, of the agent's selectivity of target species there are considerable environmental dangers. Essentially, the Federal Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) acts in co- operation with his State counterparts. However, the Minister has the power to act immediately but still in consultation with the States in the case of an emergency. The mechanism for decision making is similar to that operating, I understand, under the national companies and securities legislation. That legislation vests certain powers in the Federal Minister, who acts in consultation with his State counterparts when dealing with interstate corporate problems. If that Act operates successfully, I can see no reason why the Biological Control Act, as it will be, will not also be successful in achieving its objectives across State boundaries. Two other important features of the Bill are worthy of comment. Firstly, target species deemed necessary for biological control will be widely advertised for public reaction and that, as so many other speakers have said in the debate earlier tonight, is important. Secondly, reasonable appeal mechanisms are in place so that apiarists and other people who are concerned about the operation of biological control can be satisfied. In conclusion, I believe that the correspondence received in my office from the Wellington branch of the New South Wales Livestock and Grain Producers' Association summarises the feelings of many rural producer organisations in New South Wales-indeed, throughout south-eastern Australia. This letter is dated 8 April 1984 and I quote from the essential part of it. It states: We are grateful that the Government is taking the necessary action to implement laws to have Biological Control of various problem plants implemented. Concern is being expressed that should we have a problem of Paterson's Curse this spring stock losses will be even greater than last year. I feel that we are still losing sheep as a result of Paterson's Curse being plentiful last spring. Keep the pressure up so that we may have some control, apart from Chemical, in the near future. The last statement also highlights the important contribution made by the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) when he made the point that farmers are often painted as people who are only too willing to use chemical control. Rural producers will welcome the opportunity to have biological control. Like rural procedures, I welcome the Biological Control Bill with the knowledge that the measure has the support of both sides of this House. Mr LUSHER(Hume)(9.37) —I will not detain the House long but, as one of those members particularly concerned with the problem of Paterson's curse, I wish to make one or two comments. The first is that if there is any measure designed to clear the Parliament right out it is probably something like the biological control of Paterson's curse. It is not the sort of thing that has a wide-ranging appeal. Despite that, the Biological Control Bill to those parts of Australia which are affected by this weed is probably one of the most significant pieces of legislation that has been discussed in the Parliament for a long time. This debate has contained some of the best researched, best argued and best delivered speeches of any debate I have heard in the Parliament for a long time. I know that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) will want to compliment and thank those who have taken part in the debate but I also wish to do so. I think that every member who has spoken in this debate has thoroughly gone into the subject. He has given long and deep consideration to some of the problems that the legislation undoubtedly brings with it and he has brought to the Parliament an enormous amount of considered reason. It is interesting that on both sides of the Parliament the nature and quality of the debate has been something which is not often seen. If for no other reason, this debate ought to have that quality noted and remarked upon. The legislation in some respect poses difficulties but I think that in the main it is clear to everybody that the benefits that will flow from the legislation going through the Parliament are certainly far greater than those considerations . For that reason, everybody who is involved with the problem and all those who have spoken in the debate strongly support the Bill in spite of the fact that some things about it are a little concerning and for some people there are a few minor difficulties that cannot be dispensed with totally. My electorate is geographically placed between that of the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) and that of the honourable member for Indi (Mr Ewen Cameron), both of whom have spoken in the debate. It is an enormous tract of some of the best agricultural country in Australia, from the area around Orange to the area around Wagga. It is an electorate which consistently produces 10 per cent of Australia's wheat, year in and year out. The problem for the agricultural community that has been posed by Paterson's curse has been a monumental one. The fact that we have got this legislation to the stage where it is almost through the House, and hopefully it will go through the Senate, and that it will result in an effective biological control program being implemented , is something that every one of the primary producers in my electorate will welcome. I thank the Government very much indeed for having pursued this legislation. It is something that has arisen because of problems that emerged when the original intent to release a biological control agent was first mooted. The legal problems that flowed from the early discussions were such that the only way the matter could be handled was as a result of discussions through the Australian Agricultural Council, agreements with State and Federal governments and the passage of complementary legislation. I will be very pleased when the complementary legislation goes through the State Parliaments and it is possible to move forward, I think in late winter next year, with the release of the agent . On behalf of my constituents, who are extremely concerned and seriously affected by the problem of Paterson's curse, I thank the Minister and everybody else who has been involved in pursuing this solution, which we are now seeing come to some finality. It is a problem which has been around for a long time and is getting significantly worse, and the amount of country affected by this weed has been growing at an increasingly fast rate. The fact that we now have a very real prospect of it being arrested is something for which we will be very grateful. Again I compliment everbody who has taken part in this debate. It is one of those very rare debates where the legislation has been given a lot of consideration by all the speakers and it has received a lot of support from both sides of the House. I thank the Minister most sincerely for having pursued it. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(9.43) —in reply-I join with the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) in passing the comment that this has been a very sensible debate. As he said, it is not something that grips the minds of the nation, but I assure honourable members that it ranks about third in terms of letters written on any one topic and in terms of petitions coming into both my office and the Department of Primary Industry. This is very complex legislation and it has had to be very carefully drafted. It is an area where I and the Department have been very careful not to put a foot wrong. We have had to consult and to look very carefully at what is involved. The issues are substantial in the legal, civil rights, technical and scientific areas. This legislation is not just about Paterson's curse, salvation Jane or echium, as many honourable members have implied; it is about biological control. Although most of what can be said about this has been said in the debate, recently an advertisement appeared in the newspapers and a circular letter on behalf of the Coalition for Jane Committee has been sent, as I understand it, to all honourable members. The Coalition for Jane Committee has some misconceptions concerning the nature of the Biological Control Bill and has misinterpreted its provisions in several respects. I would like to clarify these for the benefit of honourable members. It is clear that the implications of the injunction obtained against the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in the echium case extend beyond that case, in that any interest group which demonstrates legal standing can, at present, block biocontrol proposals on the grounds of nuisance. The general importance of biological control is such that a legislative solution to the problem needs to be found to provide a secure and equitable legal basis for future biocontrol activities. The Committee states that it does not 'oppose the need for uniform biological control legislation' and expresses 'full support for the basic principle of a public inquiry system to determine the worth of biological control programs'. However, it asserts that the Bill offends individual rights under common law. The crux of the matter is that unless the opportunity for common law actions which could negate the purpose of any inquiry or legislation is precluded, the Bill would be meaningless. To support uniform legislation and public inquiry is therefore to accept that the recourse to common law actions to prevent the program from proceeding and for damages must be denied. The Bill does replace common law with statutory law, but this is the case with virtually all statute law and there is nothing unusual about the Bill in this respect. It has been recognised that the loss of recourse to common law litigation can, if inappropriately undertaken, have the effect of diminishing civil liberties. It is for this reason that the Bill provides an exhaustive process of inquiry and review to ensure that there is adequate and equitable opportunity for individual interests to be fully expressed and considered. These procedures have the approval of agricultural, environmental and legal departments within the State, Northern Territory and Commonwealth governments. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has also found them acceptable. I will be moving amendments to the Bill and these will clearly indicate that legal action for damages will not be excluded where negligence is involved. This will have the effect of further ensuring that every factor is rigorously considered when making a decision about any proposed biological control program. The Bill does not of itself obliterate the injunction against CSIRO. Any decision to request that the injunction be altered or lifted-honourable members will be aware that the injunction specifically provides that parties can apply- will arise only if a decision based on the report of a full public inquiry concerning the biological control of echium indicates that its control would be in the public interest. There is, therefore, no question of affecting the injunction at the stroke of a pen. The echium issue predates the injunction and is clearly suitable for consideration in terms of the Bill; that is, to examine by full public inquiry whether biological control would be in the public interest. Should it eventuate that the public inquiry leads to a decision that biological control of echium should proceed, it is essential that the Bill make provision for such a decision to be implemented. The inquiry processes under the Bill will not be autocratic or oppressive, as is alleged by the Coalition for Jane, because they are virtually identical to those contained in other Commonwealth legislation, such as the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 and the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973. As for the rest of the Bill, the part concerning inquiries has been considered acceptable by all governments and by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. I cannot agree with the Coalition for Jane's assessment of the Industries Assistance Commission. Whilst it attracts criticism from time to time and its recommendations are not always acceptable to the government of the day, this serves to emphasise its independence and the properly apolitical terms of reference under which it operates. The IAC is free to appoint associated commissioners with special expertise in social and scientific fields. The Coalition for Jane incorrectly states that the IAC's recommendations in this instance are binding on government. Clause 56 (1) of the Bill simply provides, among other things, that where a decision is made which is inconsistent with the findings of an inquiry, whether or not held by the IAC, the decision may be reviewed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of the Federal Court of Australia. Given that the AAT considers the merit of administrative decisions and can replace the original decisions with its own, clause 56 generally provides a powerful safeguard for individual interests. The Bill does not 'give a single Minister sole discretionary powers', to quote again from the Coalition for Jane. The Commonwealth Biological Control Authority will make decisions which in all cases are subject either to review by the AAT or which require approval by the Australian Agricultural Council. The Bill will be supported by a formal agreement concerning related administrative and financial matters which will require that decisions by the Council on matters arising out of the legislation should be unanimous. The suggestions by the Coalition for Jane that the provisions of the Bill are open to political interference and that the Bill's interpretation and application will vary according to the political persuasion of the Government in power are simply unfounded. The biological control of echium has received widespread community support, and I have received, as I have already said, an inordinate number of representations over the past year arguing this view. Of course, the honourable members who have spoken so well and with such well researched speeches tonight are the main people writing to me about this topic. I strongly reject any suggestion that I am incapable of accepting a different view should it emerge from a public inquiry that biological control of echium would not be in the public interest. I am not aware of any general view that, should any Bill be proven to affect adversely another interest, the payment of suitable damages is a moral and accepted obligation, as the Coalition for Jane states. Nevertheless, as I stated in my second reading speech: . . . while it is desirable that the greater public benefit take precedent, it is also necessary to recognise the concerns of those adversely affected. I do not accept that this, or the passage quoted by the Coalition for Jane, suggests that my recognition of the problem is ill-defined and insincere. An inquiry into biological control of echium will include reference to assistance which, if granted, would not require every adversely affected individual to bring legal actions separately and successfully and is therefore potentially a more equitable approach than the course of seeking damages in court. As the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) has quite rightly said, it is incorrect to describe the Bill as ill-considered, expedient and hastily drafted. The consequences of a successful injunction against biological control of echium and the general nature of legislation that would subsequently be required to resolve the legal status of all biological control activities have been known for some time. A year has passed between the final injunction and the introduction of the Bill. This cannot be considered as unwarranted haste. I have met with Mr Linton Briggs, the national spokesperson for the Coalition for Jane, in this capacity as national president of the Federal Council of Australian Apiarists Associations, and with his counsel, Mr Gray. They have also met with officers of my Department and I am aware that they have also held discussions with State governments. The view consistently expressed at these meetings was that there was a need to supplement the existing process whereby biological control proposals are evaluated with the opportunity for full public inquiry. The Bill provides for such a process. I have pointed out that it was inevitable that legislation would have to be introduced as a result of the injunction and that it was similarly inevitable that certain common law actions had to be excluded if the legislation was to be workable. I am sure that the counsel for the Coalition for Jane would have been aware of this at all times. This is a very complex question. All the people involved in the debate here, the people involved with the drafting and the work done by State governments answers the question asked by the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew). He asked what happens if State governments do not implement matching legislation and what will does the Commonwealth have. By and large the process that has been undergone over the past year has ensured that the States will definitely implement legislation which will match very closely, if not be identical with, the legislation we are putting through. The State governments and their legal officers have been involved intimately with some aspects of the drafting of the Bill. As the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) pointed out, the amendments that I will move at the Committee stage partly arose out of discussions at the Australian Agricultural Council in respect to one of the amendments. Therefore, I think we can be assured that, once the Commonwealth has the legislation in place, the States will quickly implement matching legislation . Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(9.55) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 36, page 17, line 25, omit ''No'', insert ''Subject to sub-section (3 ), no''. (2) Clause 36, page 18, at the end of the clause add the following sub-clause: ''(3) Nothing in sub-section (1) prevents the institution or continuation in any court of an action or other proceeding to recover damages in respect of any loss incurred, or any damage suffered, by reason of the release of agent organisms of a particular kind in accordance with section 35 where- (a) the loss incurred or the damage suffered was the result of the release having had a significant effect on other organisms; (b) at the time of the release, the persons in Australia having a reputation for special knowledge of the biology of organisms of that kind knew, or had reasonable grounds to expect, that such a release could have an effect; and (c) in making the declaration declaring organisms of that kind to be agent organisms, the Authority did not take into account (whether because of the state of scientific knowledge or otherwise) the factor that such a release could have such an effect.''. (3) Clause 37, page 18, line 5, omit ''No'', insert ''Subject to sub-section (4) , no''. (4) Clause 37, page 18, line 9, omit ''No'', insert ''Subject to sub-section (4) , no''. (5) Clause 37, page 18, at the end of the clause add the following sub-clause: ''(4) Nothing in sub-section (1) or (2) prevents the institution or continuation in any court of an action or other proceeding to recover damages in respect of any loss incurred, or any damage suffered, by reason of the release of organisms of a particular kind in accordance with a relevant State law where- (a) the loss incurred or the damage suffered was the result of the release having had a significant effect on other organisms; (b) at the time of the release, the persons in Australia having a reputation for special knowledge of the biology of organisms of that kind knew, or had reasonable grounds to expect, that such a release could have such an effect; and (c) in making the declaration by virtue of which organisms of that kind became organisms that could be released in accordance with the relevant State law, the authority established by that law did not take into account (whether because of the state of scientific knowledge or otherwise) the factor that such a release could have such an effect.''. (6) Clause 53, page 23, line 31, omit ''the population of''. (7) Clause 56, page 24, line 30, omit ''or''. (8) Clause 56, page 24, after paragraph (1) (g) insert the following paragraph: ''(ga) a decision of the Authority for the purposes of section 33 not to hold an inquiry; or''. I propose those amendments to the Bill which I introduced on 6 June 1984. Clause 56 of the Bill provides that application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of a number of decisions that may be made in terms of the Bill, including decisions not to hold an inquiry under section 19 and section 28. Clause 33 of the Bill also provides a discretion as to whether an inquiry should be held and, in the interests of consistency, it would be preferable if this decision was also subject to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Amendments (2), (3), (4) and (5), which apply to clauses 36 and 37 of the Bill, refer to circumstances in which persons can bring legal actions to recover damages. These clauses presently prevent persons from taking legal action to prevent a biological program from proceeding, or for damages, where a decision has been made under the Bill that the program should proceed. The amendments provide that legal action for damages should not be precluded where it can be shown that the agent organism has had significant damaging effects on other organisms. This right to take legal action for damages would be limited to occasions when such effects were known but not taken into account in making the decision to declare a particular agent organism, or where such side effects should have been foreseen given the state of scientific knowledge available in Australia at the time. These amendments do not compromise the fundamental purpose of the Bill, namely, that those programs which are authorised by the procedures under the Bill as being in the public interest should not be stopped by litigation. The amendments simply recognise that it is neither desirable nor necessary for the proper functioning of the Bill that it preclude the opportunity for legal actions to recover damages where those damages were incidental to and essentially caused by the negligence of those responsible for making decisions or taking actions under the Bill. Finally, in amendment (6), the words 'the population of' should be deleted from clause 53 (2) (b) as they are unnecessary and are not used elsewhere in the Bill. Mr LUSHER(Hume)(9.58) —The Opposition is pleased to support the amendments moved by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin)-by leave-read a third time. (Budget Debate) Debate resumed. Mr ALDRED(Bruce)(9.59) —This Government makes much of its alleged concern at the tax burden placed on the average worker. In a cynical vote-buying exercise, this Government has attempted to fool the public into believing that its tax burden has been lessened. Only an economic nitwit or a confidence trickster could suggest that. One hardly needs to read much of the Budget Papers to see the truth. In fact this Government's lie is clearly uncovered on page 10 of the Budget Statements. It is a fact that taxation revenue from individuals will be up 23 per cent. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) told the National Press Club yesterday that the Opposition had failed to distinguish between the tax rate and the tax base. I doubt whether the Treasurer knows how many beans make four. The Treasurer told the Press Club that the 23 per cent was arrived at because more people would be working and thus there would be more tax. Let us take an average family with one breadwinner, a dependent spouse and child, and with an annual income of $20,000. In 1983-84 this family would have paid $3,671.50 in tax; that is, 18.36 per cent of its income. Assuming that the growth in incomes for this financial year will be around 7 per cent, and this not an unreasonable estimate, that family's income will go up to $21,400 and the tax on it will be $4,052.26 or 18.94 per cent. That would be an increase in the family's tax of 3.15 per cent. An ordinary family earning a very ordinary wage of $20,000 will be paying 3.15 per cent more in tax. Thank you, Mr Treasurer! What has the bean counter done to move the burden of tax away from the pay-as- you-earn taxpayer? Income tax is expected to provide 53.1 per cent of total tax revenue; yet a further shift to dependence on direct taxation. The whole taxation system needs reforming and simplication. The Treasurer talks much about reform but then tinkers with the system, only making it ever more complicated by increasing the number of tax brackets from three to five. This Government's latest tinkering with the tax brackets has not even helped the average man. The 46c in the $1 bracket still commences at $19,501. This Government has ignored the fact that almost 400,000 Australians moved into the 46c bracket in 1983-84. The introduction of a 48c in the $1 bracket means that where once people could earn up to $35,788 and still pay 46c in the $1, once such people earn over $28, 001 they pay 48c in the $1. The Government is keen to remove every incentive for people to work harder. This Government is encouraging the growth of so-called executive fringe benefits, and perhaps more seriously the growth of the tax avoidance industry. I turn to the proposed Budget outlays. This Government keeps boasting that it is a good economic manager and would never make the mistakes of the Whitlam years. One could make the quip that the Government will probably make bigger and worse mistakes, but somehow it does not even have that ability. This Government estimates that Budget outlays for the coming financial year will increase by 6.1 per cent. In the previous year the increase was 7.7 per cent. In the two Keating Budgets the outlays will have increased by 13.8 per cent in real terms. Whitlam managed and incredible average of 10 per cent per annum in real terms. If we compare this to the record of the previous Liberal Government, we can clearly see a very good record. Under the Fraser Government the average annual real rate of increase was held at 2.1 per cent. The Whitlam years also saw a massive growth in the Public Service. This Government is following the same path. The Public Service is expected to grow by 2.8 per cent. That means some 4,500 additional public servants' salaries will have to be paid by the taxpayer. Let us not forget that during the whole period of the previous Liberal Government the Public Service grew by only one per cent, or 3,300 employees. Let us not forget that the growth of the pubic sector is at the expense of the private sector, and only increases the burden on the taxpayer . But then this Government has a record of hitting the taxpayer. It provides tax cuts while increasing the tax burden by 23 per cent. This Government talks much about the deficit. Let us look at some facts. During the seven Budgets of the previous Liberal Government the average Budget deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product was 2.3 per cent. The first Keating Budget saw the deficit at 4.3 per cent of GDP and in this Budget the deficit is 3.3 per cent. Who carries the burden? The taxpayer, of course. Recently in a national television program the Treasurer proudly told us that he had left school at 14 and was now the boss of the Treasury economist and those other 'educated snobs', as he called them. He may be the boss at the Treasury, but he is an economic nitwit. Thanks to the Treasurer this country is now spending as much on its public debt interest as it does on defence. The public debt interest payment rose by 19.5 per cent in the 1983-84 Budget and will rise a further 21.5 per cent in this Budget. In contrast the previous government's average public debt interest payment increase as a percentage of Budget outlays was 9.2 per cent. Australia's foreign debt repayments have risen to a level comparable with troubled African and Asian nations. Those are not my words but rather those of the National Westminster Bank which recently, in a survey of world public debt commitments, listed Australia in the same category as Nigeria, Israel and Thailand. Australia's rising foreign debt is bolstered by relatively strong foreign exchange reserves, but they are weaker than those of India, Pakistan and Kenya, according to the National Westminster Bank estimates. This esteemed bank goes even further. It warns that debt repayments were reaching levels which might cause Australia's credit rating to be revised. The bank also said that the amount of both debt and repayments was 'on a steadily rising path'. Warnings have also come from experts within this country. Dr Tom Valentine, an adviser to the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System and director of the Macquarie University Centre for Studies in Money, Banking and Finance, said that Australia's debt reduced this country's ability to borrow. Dr Valentine said that many experts believed Australia was heading for trouble. Dr Valentine also pointed out that the extent of foreign debt was a main factor in Australia's Depression in the 1930s. The consequences of Australia's credit rating falling will be disastrous to this country. A lower rating would mean higher interest rates and yet a further burden on the taxpayer from this high taxing Government. But even if our credit rating is saved, the huge public debt will result in rises in interest rates as this Government chases money to borrow. It will also diminish funds available for private sector borrowing at reasonable rates, but by now the private sector should be very much aware that this Government has little time for it. What has this Budget done for industry, especially for small business? The answer is simple: Nought. That is what this Government has done for the 733,000 small businesses employing over three million people in this country. As Mr Peter Boyle, Federal President of the Australian Small Business Association, said, the Budget was a total disaster for small business. On the morning after the Budget, Mr Boyle said: The Government has totally overlooked its best opportunity to solve the unemployment problem by ignoring small business, the largest private sector employer in the nation. We were not asking for handouts, we just wanted common sense through the lifting of some of the regulations which limit growth, expansion and re-investment. Indeed, small businesses are not asking for handouts but only that this Government honour the election promises it made. Let us look at some of the promises made by this morally bankrupt Government. Let us look at the broken promises made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I will quote those promises as itemised by the Small Business Association of Victoria and the Melbourne Chamber of Commerce. This twisting, turning, truth-evading Government promised legislation to allow small firms full retention of profits where they were used for business purposes. The Government promised optional quarterly provisional tax payments and an extension of time to pay sales tax. This Government promised industrial research and development grants would be exempted from tax. These promises were given by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) on 13 February 1983 in a document entitled 'Labor's Policy for Small Business-An Action Program'. What an action program that has turned out to be! Eighteen months later-two Budgets and a mini-Budget later-that document is clearly shown to be no more than a farrago of lies. Is it any wonder that the Executive Director of the Small Business Association of Victoria, Mr Gerald Ashman, said: We are disappointed in the Government's lack of commitment to its pre-election promises to create an environment in which small business could grow. Even big business did not hesitate to describe this Budget as being of little value. The President of the Confederation of Australian Industry, Mr Don Hughes, said: Lower public spending, particularly in non-economically productive areas, would have resulted in a bigger cut and more opportunities for incentives to business, which is the key factor for sustained economic growth and employment. The Australian Chamber of Commerce has had no praise for the Budget's aid to industry, and understandably so-there was no aid to industry. Even the one area of industry that received some help is hardly enthusiastic. The Australian Mining Industry Council said: In summary the decision to allow a deduction for mineral exploration expenditure against non-mining income is beneficial for the mining industry, albeit a little late. 'A little late' seems to be the key phrase with this Government. Tax reform is a little late. Tax relief is a little late. Aid to small business is a little late . While the country goes down the economic chute the Treasurer continues playing with his abacus. Even with an abacus the Treasurer should be aware of what is happening to the Australian dollar. Since the Labor Government came to office in March 1983 the dollar has continued to deteriorate against the two major world hard currencies, the United States dollar and the Japanese yen. Between 4 March 1983 and 17 August 1984 the value of the Australian dollar has fallen by 11.7 per cent against the United States dollar and for the same period the Australian dollar has fallen 10 per cent against the yen. This deterioration has nothing to do with the floating of the dollar. In fact, the figures clearly show the dollar falling even before the float. The fall is too closely linked to the coming into office of this Government to be coincidental. The fall of our dollar on the world market is a clear and loud indication of how the world sees Australia's economy, a deteriorating economy because of an inexperienced, big- spending government. This Budget will do nothing to change the picture for our international partners. It will be seen by them as it is already being seen by Australians-as a short term, vote-buying, loaded with falsehoods Budget. This Budget has failed to address itself to the longer term problems. In fact, it has actually compounded them. It has done nothing to stimulate the private sector where lasting jobs could be created with the right government policies. It is no wonder Mr John Stone wants to get out of the Treasury. He would hardly want to end a distinguished career sailing on Labor's Titanic with a bean-counting, abacus-playing, Treasurer. Ms FATIN(Canning)(10.12) —I begin my remarks tonight by reminding the honourable member for Bruce (Mr Aldred) that in Australia today the average family he spoke of as consisting of a male breadwinner and dependent spouse and children accounts for only 25 per cent of Australian families and that 40 per cent of Australian households consist of only one or two people. The number of single person households has more than doubled since 1966. I find it absolutely astonishing to hear a speech such as we have just heard in which references are constantly made to the average family as if there were not thousands and thousands of other families that do not fit that definition. It has not existed in most people's eyes for many years. If we consider the fact that the fastest growing family type in Australia is the single parent family and realise that between 1976 and 1981 the number of such families has increased by 90,000 to more than a quarter of a million we can begin to realise that we have to start redefining our definition of 'family'. Earlier to night the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) suggested that this Budget had nothing in it for families. I suggest that he and others in the Opposition reconsider a definition of 'family'. I begin my more formal comments about the Budget by saying that directly or indirectly over the last 10 years I have been involved with Budgets in one form or another and watched the responses and gauged the reactions of people on the opposite sides of chambers. I was astonished to see some of the political posturing that characterised reaction to the Budget Speech delivered by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) the other night. There were only two things in that presentation that elicited immediate reaction from the Opposition. Recognition of de facto spouses in tax regulations and the wine tax. There was an amazingly conservative attitude displayed. Those two areas seemed to be the only ones to get any form of reaction from those on the opposite side of this chamber. A few hours later on Nationwide the Leader of the Opposition gave us shonkie figures on the tax cuts, claiming that taxpayers were owed $22 a week. He kept telling people not to take just his word for it. But then, whose word were they to take? Possibly they could take the word of the newspapers. When members of this House and the public reflect on what was written in the newspapers I suggest they will view the Budget in a different way from the way in which the Leader of the Opposition views it. I do not wish to deprive my colleagues who in future weeks will undoubtedly comment on and quote from many of the editorials, but I would like to give just an indication of the tone of the papers and their reaction to our Budget. The editorial in the Age reads: The Budget is an economically sound document that should enhance Australia's hope for a strong and sustained recovery from the long recession. The Government must be given credit for its intelligent handling of the economy since winning power earlier last year . . . The Age is not exactly known as a radical paper. Some of the sentiments expressed in the editorial in the Australian are: . . . a sober and sensible Budget . . . * * * . . . much-needed relief for business . . . * * * . . . reforms . . . conducive to stimulating business investment and so help the unemployed because new jobs will be created . . . * * * . . . the Government . . . has . . . increased . . . spending in the right places. The extra spending has, for the most part, been confined to lower income earners. Since the poor naturally spend proportionately more of any increase in their incomes, the extra spending will help the economic recovery . . . * * * The tax cuts . . . have been made in the fairest way possible . . . and more than compensate for inflation. * * * . . . unmistakably a Labor Budget. * * * If the unions continue to behave responsibly, then the Government will indeed have turned the tide of our indifferent economic history, and brought prosperity to a growing number of Australians. That is something I suggest that in the seven years the conservatives were in power they certainly were not able to do for Australians. I suggest that these editorials are praise indeed for this Budget. When we hear the absolute nonsense thrown across the chamber today about the Budget I do not wonder at all why we are on this side of the House. I can assure honourable members that we will be here for many years yet and that Treasurer Keating will deliver more Budgets. A few moments ago I made mention of the unions. That leads me to reflect on the central role of the accord in framing this Budget. I pay tribute to the various Ministers who were directly involved in the day to day accord measures. After the 1983 Budget, qualified support from commentators and political analysts was given with a rider that everything hinged on the survival of the accord. Many people in Australia decided that they would wait and see whether the accord would be able to deliver the sorts of promises that the Government and the unions had said that it would deliver. I think without any doubt that Australians today, one year later, have cause for great pride. Mr McGauran —Not the unemployed. Ms FATIN —The Government, the unions, the Australian Labor Party and the whole community of men and women who were sick of the politics of confrontation can see what a success the accord has been. Mr McGaurun-What about the unemployed? Ms FATIN —I can assure the House that it will continue to be the success that it has been in the last year. Mr McGauran —Address yourself to the unemployed. Ms FATIN —This Budget will be one of the main reasons for that success. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member for Canning will resume her seat. The honourable member for Gippsland contravenes the Standing Orders by his interjections. He compounds his dereliction by interjecting from a seat not allocated to him. A solitary interjection in a quiet House is often more distracting than interjections made in a disorderly chamber. I ask him to remain silent. I call the honourable member for Canning. Ms FATIN —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I continue by saying that I am not ashamed to admit that the accord is a central, historic agreement dealing with almost all aspects of economic reality for Australians. We here see consensus and consultation working at their most successful and best. We should remember what this Budget has been able to add to the accord in the way of tax cuts. In the last few months we have been able to introduce Medicare, central wage fixation and indexation. With our developing proposals for industrial health and safety, I know that we will be able to look forward to a successful result and a successful accord in the future. I think this is a great credit to the Government. The headlines after this week's Budget which make me take exception to the Press are those which refer to the Budget as an election Budget. That is not entirely fair. This criticism can be dealt with by our asking what sort of Budget we could have brought down that would not have been a vote winner. How could we have actually delivered a Budget that would not be seen to be electorally successful or appealing? Should we, for instance, have constrained business, increased personal income tax or cut back the public sector? It is no secret that there will be an election between December and March next year; it is the height of irresponsibility not to have an election within that period. As we know, elections cost millions of dollars-- Mr Gear —An election costs $21m. Ms FATIN —It costs $21m, as my colleague, the honourable member for Tangney has just said. Yet the Opposition would inflict separate House of Representatives and Senate elections on us. People have said that our highly successful Budget will be a vote winner, but I would have found it very hard for us not to put together and bring down such a Budget. I quote briefly from the West Australian newspaper, which said the other day: It is likely that the Budget would have been much the same whether an election was pending or not. In an editorial the Age said: Thanks to the fruits of economic recovery, what is electorally appealing this time is also possible. Let us just think about what governments are meant to be doing when they bring down Budgets. Perhaps we should rephrase the expression of the late Kevin Cairns which the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) reminded us of the other day. He told us that Kevin Cairns often used to ask his friends when he met them : 'What have you done for Australia this week?'. I suggest that another question which we might well ask is: 'What should you have done for Australia this week?' . I and my colleagues do not believe that we are here to feather the nests of the wealthy or prop up unsuccessful businesses and we are certainly not here to create an every man for himself environment-not even an every woman for herself environment. I believe that one of the most important functions of a Budget is the redistribution that it is able to bring to the community. I often wonder whether Opposition members realise that in Australia there are 2.8 million people in poverty. the Brotherhood of St Lawrence estimates that one million of these are desperately poor. Too many people do not understand what real poverty is. I would like to give an example to the House, a graphic illustration that was in the Age newspaper last Monday. The Age ran an article based on comments from the Brotherhood of St Lawrence, and I quote: There are the people who are living what the Brotherhood describes as bare existence: devoid of leisure and cultural activities and where a three-figure bank account means a person is having a good year. If we chose a typical dozen from the one million poorest Australians about four of the 12 would be children. They would be, on average, the children of two lone mothers also in the typical dozen poorest who have no income other than the supporting parents benefit. The Brotherhood says that lone parents who live in Housing Commission flats are the lucky ones; the poorest rent privately. The Brotherhood chose ''Case 39'' from their files as a typical example. I should like to tell the House tonight what Case 39 actually has to experience in this society. I quote: Case 39 is a 36-year-old migrant woman who cannot read. She has an income of about $125 a week, out of which she pays $75 a week in rent, to support her and her young daughter. She has no family in Australia. Her husband deserted her about nine years ago, after which she spent about three years working seven days a week as a cleaner in a hostel. She left this job to live with another man who gave her no money, bashed her and she eventually had a child last year and decided to move out. The appalling fact is that a quarter of the assets of the 206 richest Australians would be sufficient to lift not just the one million desperately poor, but all poor people above the poverty line for 12 months. I suggest that the redistributive measures that we have begun in this Budget and will continue in future years are measures which are there to assist people such as the one I have just cited. I am often appalled to hear statements and comments from members on the other side of the House. It seems to me that they have no understanding or recognition of the lifestyle or tragedies of numbers of people in this country who are desperately looking to governments such as this one to assist them and to create a situation in which their lives can be lifted out of the desperate poverty that they experience each day. That is what this Government is about. I wish to mention briefly some other aspects of the Budget. I make a brief reference to the bottom of the harbour legislation. We have mentioned in our Budget that we will increase the penalties for taxation breaches. As we know, this has been a cause of enormous concern in the community. I often reflect on the education, health and job creation programs which could have been funded had we been able to get the necessary amount of money from the bottom of the harbour area. But the upper House has prevented our legislation from going through and we have not been able to do that in many instances. This Government has tried repeatedly over the past 17 months but we have been knocked back by the coalition of vested interests in the other place. The Government has introduced four Bills into the Parliament in an attempt to recover taxes that have been evaded under bottom of the harbour schemes. I note that the tax cheats have robbed the people of this country of $570m. I also refer to the exemption from bank accounts debit tax. Like many of my colleagues, I have made representations to the Treasurer on behalf of parents and citizens associations in my electorate of Canning and I am very pleased indeed about the exemption ruling. The invaluable work undertaken by parents and citizens associations was never in question and the new exemption reflects the Government's willingness to make these adjustments. The exemption has also been extended to local councils and has considerably eased the administrative and financial burden felt by them. Local government organisations in my electorate of Canning have played a major role in alerting the Government to the difficulties in this area. I refer indirectly to my electorate again and note the $6m to be given this financial year for the America's Cup defence. Overall, up to $30m will be spent on this in the next two financial years, and this year $200,000 will be spent in the Fremantle area, developing a secretariat. There has been severe economic depression on the coastal strip near Rockingham and Kwinana south of Fremantle in my electorate and there could be enormous benefits to the area from the America's Cup defence. But it is unfair and unreasonable to ask people to shoulder a disproportionate share of the financial burden. I am delighted to see that the Government will assist in this area. In the last few moments that I have I refer to the fact that the spouse rebate has been extended to de facto couples. The Opposition's reponse shows ignorance of the anomaly which existed between the Department of Social Security and the Taxation Office. Once again I am appalled by the naivety and arrogance of the Opposition members in their opposition to this Budget measure. I guess an interesting conclusion could be drawn. I suppose one could even suggest that no one living in a de facto relationship votes Liberal. I suggest that that is nonsense. There would be many people in this country of many political persuasions who have been denied- Debate interrupted. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Hurford-Because the nation is waiting to hear from the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) after the honourable member for Canning (Ms Fatin) has finished her speech, I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. (Budget Debate) Debate resumed. Ms FATIN(Canning)(10.31) —In the last few moments of my speech I would like to sum up by congratulating the Government for delivering what is considered by people both in this House and throughout the length and breadth of the country to be a highly successful Budget. It is a Budget which will assist not only the unions and the business people of this country but also many men and women and their families who have been finding life so very difficult and who are having problems making ends meet and educating and clothing their children. I might also make very brief reference to the people who are renting private accommodation. I am delighted to see that the Government has recognised that these people, who are mostly single parents, should be assisted. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(10.32) — The Labor Government's total lack of responsible economic management is displayed to the utmost through this Budget. Instead of prostituting this country's economy to buy votes by creating an over- indulgent welfare state, it could be turning its hand to the far more significant issue of proper economic management and, in particular, doing something to correct our declining position on the internationally competitive world market. Despite what the Government would like Australians to believe, the fact is that this Budget is nothing more than a huge confidence trick. It is cushioned in fragile assumptions and generalities. The whole thing is rubbery. We must understand the full implications of the size of the projected Budget deficit of over $6.7 billion and particularly of the overseas deficit, which is just short of $3 billion. No real effort has been made to decrease this deficit. This Government has lifted public spending from under 30 per cent of gross domestic product when it entered office to a record 31.1 per cent-higher than anything achieved by the Whitlam Government. In the last two Federal Budgets, spending has increased in real terms by more than the coalition Government totalled in seven years. Expenditure has risen by a massive, 16.1 per cent in real terms. Compare this to the average rise of 4.6 per cent for the decade ending 1983-84. If this Government was genuine about reducing the deficit, surely these well-cited tax cuts of $1.3 billion could have been more profitably utilised by attending to the deficit in a reduction to perhaps $5.5 billion. The case for deficit reductions has had precedence over tax cuts. Of course, Dolan of the Australian Council of Trade Unions said otherwise. He pulled the strings, Keating danced to the tune, and Stone departed from the scene. Under the Liberal-National coalition Government the average growth rate per year in spending was around 2 per cent. Under the Hawke Government it is in the order of over 6 per cent-three times as large. This country would be better served if the Government took a stronger line on public spending instead of attempting to sell the insignificant reduction of the deficit as a triumph. The Budget reeks of a pitiful used car salesman's ploy. Australian taxpayers are already $22 a week worse off because of Labor's tax increases. The Budget concessions are meaningless. This projected increase of 17.7 per cent in total revenue depends on a largely unsubstantiated assessment of continued world economic recovery, the growth of business profits, and projected inflation rates . It can be financed by either increases in taxes, increases in borrowings, or increases in inflation. I pose to the House: Which will it be? Or will it be what is the most politic to the Australian Council of Trade Unions? This Government appears to be committed to an increased spending program, a program which it cannot finance. More is spent on interest payments than on essential areas such as defence. Commonwealth interest payments have increased by a massive 29 per cent to $5.6 billion, payments which will have to be paid for not only by the present Australian taxpayer but also by the taxpayers of the future. The Australian taxpayer will be paying $17 per week to finance this increased interest debt. It all means that our export competitiveness will be adversely affected, and that in turn will hurt the national economy and the individual. The Hawke Government makes no commitment to improved international competitiveness in the rural sector continuing from this Government's two previous economic attempts-the May 1983 mini-Budget and the August 1983 Budget. The Hawke Government persists in its blatantly anti-rural policies. Agriculture was allotted the lowest expenditure outlay of any major industry portfolio, receiving a total of 0.5 or one-half of one per cent of total Budget spending. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) saw fit to allocate this essential industry-and, might I add, an industry which supplies nearly half of Australia's total export earnings-just 40 seconds in a 65-minute Budget Speech. As the Carlyon Column in the Courier-Mail today stated: Elsewhere I notice you're spending $256,000 on palatial new kennels-a complex I think you call it-for sniffer dogs in Perth. Farmers usually use a hollow log and a bit of rusty chain for the kelpie. Cost: Nil. Efficiency: High. No acknowledgement is given in this 1984 Budget that agriculture provided the main stimulus to the national economy during the last financial year. The Budget Speech spent more time on the accord and buying off the ACTU than it did on the industry which is the backbone of this country's wealth. It failed to acknowledge it. Mr Braithwaite —How many lines did it get? Mr McVEIGH —Nine. Why does the Labor Party hate the rural sector? Why, when the Bureau of Agricultural Economics is forecasting that average farm income will fall from $11,500 in 1983-84 to just over $8,000 in 1984-85, has there been no substantial action to alleviate the plight of the farmer? This Government has not even the decency to guillotine agriculture. It is garrotting the nation's farmers. The Budget deficit of over $6.7 billion is expansionary and must place upward pressure on interest rates and the exchange rate. Every one per cent move in the inflation rate is equivalent to $110m in the farm costs. For each one per cent appreciation of the real exchange rate there is a decline of 1.7 per cent in real farm product, or $140m. International competitiveness is absolutely essential for the continued well-being of this nation, and this Hawke Government is doing absolutely nothing to increase our competitive ability. Undermining the competitiveness of our export industries are upward movements in the value of the Australian dollar and the continuation of a significant differential between our inflation rate and that of our overseas competitors. The real exchange rate is an appropriate indicator of international competitiveness because it captures the effects of both inflation differentials and exchange rate movements. To compete in trade we must compete in economics. Recent analyses suggest that Australia's interest rates are the highest of the world's industrial countries, in both nominal and real terms. The Government has been frantic in its efforts to gain electoral mileage out of its prices and income accord-the instrument it claims is the cornerstone of continued economic growth-but it has totally failed to acknowledge that the real wealth creator of Australia, the real job producer of this nation, is the export industry sector, and particularly the agricultural sector. The Treasurer has admitted that financing of this Budget will in part be due to the recovery of primary industry. In fact, the current economic upturn was led by agriculture. The Labor Government thanked primary industry for its contribution to the nation by the premeditated decision virtually to ignore its problems in the Budget in favour of pleasing the urban masses. May I say at this stage, Mr Speaker, how pleased I was to note that even the Australian Democrats, that great non-party of Australian politics, made the point in their Budget assessment that this Budget has done nothing for the man on the land. Through its economic shortsightedness for the sake of cheap political expediency, the Labor Government has ensured that export industries will continue to pay the burden of its economic policy. Labor has effectively denied Australian export industries any chance of real gains in international competitiveness. This slick Budget has not fooled the export industry sector, and I quote the president of the National Farmers Federation, Mr Ian McLachlan, in his Press statement of 21 August. He said: The opportunity to lower interest rates substantially and so improve our international competitive position has been lost by this blatant election Budget . The present difficulties of the rural industry have been flagrantly ignored by this Government. The Government continues to pursue its policy of getting producers to bear 50 per cent of the cost of export inspection. The unbelievable angle of this deal is that the Government, whilst demanding 50 per cent cost recovery from producers has done nothing to improve the cost effectiveness or efficiency of the Export Inspection Service. The cost of the Commonwealth export inspection for meat and livestock in 1984-85 will rise by a massive $7.4m to $77 .7m. That cost is unreal and intolerable. Costs of the Export Inspection Service should be falling, not rising. As long as this Government allows this bureaucratic jungle to grow, the livelihood of thousands of people in the meat and livestock industries in Australia is being jeopardised. Labor believes our meat producers and exporters are dispensable flotsam and jetsam. Let me point out at this stage, Mr Speaker, that under the coalition's policy on primary industry, the Commonwealth will pay the entire cost of export inspection charges for all rural commodities and, unlike the Hawke Government there will be no broken promises. This Government has also compounded the difficulties of primary producers by killing the effectiveness of income equalisation deposits and tax averaging. One of Labor's first initiatives on coming to power was to remove the tax incentive from the IED scheme, contrary to its election promise to maintain the scheme. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)-whose speaking ability on the prices and incomes accord, consensus and consultation being the way to a strong, growing economy, often reminds me of a cow suffering from acute enteritis-has given the Australian electors tangible proof that he still does not understand what makes a strong, growing economy. The Prime Minister and his Government have not yet made the economic realisation that it is viable internationally competitive export industries that ensure a stable, growing economy. Why else would this Government, more so than any government in Australian history, set out mindlessly and needlessly to destroy primary industry, which is the only sector that has the potential to perform competitively in the world market place without excessive support from Australian taxpayers and without support from other industries bearing huge tariff burdens on its inefficient behalf? The Labor Government has continued to short change the wool industry over promotion. In its 1983 election campaign, Labor promised $28m a year over three years. In its August 1983 Budget, it provided only $20m. We are now told that promotion funding for 1984-85 will total an estimated $26m. All up, over the two years, there is a shortfall of $10m on what was promised in the election. The coalition policy provides for an allocation of $30m a year. The desperate economic circumstances of the sugar industry have been ignored. Again, Mr Speaker, let me refer back to the 1983 election campaign when Labor, through the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), said it would ' sympathetically consider any request for an industry loan and/or an underwriting scheme (for the sugar industry) to include the 1982 crop.' The Minister has repeatedly tried to slide out of this issue but the facts are there in black and white that this Government is not going to underwrite a scheme for the sugar industry for at least a further three years. The Australian wine industry has been crucified. The double whamming impact of decreased import duty and increased sales tax spells disaster. Australian producers face a 10 per cent sales tax slug on wines and alcoholic cider whilst the Government almost begs foreign wine makers to compete against Australian wines by offering them the financial incentive of a 10 per cent decrease in import duty. Labor made a clear and unequivocal election promise not to impose a sales or excise tax on wine. In the August 1983 Budget it broke that promise with an excise tax on fortified wine. When the Government realised that it had created a monumental mess, after our intervention, it scrapped the tax on 22 June 1984. Now it has compounded the breaking of an election promise. Labor is in tune with the Bolshevic Bollingers, while the majority of Australians are Great Western supporters. Previous to the Budget, enormous pressures were already being placed on Australian wines with large increases in the volume of imported wines. In 1983- 84 the total volume of imported table wine rose from 5 million litres to 6.8 million litres and destroyed the jobs and the livelihood of many Australian grape producers. In addition, due to the change in the currency situation, the average price of imported wine fell by 10c a litre. So essentially-under Labor's wine package-a $7 bottle of Australian wine will increase in price by around 10 per cent to about $7.70 a bottle, while the $7 bottle of imported wine will remain steady. It is unbelievable that while the Labor Government criticises the French Government over its nuclear policy, it now offers the French a financial incentive to wipe out the Australian wine industry. I now turn to drought and natural disasters. Labor promised in the election campaign: To eliminate Commonwealth/State political brawls over drought by . . . eliminating, after two years of continuous drought the requirement for States to spend base amounts before Commonwealth aid comes in. I challenge the Minister to explain when, if ever, this policy will be implemented. Under its present policy, Labor will increase the political brawls. It has increased the base levels, up to double in some cases. It will also, from 1 July 1985, make the States, once they have reached this level, be funded only on a dollar for dollar basis up to 75 per cent of the base level, and then on $3 Commonwealth for $1 State. For the information of honourable members, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the details of the new financial arrangements with the States on natural disasters. Leave granted. The table read as follows- NATURAL DISASTER ARRANGEMENTS WITH THE STATES AND NORTHERN TERRITORY Previous New State Base Level Base Level $m $m NSW 10.00 18.49 Victoria 7.00 14.56 Queensland 4.00 9.10 Western Australia 3.00 5.81 South Australia 3.00 5.36 Tasmania 1.2 2.13 Northern Territory 0.25 1.54 Mr McVEIGH —A coalition Government is totally committed to separating drought from natural disaster assistance and is in total opposition to present Labor policy. We will fund drought relief in conjunction with the States on a $3 Commonwealth for $1 State basis, with the Commonwealth forgoing any requirement for the States to meet a base threshold limit for droughts. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Labor is pushing Australia's farmers and fishermen into a situation where they will be no more than subservient serfs in a contemporary feudal system with big Government as lord. Labor is forcing the people who contribute most to our national economy into irretrievable death throes. Debate (on motion by Mr Maher) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Hurford) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(10.49) —During this adjournment debate-such debates will be the only opportunity we will have during this session-I wish to pay tribute to one of the Parliament's long-standing and faithful servants. I refer to the late John Ferguson, who unfortunately died during the recess. It was only upon our return that many of us found this out, although we cannot say it was unexpected. I believe that not only parliamentarians but also the Clerks, the people who worked so closely with him and those who knew him held him in high regard and felt great respect for him. There were many different facets to the life of John Ferguson, and no doubt many people here would have known him a lot better than I did. On just a chance meeting with him one was able to explore the full depths of his personality. The cool manner that he exercised in everything he undertook, in most difficult circumstances, endeared him to anybody who came in contact with him. My first experience of him was gained at a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference in the Bahamas in 1982. Anyone who has ever been to the Bahamas and tasted a little of its bureaucracy at work will know that one has to have a cool master at the helm to guide one through difficult waters. The last association I had with John in the Bahamas was when he sacrificed his place on an aircraft from the Bahamas to Australia so that he could sort out the accounts of all members of the visiting delegation. Right through he had a determination to serve the people in the delegation as best he could. He certainly did that. John worked quietly and persistently behind the scenes at the many CPA conferences held over the years for Australia to get a vote of its own in the management council. Although Australia does not yet have its own vote, perhaps it will happen in the future. If it does it will bear testimony to his efforts. The life of John Ferguson was in two parts. Firstly, he had a remarkable career of some 30 years in the Royal Navy and the Royal Australian Navy. He attained the rank of Commander. John was not known to me for his naval service; he was better known in the other respect. I draw on some comments which were made at his eulogy and mention that John saw war service in the Atlantic, the North Sea, the Arctic, the English Channel, the Indian and Pacific Oceans and Korea. He served on most types of ships except battleships and carriers. He even served on submarines at one stage. He had seven commands, culminating in the appointment as Commander of Mine Warfare and Patrol Forces with one main base in Sydney and three advanced bases in north Queensland, northern Australia and Papua New Guinea. John had a number of naval appointments. Also he had a number of international staff appointments. To his great credit at one stage he was naval officer in charge of Queensland with financial responsibility for the northern Australia and Papua New Guinea commands. This imposing record of service was recognised in the awarding to him of the Distinguished Service Cross. His main characteristics, I believe, were his humility and modesty. It was because of this modesty that very little was heard from him regarding his extraordinary range of naval experience. I pay particular respect to him for the 14 or 15 years service which he gave to this Parliament. He liaised not only with parliamentarians and officers within the Parliament but also the bureaucrats in various other departments. Over this period he was an innovator in quite a few areas. The seminars which have been held to enlighten parliamentarians of their duties were once restricted to Westminster. John introduced them to Australia. For six consecutive periods he was a co-ordinator of those seminars. He was innovative in many other ways which made the CPA more effective. Mr Speaker, I understand that he spent his last 12 months in your service. I believe that was a tribute which you were able to pay to him for his long association with the CPA. You were able to interact with him in so many ways and were able to ascertain the great qualities of the man. Because of the way in which he faced death so fearlessly at the end, I believe those who respected him as an enemy or as a friend would realise that this was the way he would have wanted it right through to the end. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(10.54) —One of the unacknowledged economic threats to rural health in Australia is the feral animal. Rabbits, feral goats, wild cats, wild dogs and feral pigs have had a very real effect on rural incomes and farm viability. I recall how many years ago when I was a schoolboy, my father used to get me out of bed at 6 o'clock in the morning to go and get rabbits for one shilling and threepence a pair. The rabbits were really devastating the Wimmera area of Victoria then. Fortunately, the virus myxomatosis had an effect on the feral rabbit population, but rabbits are still a problem in rural Australia. The feral goat has been a severe problem, particularly in the Flinders Ranges of South Australia and western New South Wales. Unfortunately, because of the access which farmers have to goats, goats are now being harvested to an extent for cashmere and meat and some use is being made of the feral goat, but there is always the threat that goats will run wild and ruin landscapes and farm incomes. The wild cat poses a severe threat to national parks. Cats are getting bigger as they breed over the years in national parks and pose a real threat to native fauna. Wild dogs have caused immense livestock losses. Recently in the Snowy Mountains area one farmer lost 140 sheep through dog attacks. With the co- operation of the New South Wales Government, through the National Parks and Wildlife Service and with some Federal funding being provided to that Service, farmers have been supplied free of charge with materials so that they can erect electric fences to keep dogs out but the farmers have to be prepared to put in the labour for the erection of these fences. Dogs not only cause livestock losses but also spread disease, such as hydatids. One of the unacknowledged great threats to rural Australia and the Australian economy is the feral pig. In some areas feral pigs are now growing far bigger than the domestic pig. Their tusks are much larger and cause far more damage not only to livestock but also to water catchment areas, which they ruin. They cause major erosion. The greatest threat of all is the threat of disease. Honourable members will recall a scare recently in the Northern Territory when foot and mouth virus was suspected. Fortunately, it was discovered that the virus was not of the type which would have caused the closure of our meat export industry. This threat at least reminded us that this could happen some day. If it did happen it would devastate our local communities, it would ruin our rural economy and it would have a severe effect on our national economy because meat exports make up a very large proportion of our exports. It does not matter whether an outbreak occurs in the Northern Territory, Victoria, Western Australia or South Australia, the finding of foot and mouth disease in Australia would severely curb our meat exports. This shows how important it is to combat the feral animal threat. The Government is to be congratulated for acknowledging the danger of the feral pig after the previous Government and this Government refused in previous Budgets to do so. At last in the current Budget there is recognition of the need for a strategy to eradicate or at least control feral pigs. I congratulate the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins), the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) on accepting recommendations which were made at a conference which was convened by me last year and which the Minister for Finance opened. At the conference a wide range of experts throughout Australia recognised the danger of the feral animal, in particular the dog and the pig. I believe State and Federal governments have to co-ordinate their activities against these feral animals. I believe preventive measures will not only be of great benefit to Australia's economy but also will provide jobs. I see it as pointless for people to talk about such things as national service for defence when the Army, the Navy and the Air Force do not really want it. What is needed is a defence-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. It being 11 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 23 August 1984: States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendments of the schedules to the subsidy schemes in relation to the States of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia, dated 13 August 1984.