Friday, 24 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: 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 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 for 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 Blunt,Mrs Darling,Mrs Kelly,Mr Kent,Mr Milton,Mr Scott and Mr Staples . 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 Blanchard,Mr Blunt,Mr McArthur 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 respectfully showeth; that Regulations and an Ordinance now before the Parliament amend the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs ( Cinematographic Films) Regulations and supersede the A.C.T. Objectionable Publications Ordinance in such a manner as to be harmful to society by removing from existing Commonwealth law: The power to prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography (e.g. X- rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs; the power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications, including those associated with blasphemy; the power to require imported video tapes/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 Blanchard,Mr Burr,Mr Groom and Mr Rocher. To the Right Honourable the 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 Right 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 'first 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 Charles and Mr Milton. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That the overwhelming majority of Australians are completely satisfied with the existing Australian National Flag. 2. That we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as provided in Section (3) of the Flags Act, unless such proposed change is first voted on by the people of Australia and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife and Mr Macphee. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives 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 Dobie,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Ruddock and Mr Spender. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that the current discriminatory application of sales tax on confectionery at the rate of 20% is an unfair and unjust burden on this important manufacturing industry and your petitioners therefore pray that confectionery be treated in a similar fashion to all other foods, including snack foods, which are exempt from sales tax. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher and Mr Ruddock. 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 petitioners 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 of the Australian Parliament in Canberra assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth- That the current ''epidemic'' of adverse reactions to medical drugs (both prescription and over-the-counter) constitutes a severe health problem. The monitoring of such reactions is inadequate. There is a lack of awareness of the role of such drugs in causing disease. Consumers are confused by the large number of unnecessary brand names for the same drug. There is insufficient onus on drug companies to compensate the victims of adverse drug reactions. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray- 1. That there should be- (a) Mandatory reporting of suspected drug reactions to the Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee (A.D.R.A.C.). (b) Recording of pre-death medication on death certificates. (c) Collection and publication of the resulting statistics. 2. That the labelling of drugs should include- (a) Generic (or chemical) names in place of brand names. (b) Warnings of recorded adverse reactions. 3. That Australia should seek uniform international surveillance of medical drugs. 4. That pharmaceutical companies be made automatically liable for injury or death caused directly or indirectly by their products. 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 citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. The Federal Labor Government's retirement income policies are piecemeal, inconsistent and make no provision to encourage people to save towards their retirements; and 2. The Government's proposed assets test legislation is iniquitous and, if enacted, its effects would be discriminatory. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: 1. scrap its proposed assets test legislation; 2. either institute a broad enquiry into Australia's retirement income and taxation systems or await the outcome of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare's work on this matter; and, 3. following the report of such a wide enquiry institute a retirement income policy which is fair and equitable, that encourages self-provision and which will be non-discriminatory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows: That we are totally opposed to any legislation which allows video films, films, and books dealing with sex, drugs, crime, cruelty and revolting phenomena, to be imported, produced and dealt with commercially in Australia. For this is promoting evil, ''Satan and all his works.'' We, the undersigned request the Government to abandon its 1983 decision to alter the A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinance forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows: That we are very concerned that the barriers to the importation of hard-core pornography have been lifted and that material inciting the use of hard drugs will be allowed. As parents and people concerned with the welfare of our nation we fear that such material could be too easily seen by impressionable youth to their detriment and that of our community. We the undersigned request the Government to abandon its 1983 decision to alter the A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinance forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cross. 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 we sincerely believe that the new Commonwealth censorship procedures for publication 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 videos). (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 Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned, plead that the House of Representatives will vote in favour of the Senate resolution calling for the appointment of a Select Joint Committee to examine the effects upon children of viewing pornographic, violent and obscene video material, because not all parents are supervising all children all of the time, and not all video outlets are impoverishing themselves by compliance with the law. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter your earnest consideration, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Ms Fatin. 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 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 Ms Mayer. 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 Liason officer or investigator had approached Dr. Martinick to discuss any apparent problems. That the Federal Police who are not a representative of the Department of Health made the first contact with her. That we are perturbed that the normal procedure of investigating an irregularity was not adhered to in this case and we request that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should clarify this situation and amend the Health Insurance Act if necessary to ensure that the Medical Practitioners in future receive a fair and just hearing. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: 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 chiropractics 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 practitioners of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the high cost of health care in Australia. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: 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 Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We the Citizens of the City of Woodville and supported by the citizens of South Australia, being deeply concerned over the threat of closure of the Woodville Plant of General Motors-Holdens, respectfully show- 1. That the management of General Motors-Holdens has failed over a period of more than two (2) years to give any assurances that the Woodville Plant would continue in operation. 2. That a recent statement attributed to the GMH Managing Director, quote:- ''The overall objective of our South Australian rationalisation plan has been to eliminate all productive activities on the Woodville site'' end of quote. This statement has not been refuted. 3. That the elimination of the Woodville Plant will cause enormous social dislocation, hardship and misery to the citizens of Woodville and South Australia. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Parliament of Australia will condemn this callous disregard for the citizens of Woodville and South Australia, and do all in its power to force General Motors-Holdens to retain its operations at the Woodville Plant. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Scott. Petitions received. 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 deplores the failure of the Government to act to alleviate the severe traffic congestion which causes great inconvenience to the residents of the Tweed Valley by providing funding in the 1984-85 Budget for the construction of the Tweed by-pass. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the 61% drop in European migration to Australia in January 1984 compared with January 1983, and (2) calls upon the Government to immediately reassess the situation, and to review the migration intake for 1984-85 in the light of the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures released on 23 August 1984. Mr HAWKER(Wannon) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that for off-road uses of diesel fuel there is currently an effective excise of 2.242 cents/litre; (2) deplores the fact that the failure to fully rebate the excise for off-road uses of diesel fuel has cost agriculture $25 million in 1983-84; (3) expresses its concern that despite the Treasurer's statement in the 1984-85 Budget that the Government will index the off-road uses of diesel fuel rebate from 1 February 1985, this rebate will still not cover the full value of the excise, and (4) calls on the Government to immediately increase the rebate to the full value of the excise, and thereby remove this $25 million per year hidden tax on agriculture. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with concern the statement from the Australian Academy of Science headed ''A Bad Budget for Science'' which refers inter alia to ''the Government' s disastrous science budget'', and (2) condemns the Government for the 1984-85 Budget cut in funding for science and technology. Mr MCGAURAN(Gippsland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Minister for Primary Industry for his inaction in addressing the crisis being experienced by the Victorian dairy industry, and (2) calls on the Minister to act decisively to prevent dumping of dairy products by the EEC and NZ. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) rejects the Government's predictions of the increase in real wages growth for 1984-85 as contained in the 1984-85 Budget; (2) draws to the attention of Australian workers that many additional costs to employers will only disadvantage the worker; (3) calls on the Government to provide (a) full information on the real cost of wages which includes the cost of superannuation schemes being promoted by the Prime Minister, redundancy payments , shorter working hours, technological change payments, affirmative action costs , and worker's compensation charges, all foisted on the community by Labor Governments, and (b) accurate estimates on real wage increases which will be above the 7.1% predicted in the Budget, and (4) condemns the Government's ignorance of the call from the OECD that there should be no increase in real wages until October 1985. Mr TICKNER(Hughes) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move , and the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Gorman) will second: That this House- (1) congratulates the Sydney Morning Herald on the content of the editorial, on 24 August 1984, on the subject of the Leader of the Opposition's Budget reply speech, and (2) supports the conclusions of the editorial that- (a) in places Mr Peacock's attack on the Government's economic policy is blatantly dishonest; (b) it is also blatantly dishonest to call the Government's personal income tax cuts a total fabrication, and (c) Australians still do not have a coherent statement of economic policy from the alternative government Mr GROOM(Braddon) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with pleasure the ABC's decision to use its facilities and resources to transmit the commercial telecast of the recent Los Angeles Olympics to King Island, and (2) expresses the hope that this was not a once only effort, but that the people of King Island will in future also have the pleasure of watching other major sporting events telecast on commercial television, for example the VFL Grand Final and major golf or tennis tournaments. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) will second: That this House calls upon the Government to expedite the release of all official migration figures and statistics for the year ended 30 June 1984, in order that the Parliament and the people of Australia shall be properly informed as to what has happened in the 12 months preceding 24 August 1984. Mr WELLS(Petrie) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys) will second: That this House congratulates the Government on the fact that since its election, and particularly in the last quarter, inflation has gone down, interest rates have fallen, unemployment has gone down, the labour force participation rate has gone up, capital investment has improved, consumer confidence is the highest it has been since figures were first kept, and that Australia now has the highest growth rate in the OECD. Mr BLUNT(Richmond) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) will second: That this House notes that despite the honourable member for Richmond's continuing representations to the Minister for Health, and despite the passage of more than 2 months since the House last sat, the electorate of Richmond which includes in excess of 150 000 Australians still has only 3 Medicare offices and that towns like Murwillumbah, Mullumbimby, Byron Bay and Ballina have no Medicare office and that the citizens resident in these towns are required, unlike other Australians, either to rely on the mail or to travel significant mileages to conduct their business with Medicare. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House congratulates the Government on the 12.5% increase in spending on ethnic affairs and, in particular, the increased funding for migrant resource centres. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that rural adjustment scheme was reduced by over $18m in the 1984-85 Budget-- Mr Lloyd-A shame; a great shame! Mr McGAURAN —A terrible shame- and that this scheme assists rural producers experiencing a crisis not of their making, and (2) condemns the Minister for Primary Industry for failing to protect those for whom he is responsible for ensuring their economic viability. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House calls on the Leader of the House to look at the possibility of limiting the time for notices of motion to 10 minutes daily and that this time be allocated at the end of the adjournment debate. Mr SPEAKER —I advise honourable members that notices of motion must be matters capable of decision by the House and that the degree of information and argument contained in them should be very restricted. I do examine the notices later in the day because at times I feel it is unfair to interrupt honourable members when only portions of their notices are out of order. I hope honourable members will take some notice of that in drawing up notices of motion. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect) —On behalf of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, I present the second report of the Committee, together with the minutes of the proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Dr KLUGMAN —by leave-The second report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform deals primarily with political advertising. The Committee's first report, which I presented to this House in September 1983, contains about 200 recommendations for reform of the Australian electoral system. Most of those recommendations were adopted by the Government and by the Parliament and were included in the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Act 1983. That report also foreshadowed the further inquiry by the Committee into standards governing political advertising and provisions governing the broadcast of political material. In the course of this inquiry the Committee became aware of the broad nature of the prohibition of untrue and misleading political advertising brought about by amendments made to the then section 161(2) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, which, by the way, were not recommended by this Committee. After much consideration the Committee has concluded that this section could seriously disrupt the orderly process of political campaigning and has recommended the repeal of the section. I urge the Government to effect this repeal before the next general election. The Committee has also recommended on a number of other points. One is a simplification of the provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act concerning the identification of political advertisements. We recommend the removal of these provisions from the Electoral Act and their transfer to the Commonwealth Broadcasting and Television Act. We feel that in the case of a registered political party the broadcast of the name of the party should be sufficient. We also recommend that the Australian Electoral Commission publish a manual of Australian electoral law and practice, including relevant obligations not contained in the Commonwealth Electoral Act but contained in other Commonwealth Acts. We also recommend that the identification requirements of the Broadcasting and Television Act apply only to advertising so as to exclude talk-back radio and man-in-street interviews. We also recommend that the ban on the dramatisation of political material be repealed. We recommend that the Broadcasting and Television Act be amended to provide that a person shall be afforded the opportunity to examine any record and to obtain a copy of such record upon notice and upon payment of such costs as are reasonable to cover the expenses of the broadcast and of providing a copy tape, rather than the present position where proceedings actually have to be initiated before such copies are provided. We also recommend similar provisions for television. Finally we recommend that the Government bring to the attention of State governments the need for complementary reforms to State electoral Acts in order to allow silent enrolment procedures to operate. On behalf of the Committee I wish to thank Messrs Aldons and Connolly, who worked with and for the Committee, and all those who have assisted by presenting oral or, in many other cases, written submissions. I particularly thank Mr Andrejs Cirulis, who is Deputy Electoral Commissioner of the Australian Electoral Commission and who kept members of the Committee informed of the progress of the implementation of the major reforms of the Australian electoral system which have resulted from the recommendations contained in our first report. I add that witnesses from the major political parties have commented to the Committee on the assistance they have received from the Electoral Commission in understanding and adjusting to the new Act. I specifically thank Mr Michael McHugh, QC, of the Sydney Bar, whose evidence was extremely valuable in assisting the Committee to formulate its views on the legal regulation of political advertising. The Committee proposes to continue with its work following the presentation of this second report. In response to advertisements, submissions have been received on the conduct of ballots and elections by the Australian Electoral Commission under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, on tax deductibility for political donations, on the provision of free radio and television time for political messages during election time, and on the establishment of a fixed formula for the representation of Territories in the Parliament. Finally, I have had a number of letters from Mr Wright, the President of the Proportional Representation Society of Australia, who feels that that Society's submissions to us before we issued the first report were not properly reported in that report. I feel that they probably were but, so as to satisfy both the Proportional Representation Society of Australia and honourable members of this House, I seek leave to table the correspondence. Leave granted. Dr KLUGMAN —I wish to conclude by thanking all the members of the Committee. They have been extremely keen in their work and we have had full attendance at a large number of meetings. I express my appreciation to all of them. When honourable members see the report they will note that Senator Macklin of the Australian Democrats has dissented on one issue. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-proposed: That the House take note of the report. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(10.20) —The report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, as outlined by the Committee's Chairman, the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman), is obviously a less controversial publication than the first major work of the Committee, which recommended changes across the broad spectrum of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, including a number of controversial issues such as public funding and the list system of voting for the Senate. Apart from the one dissenting report the Chairman alluded to, I believe that on this occasion there has been wide support for the changes which are recommended to the Government. It now rests with the Government to take up these matters and to put them into legislation to be brought before this House. It seems to me, however, that the Chairman is somewhat optimistic if he believes the Government will have time to bring into its busy program, which it is rushing through, the changes he referred to as being necessary, before a general election is held in the future. I agree with the recommendation to remove the strictures relating to injunctions regarding advertisements, the matter of identification, which is so much simpler in the Committee's recommendation, the reference to the publication of a manual in addition to the Act, which hopefully will be far simpler for parties and party workers and the general public to understand. The recommendation to remove the prohibition on dramatisation is sensible. It will remove an untenable restriction in this day and age when the media is so deeply involved in presenting satire on political events and political personages. The report, which will be available to the public and those interested in television and radio broadcasts, will be a most useful tool in ensuring that those who feel they have been injured can receive almost immediately a copy of the offending statement or document. In this regard I believe the Act would better serve the public or individuals who may feel offended than legislating to place unworkable injunctions on advertisements which may be about to be published, which have been published or which someone is threatening to publish again. The report is therefore a challenge to the Government to bring in legislation to amend the Act again. I would very much like to praise the attitude of the Chairman of the Committee. The honourable member for Prospect has been assiduous in his attention to his duties and has provided chairmanship which has been both firm and cheerful. His attitude is in direct contrast to that of the Minister in charge of electoral legislation before the House. I refer to the Special Minister of State (Mr Young ), who has refused to co-operate in necessary inquiries which were made. Even yesterday he refused to give any indication as to whether the Government would enable the public to obtain bound rolls for use at the next election, to which we all believe the Government is rushing headlong. The lack of co-operation from the Special Minister of State yesterday was so remarkable when contrasted with the work of the Committee and its Chairman. I hope the Chairman will be able to speak to the Minister and ensure that proper rolls will be available to the public before an election is held. I have done some calculations and, as far as I can make out, a minimum of 33 days is required in the countdown from the issue of the writs to the day of polling. Taking into account the proposed date for the release of the final reports on the objections in New South Wales, this would indicate that it will be most difficult for the public to have bound rolls available to it at a forthcoming election this year. Taking those particular days as indicated by the proposed 10 October report in New South Wales, I find that it would need something like six weeks, as I think has been acknowledged generally, for bound rolls to be printed. I refer here not to computer printouts which, of course, would be very quickly available, but to properly bound rolls. If we are to have available in New South Wales properly bound rolls which, I understand, the public can normally buy for $10, the earliest the election could be held would be 29 December. That would be the earliest date by which we could provide normally available facilities. I would like to hear what the Chairman of the Committee has to say, but if 10 October is the date for report in New South Wales, taking the countdown from that date one would find-- Dr Klugman —I think it is 5 October according to the legislation, eight weeks before the polls. Mr STEELE HALL —The Minister gave in this House an indication that it would be 10 October. If it is brought forward five days it is immaterial to the argument I have put to the House. The argument here is that taking 10 October as the date and proceeding with a print of bound rolls which would take six weeks and issuing the writs from the time the bound rolls are available, one would get to the end of December before one could decently have an election and meet the convenience of electors. That is a subject of some serious note in relation to the conduct of the Government and its attitude to elector convenience. It was for that reason I yesterday asked the Minister a question. I was extremely disappointed that he was arrogant enough simply to ignore the entire content of that question. It was far from good enough that the Minister, who has come through so much controversy in recent times in his personal affairs, should so disregard the-- Mr Gear —Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is quite clear that the honourable member for Boothby is not speaking to the report at all. I ask you to redirect his attention to that. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —I thank the honourable member. I call the honourable member for Boothby. Mr STEELE HALL —The report deals with a wide ambit of conduct of electoral affairs in Australia and the Chairman of the Committee has indicated that the Act should be amended before the next general election. Thus I would have thought that one could give fairly broad consideration to the report's details. But, as I have said, I am very disappointed that the Minister has ignored that question. I can put it down to no other fact than that he does not know the answer, he does not intend to give the answer, or he is arrogant enough to think that he does not have to give an answer. That is not what the public of Australia would expect from a Minister who has so often said that he intends to bring in a fair and equitable system for all Australians. I do not know why he wants to hide his knowledge of the system if that is in fact his intention. I wish to refer to two further matters. One is the redistribution. I do not want at this stage when objections are being considered around Australia to enter into any criticism of individuals on the electoral committees, but I do want to make the point I made publicly after the announcement of the South Australian and Tasmanian committee recommendations for redistribution in those two States. I find it interesting and somewhat disturbing that, although the two committees, the four-person committee in Tasmania and the four-person committee in South Australia, which recommended boundary changes in those two States, had common to them two individuals on each committee, they adopted diametrically opposed principles in their redistributions. In South Australia the overriding view of the committee was to retain the existing boundaries. In fact, the one paragraph reference to the change in the metropolitan boundaries in South Australia was based almost entirely on the retention of existing boundaries wherever possible. So, in the face of a claim by our side of politics that marginality should be a large factor in the construction of those boundaries, the response was: 'Because we as a committee want to retain, wherever possible, the existing boundaries, we proceed with such and such a course'. But when one looks at the Tasmanian redistribution, one finds that that principle was thrown completely aside. The boundaries in Tasmania were changed so dramatically that it is a whole new picture as far as the shape of electorates is concerned. I do not wish to proceed with that any further but I do wish to draw the House's attention to what seems to be a very different attitude to the principles for redistribution in Tasmania and those for redistribution in South Australia. I hope that in the objections some middle course might be reached between those two very clearly different modes of operation. In conclusion, I wish to refer to the Minister's attempt this week to move out from under the responsibility of increasing the size of Parliament. It is quite evident that, in the Government's polls of the situation and its reading of the community's attitude, it has found that there is great public resentment to the increase in the size of the two Houses of Parliament. There is resentment, no doubt, for a number of reasons-the increase in the costs of Parliament and the fact that, at a time when members of the public have had to tighten their belts, they see no reason why Parliament should expand its own importance or expense of operation. Whatever the reasons might be, the Government has found that resistance and the Minister has set out to move the Government out from under that responsibility and point the finger at the Opposition as the motivating factor behind the increase in the size of Parliament. I was disappointed by reports of the Minister's foray into this subject this week. The headlines on a number of reports of his statement were that we had led on that question. My response under the Standing Orders that in the event I had been misrepresented was not printed and I found that a very unfair presentation of the facts. The facts were, and I repeat them for the record, that in the resolution setting up the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, I moved, on behalf of a number of Opposition members, that the subject of the size of Parliament be added to the nine criteria which were part of the resolution setting up the matters to be considered by the Committee. The Committee met and the Liberal Party, as a Party organisation separate from the parliamentary Party , put before that Committee a vehement argument that the size of Parliament should not be increased. The National Party organisation put the case that it should be increased. When the Committee considered this matter the Labor Party members of the Committee agreed that Parliament should be increased in size. That was a matter also agreed to by the National Party Committee member. So the legislation brought into the House was drawn up by direction of the Government to include the increase in the size of Parliament and that was subsequently approved in this House. It was the initiative of government, a decision of Cabinet-there was no other decision-that this should be done. The legislation was presented at the desk opposite me here. After a lengthy debate the House voted on it and, as I said in my explanation the other day, every member of the Liberal Party sat on the Opposition benches and voted against it. Dr Klugman —What about the National Party members? Mr STEELE HALL —The National Party members crossed the floor and joined the Labor Party on this issue. That is the truth of the matter and the Minister should not try to provide disinformation on this matter or about individuals who have been involved in it. And so we come to the position that the only members of parliament in this entire-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SCOTT(Hindmarsh)(10.35) —I had not intended to speak on the report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform but because of the abuse by the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall), in not speaking to the content of the report, I wish to cover for just a few moments the ground with which the report deals. It is important that the public know what the Committee's recommendations touch on. The Committee dealt with the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 and the problems that major parties have encountered in the past when it has been necessary to list or broadcast the names of all people taking part in political advertising. This got to the ludicrous position when choirs were used in certain advertisements and it was a requirement of the Act that all the singers be named in the advertisement. The Committee's report suggests that it should be sufficient to have the name of the registered party identified in the advertisement. The report also touches on the publishing of a manual on Australian electoral laws. That is important because of the massive changes that have taken place in the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The Committee also dealt with and agreed on identification requirements for, for example, talk-back radio programs and interviews with people in the street. The Committee addresses that question too in the report. We also dealt with and discussed with broadcasting people the desire of the three major political parties to have access to recordings of political matter made during an election period. For example, currently the audio recordings of broadcasts are required to be retained but we believe that in this modern age video recordings could likewise be retained. This is an important matter. One other area the Committee touched on was silent enrolment. Obviously a number of problems were addressed, including the problem of those people in public office who may find their lives in jeopardy if their names and addresses are displayed, and also there are certain people who for their own domestic reasons as well as their own safety desire to have the provisions of a silent roll. That was another area canvassed by the Committee and its findings are contained in the report. I think it was necessary to bring back to this House what this Committee's report was all about, and not go on with the arrant nonsense we heard from the last speaker, the honourable member for Boothby. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I draw to the attention of the House that the Chair is not in a position to know whether an honourable member is not speaking to the subject matter of a report. The report is fairly detailed and the Chair is not familiar with its contents. The contributions made by those who speak to it must be taken in good faith. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr MILTON(La Trobe) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, I present the report of the Committee entitled 'Protection of the Greater Daintree', incorporating a dissenting report, together with extracts of the minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr MILTON —by leave-The report which has just been tabled is the Committee's first report for the thirty-third Parliament and the twenty-third since the Committee was established in 1973. The Committee decided to report without formal inquiry because of the sensitivity of the issue and its belief that there was a need for some preliminary comments. Members inspected the area in June and were appalled to see what was happening. Even though there is a dissent to this report, I think all honourable members would agree that the location of the road and the manner in which it is being constructed is a matter of concern. The report makes no comments as to whether or not the region is of World Heritage status but rather acknowledges the studies that are presently being undertaken, identifies areas where more study is required and suggests appropriate consultative procedures which should be entered into by the Commonwealth Government, the Queensland Government and the Douglas Shire Council . The Committee notes that some approaches have been made by the Commonwealth to Queensland concerning the road. It is apparent that these discussions have been unsuccessful as construction of the road continues. The report concludes that the Commonwealth may not have exhausted all consultative mechanisms. We believe that, given statements by the Queensland Premier concerning the outstanding value of the area, further approaches and offers of assistance by the Commonwealth may result in a change of attitude and lead to a more environmentally appropriate approach to the area. We have recommended that the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) make further approaches to the Queensland Government to seek agreement on the cessation of further damaging activities pending the results of the present study of rainforests in north Queensland. We have asked that the Government complete its assessment of World Heritage status as a matter of urgency and, should it be found that it is of World Heritage status, the Commonwealth, in consultation with the Queensland Government, proceed with nomination of the area as soon as possible. The report notes that not everyone is convinced that the road will seriously degrade the national and international values of the region. We have recommended that the Commonwealth Government commission a scientific study to determine the impact of the road on the region's heritage values. We have noted that while the region's World Heritage value is yet to be established, it is generally recognised as having special values in terms of Australia's heritage. Regardless of the outcome of the World Heritage evaluation, the Committee considers that special consideration should be given by the Commonwealth to provide funding and other assistance, including funding for an alternative road, and we have recommended accordingly. We recognise the studies recommended by the Committee and that the assessments now under way may take some time to complete. We feel that it is appropriate that if, in the short term, the Queensland Government and Douglas Shire have been asked to defer current planning proposals, this places and obligation on the Commonwealth to accept some responsibility for providing funding regardless of the outcome of these assessments. The Committee briefly examined the Commonwealth's legislative powers. It appears that both the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act and the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act may apply. Apart from the difficulties in establishing that pollution from the road may harm the reef, the Committee considers that there are other good reasons for not applying this Act. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act is meant for and is achieving sound management of the Marine Park. It is our belief that it would not be appropriate to use the Act to prevent further construction of the road as this could irreparably damage the delicate arrangement which exists between the Commonwealth and Queensland governments concerning sound management of what effectively represents 80 per cent of the eastern Queensland coast. The Committee noted the comments of the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment relating to the application of the World Heritage Act. The Minister said: A unilateral decision by Australia before proper assessment has been made or before a proposal has been submitted to the World Heritage Committee could lead to the debasing of the World Heritage List. A precedent could be established which may lead to pressure for the Act to be used whenever conservationists are in disagreement with State governments. The majority of members of the Committee believes that the Act should not be used for general conservation purposes and should be invoked only when a listed place or places under consideration for listing are under threat. The Committee concludes that if, and only if, all the consultative approaches and offers of assistance, which I have mentioned previously, fail, the Commonwealth Government should consider applying the provisions of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act. We hope that such action will not be necessary as we find it difficult to believe that the Queensland Government and the Douglas Shire Council would reject an approach by the Commonwealth involving proper consultation and offers of financial and other assistance. While the issue of the road is important, we must not lose sight of the wider issue here, which is proper management of the region as a whole. We hope that, if the recommendations of the Committee are accepted by the Commonwealth and agreement can be reached with Queensland, a series of events will be set in train which will ensure the preservation of the region for future generations of Australians. I commend the report to the House. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —by leave-The report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation entitled 'Protection of the Greater Daintree' is an important report. In the context of recent events in the Daintree area it is a significant report. However, my colleagues in the Opposition who are members of the Committee have asked me, on their behalf, to state before the House the fact that they dissent, along with me, from certain aspects of the report, in particular the manner in which it was compiled. We have been informed that there were precedents for the House of Representatives Environment and Conservation Committee to table reports without having access to a full range of opinions and submissions from interested parties. Irrespective of whether that may or may not have been the position in the past, it is my firm belief that no committee of this Parliament should table a report in either House unless it has had full access to all the information available and thus is in a stronger position to make a considered opinion and judgment. The haste with which this Committee's report was put together is a matter of great regret to me. The report was put together literally in a matter of some two weeks. It was based upon a two-day visit to the Daintree region and upon receiving evidence from a number of environmental persons only, without any evidence being taken or requested from either the Queensland Government or the Douglas Shire Council. This leads me to the conclusion that the presentation of the report leaves much to be desired. I do not in any sense resile from the fact that, in the view of the Opposition members of the Committee and of the Opposition as a whole, this Parliament does have a responsibility to co-operate and work with all the States of the Commonwealth to ensure that those areas on the National Estate which are defined as being of major environmental significance should, wherever possible, receive the co-operation and support of the Commonwealth. It is a matter of great concern to me personally, as the Opposition spokesman on the environment, to have to report that since November last year I have consistently requested the Government and its Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) to enter into meaningful negotiations with the Queensland Government and that not only have the results been unsatisfactory but meaningful negotiations never in fact took place. As I said in this House some two days ago , meaningful negotiations mean that one has something to negotiate about and has terms to offer. In the case of the Commonwealth, undoubtedly that involves some financial support. It is quite clear that at no stage throughout this period has any attempt been made by the Commonwealth to reach a financial settlement at any level with either the Queensland Government or the Douglas Shire Council. This fact was borne out by the report. It stated it in rather sensitive tones; nevertheless it is quite clear from the report that honourable members on both sides of the House believe quite clearly that more could and should be done by the Commonwealth Government to try to reach a settlement in this area. It is worth noting in relation to the dissenting report which we submitted that we emphasise the fact that, while we support many of the report's recommendations, we do have, as I said, serious reservations about the manner in which the report was compiled and the fact that a thorough investigation was not carried out. Notwithstanding that, it is a known reality that there is a limited amount of scientific data available on this area. What is available suggests quite clearly that the Daintree area of Queensland is of unique ecological significance. As I said earlier, it is because of its uniqueness that the Opposition believes that the Federal Government has a bounden responsibility to all Australians to offer whatever support it can to a State government, in this case the Queensland Government, to try to establish a regime by which the long term environmental defence of the area can be assured. We also consider that it is premature to report at this time, when the Australian Heritage Commission has a study in progress. Some of us have heard rumours about what this report may or may not contain. But the simple fact is that it will probably be the first major study of tropical rainforests along the north Queensland coast. In other words, one can anticipate that that report will contain significant information which should have been available to this parliamentary committee prior to its reporting to the Parliament. Nevertheless, the decision was taken by a majority of members of the Committee that the report should be put forward to the Parliament without access to what I am sure will be a very significant report. As I said earlier, it is because of that attitude that members of the Opposition believed it was not possible for us to support the report in toto, despite the fact that we are sympathetic with the need to do our best at the Commonwealth level to ensure the long term protection, in particular, of the tropical rainforests in the Daintree area. I turn to specific aspects of the report. We strongly disagree with those sections which suggest that the Commonwealth pursue action which will result in World Heritage nomination, irrespective of the views of, and the need to reach agreement with, the Queensland Government. In fact, it is fair to say that the recommendation in the report on that subject can best be defined as confrontationist. It will more than likely involve the Queensland Government in a stand-up dispute with the Commonwealth Government, which is obviously utterly inimical to the long term well-being of tropical rainforest preservation and will make it much more difficult for this Parliament to reach any form of settlement with the Queensland Government. Keeping in mind the fact that environmental matters have traditionally been the responsibility of State governments, we therefore conclude that this approach is shortsighted and has serious implications for the management of all areas around Australia which may well be of significance, either nationally or internationally, and which will yet again frighten off State governments-Liberal , Labor and National Party alike-which will see this as but another demonstration of the intention of the Federal Labor Government to force its will upon State governments in these matters. We recognise that the Commonwealth should play an active role in assisting States in the management of areas considered by the States and the Commonwealth to be of major national conservation significance. In that context, of course, we include the Daintree rainforest. But the basis of that must be one of co-operation and consultation, and not one based on threats and pretence by the Commonwealth that it will assert itself in these areas of traditional State responsibility. We believe that the recommendation contained in paragraph 55, which threatens the application of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act against Queensland, is therefore unnecessary and inconsistent with the main thrust of the report, which we support, which is the need to encourage the Federal Government to take all steps necessary and possible to enter into further substantive negotiations with Queensland and the Douglas Shire Council to see what can be done to achieve a long term settlement and to put in place a long term regime for the protection of the Daintree national park area. But we cannot achieve that without the obvious support of the Queensland Government. To travel down the other road is to enter into constant confrontation, for which members of the Government are well aware that they will have to pay a very heavy political price. Notwithstanding our comments relating to the preparation and contents of the report, we do not-and I emphasise this point-oppose nomination of the Daintree area for the World Heritage List if it is so determined to be of such significance. Again, the nomination for the World Heritage List should be proposed with the support of the Queensland Government. We are, and have been for some months, most concerned that the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment did not, as I said earlier, offer assistance prior to the road's commencement in November 1983. We believe that a lack of a positive co-operative approach by the Minister and the Government has contributed to the present unsatisfactory situation and needless confrontation. Anyone who studies the views of the Minister since last year will see quite clearly that the Government at a very early stage-in fact, as early as 30 November 1983 and since 17 August this year-has been consistent on one point; that is, it has absolutely refused to offer funds to Queensland for the long term protection of this area, for the funding of alternative roads or for any other level of substantive Federal intervention or involvement. Therefore, intervention on the basis of threatening to use the world heritage conservation legislation will be clearly not in the interests of the protection of the Daintree area and will make it difficult for the Commonwealth to negotiate with any State government on the protection of the environment in the future. Mr CHYNOWETH(Flinders) —by leave-I must defend the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen). The statements that have just been made are completely false. The Minister has had many conferences with people concerned in this area. I am quite sure that the Australian public is not aware of the amount of work he has undertaken to protect this area. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), said that the report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation entitled 'Protection of the Greater Daintree' contained threats to Queensland. There are no threats to Queensland. There are suggestions as to what we would like to do. For the honourable member to suggest otherwise is completely untrue. When the time comes for members of the Opposition to put up or shut up, they back away by using legal jargon. They do not put their money where their mouths are. They say that they are in favour of preventing the construction of the road. But we have heard today that they are not in favour of it. All they do is try to win votes and to achieve some political gain out of this exercise. People will not wear it. The people of Australia are aware of the Opposition's conservation policies. The Opposition stands for big developers and greed. In speaking about the report, I preface my remarks by referring to this statement by the Premier of Queensland: The greater Daintree area provides a living museum of plant and animal species in what is one of the few remaining examples of undisturbed coastal rainforest in the world. Those were the words of the Premier of Queensland on 13 June 1980. There are probably not many areas of life, or comments, on which I would be in agreement with the Premier of Queensland. But on the issue of the unique beauty and environmental rarity of the magnificent rainforest area of Daintree, I am in 100 per cent agreement. It is indeed a living museum of plant and animal species and is one of the few remaining examples of undisturbed coastal rainforest in the world. Perhaps the Premier has forgotten his words of 1980. Those words hardly rest comfortably with the actions of the Queensland Government in urging the Douglas Shire Council to work quickly on the construction of the road to Bloomfield. I am honoured to be a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation which recently visited the Cape Tribulation and Daintree area. I feel privileged to be numbered amongst the minority of Australians who have actually been to this magnificent area and seen at first hand its beauty and wonder. I would like to share with the House and those members of the Australian community listening to this debate some of my impressions and observations of this area. The forests of the Daintree region include the largest stand remaining on the mainland of Australia. They also represent the last stands of lowland rainforest which are distinct from the more common forms that are left behind by greedy developers. These are the wet diverse forests. The climate is warm and humidity is high due to both the geographical position and the high mountains of the Great Dividing Range which run down to the sea. For about three months of the year in the wet season almost unrelieved downpours provide an enforced holiday for both human and non-human residents. At Mount Sorrow, behind Cape Tribulation, species of dragonfly, water beetle and water bug live out their complete life cycles in leaf litter, away from the streams and ponds required by the rest of their insect relatives. This phenomenon is certainly unique in Australia and probably in the rest of the world. The white soft sandy beaches are lined by pandanus palms, cottonwood hibiscus and the coast she-oak. Closely hugging the shoreline is a fringing coral reef. Can honourable members imagine the immense beauty of the deep green of the tropical rainforest running down to the golden and white sands of the beaches which are gently lapped by the deep aquas and turquoise of the coral sea? Its beauty is astounding. The fringing coral reef that is so close to the shoreline has already been recognised as extremely important by its classification under category B of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act. This is one of the few intact reefs bordering the mainland shore and it is this magnificent reef that is at danger by silting from the road as the mud is washed to the water in the wet season. In the depths of the rainforest there is little, if any, understorey except where a fallen tree, a storm or a wide stream has cut across the canopy. It is like a vast magnificent hall with a soft spongy floor of leaf mould separated by great pillar-like tree trunks from the multi-layered canopy. It can be likened to a huge magnificent cathedral, an example of nature's gift to us to behold. It is in this intricate garden of leaves, fruiting and flowering trees and vines that most of the forest birds can be found. Up to 150 tree species can be found on a couple of hectares, many more than in Europe or North America. At least seven species of vertebrate animal have been found nowhere else in the world- four new species of frogs, the Bennets tree kangaroo and a so far undescribed species of skink. A newly discovered ringtail possum will certainly be added to this list. Only now are we beginning to appreciate the richness of the area. Eleven distinct types of rainforest have been identified in the Daintree area. Daintree has some of the last coastal rainforest in Australia. It is about the last stretch of coast that remains as Captain Cook saw it in 1770. When we think about all this it is hard to understand why the road is going ahead. Many people have endeavoured to stop the road and its destruction of this most beautiful and magnificent area. They have been set upon by dogs and fined $1,200 for trying to protect the forest. I commend all those people and thank them for their stand. Future generations will look upon this environmental vandalism with disgust and dismay just as we are dismayed with the destruction caused by past generations on our exquisite planet. I have been told that the road has already passed through the forest, that illegal size drainage has been put down under the road for expediency. What madness! Why the rush? Is it to open up more land for the lust and greed of wealth? The long term wealth of our nation relies on these magnificent areas. They must be kept for future generations. I can only plead on behalf of those who are to follow us that this area be protected. I reiterate the words of the Queensland Premier. He said: The greater Daintree area provides a living museum of plant and animal species in what is one of the few remaining examples of undisturbed coastal rainforest in the world. I commend the report to the House and the nation. Mr GEAR(Tangney) —by leave-I am grateful for the opportunity given to me today to speak to the report on the protection of the greater Daintree. Like the previous speakers to this report, I was fortunate to be able to go up to the greater Daintree in early July, to see at first hand the beauty of which the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Chynoweth) spoke. Certainly, from all reports the rainforests around the world are disappearing very quickly. In fact, hundreds of acres a day are disappearing. While we were there we were able to witness for ourselves, in the Cow Bay area, some of that destruction where subdividers have subdivided one section of the rainforest. What an obscene development it was. We saw the roads pushed through the rainforest which was subdivided into blocks, as one would subdivide land in metropolitan areas for sale to people to build homes on. To see trees and an environment that have grown for millions of years pushed aside by bulldozers, I am sure made a deep impression on everybody who went up there. I would like to consider the values we hold as human beings towards the destruction of our environment. I venture to say that if we were to talk about pushing down such notable buildings as St Pauls in London or the Taj Mahal there would be a public outcry. I can remember that in Perth about 10 years ago when the State Government wanted to push down the Barracks Arch there was a great public outcry, and justifiably so. In some cases such buildings have been there for less than 100 years. If we were to attempt to push down this House, in which I stand today, I am sure a vocal group would try to stop us from doing so. Yet the rainforests in north Queensland have been growing for millions of years. I wonder about the values we place on things provided by nature and man. Certainly , I am sure the rest of the Committee would like to preserve the rainforests in north Queensland. I know the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) also holds that view, so the Opposition does not oppose the World Heritage listing. We are really talking about a political decision. Who makes the final decision on the Daintree? Do we leave it to the Queensland Government to look after that part of Australia? Mr Ian Cameron —Why not? Mr GEAR —The honourable member opposite interjects and says: 'Why not?' Mr Ian Cameron —It has done a good job. Mr GEAR —It has done a good job in the Cow Bay area where the local council was against the development. I ask the honourable member to look at what the Queensland Government has done and, in particular, Mr Hinze. He rode over the top of the wishes of the local council and allowed that development to go ahead. A sub-developer who does not even live in Australia was able to demolish trees and an environment that had survived for millions of years. That is the value that the Queensland Government places on that part of the environment. Certainly , I think it is the duty of the Australian Government, as the protector of the things that we value on a national basis, to take an interest in it. It comes back to a States rights argument. If we leave it to the Queensland Government I am sure, based on past experience, before we arrived at the consensus at which we would all wish to arrive, most of that forest would have disappeared and the environment would have been irreparably damaged. I think the Committee has brought down a very soft report. We have stressed that we want to co-operate with the Queensland Government if we can, but we do not hold back from the fact that if it wants, for its own reasons, to push roads into and develop that area, as it has in the Cow Bay area, we as a government have a responsibility to the Australian people to step in and use the World Heritage powers if we can. If those powers are available to us at the time, we should protect the environment. I conclude by thanking the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Wells), who has gone out of his way to try to reach an amicable agreement between the Queensland Government, the local Douglas Shire Council and this Committee. He came to us yesterday and spoke of his efforts. Although the Daintree area is not within his electorate, I believe he, as a concerned member for Queensland in this Parliament, has performed an admirable task. I hope that the Queensland Government will co-operate with the Australian Government, but if it does not we should step in and use any power available to us to protect that part of the world because I think we owe it to future generations of Australians. (Budget Debate) Debate resumed from 23 August, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(11.11) —Honourable members know that it is not often they have an opportunity to comment on problems as they see them within and without their nation. It is not often that they have a chance to assess the Federal Government 's reaction and response to those problems, but each year in the Budget debate each member has a chance to comment on behalf of his or her own electorate on local problems and, with a wider or deeper overview, problems facing our nation. I believe the Budget brought down by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) this week to be a responsible and very sensitive instrument, a very finely honed document, giving support where support is needed and giving help to those in our community who are the most needy. When the Australian Labor Party was elected to government in March last year the economy was in severe decline, unemployment was rising at 11.5 per cent a year, inflation was rampant and the notorious Budget blow-out became evident once the government changed. In the last 12 months all expectations of a healthy return to a sound financial basis have been greatly exceeded. The Treasurer, in his Budget Speech, pointed out that 230,000 Australians have found jobs, compared with 240,000 who lost their jobs in the previous year. He also pointed out that inflation fell to 6.5 per cent and that at present it is running at an annual rate of 5 per cent. If inflation is falling it means that Australia now has the same level of inflation as our major trading partners. The Treasurer also pointed out that Australia has the fastest economic growth rate in the Western world and we have turned in the best performance in 25 years, with an annual economic growth rate of 10 per cent, which is a great credit to the Australian people and to the Government which brought this about. Much praise for what is happening in our nation must go to the Australian trade union movement. The prices and incomes accord, which was attacked by the previous Liberal Government, has worked and this has meant that our nation has got out of its difficult position and has entered on a firm economic course to fight inflation and unemployment. I want to touch briefly on some of the Government's economic policies and, in particular, the extra assistance given by the Budget to education. In the electorate of Lowe it would be a toss-up as to whether the state schools are more in need of aid than the non-state schools. I congratulate the Government for the package of aid it has given not only to government schools but also to the non-government sector, which educates about 50 per cent of the pupils in my electorate. The needs of Australian children are great, particularly in the older suburbs where the schools are run down, and where a large percentage of the pupils are from migrant families which might not speak English at home. The Government has also increased aid to tertiary education. There have been substantial funding increases for technical and further education colleges and additional places have been created at universities, colleges of advanced education and institutes of technical and further education. The Budget also deals with the various departmental votes. I am pleased to note that increased funding is to go to the repatriation hospitals. The Concord Repatriation General Hospital is in the electorate of Lowe. The Government has done great things for this hospital. It is building a new operating block and I am pleased to say that it is also looking at a proposal to upgrade ward accommodation. It is essential in this day and age to do away with the large, all-in wards. People now have a higher expectation of ward accommodation in hospitals. They require more single rooms, and these are essential, particularly for terminal cases and for people who are very ill. The Concord Hospital serves not only the veterans in New South Wales but also the local community. About 20 per cent of the patients at the hospital are local people. I praise the work of the medical and nursing staff, the administrators and the domestic staff at this important hospital. Another area in the Budget I want to touch on is the assistance given to sport, recreation and tourism. Having recently briefly visited North America as a member of a parliamentary delegation, I was very impressed with the success of our tourist promotion campaign. The program run in the United States with Paul Hogan has had a tremendous impact on tourism. The Minister at the table, the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, the Hon. J. J. Brown, deserves full praise for what he has done with tourism in the United States. The Consul- General in San Francisco told me of the large increase in applications for tourist visas to enter Australia, due to the campaign. Everywhere I went Americans spoke about Paul Hogan's ads, about putting an extra shrimp on the barbie. I believe that the real growth area of employment for young people in our nation is tourism. The potential for employing young girls, young men, students and part time workers in the tourist industry is great and the Government has realised this. It is taking action to promote tourism throughout the world and it is the North American market that we must look to. I think the Government has done great things there. The Budget increases aid to this area and I give the Minister full praise for this. There is also stimulation in the Budget for the work of the Australia Council. Much comment appears in the Press about videos. It is good to see that Australians are at last taking an interest in what the children of our nation are watching. One-third of the population are children and they watch television at great length. From my experience I know that they watch mainly American, British and other overseas comedies and that very little of the television shown to them is Australian produced. We have the capacity. We have a thriving film industry, but we have very little impact on the market for youth and children. Our directors, our artists and our actors have the talent and we have the creativity, and we certainly have the tax concessional support from government. When one looks at theatre, it is very difficult for a parent to find suitable theatre or drama for children during the school holidays. We are now in school holidays, and that can be seen by glancing at the gallery and seeing the large number of families who visit this Parliament and Canberra; and they are very welcome. There should be more emphasis by our heavily subsidised theatre on providing entertainment for children and young people during the school holidays. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation is to be commended for its children's drama and television productions. It produces programs such as Play School particularly for preschool children. It employs the very best actors and actresses to perform in these dramas. The hardest group to entertain and stimulate is young children; any school teacher will attest to that. The really hard work is with infants, where for every moment attention has to be focused on the audience. I congratulate the Nimrod Theatre in Sydney and other groups for what they are doing in drama for young people. I am sure they really appreciate the financial assistance from this Government, previous governments and the State governments; but it is essential that more emphasis be placed on obtaining access to the one-third of Australians who are under the age of 15. These young people deserve more attention. I am sure that the continuing aid from this Government to drama, theatre and films will go more and more to this important area. As to other matters in the Budget, quite significant aid in the social welfare and social security areas is going to child care. The Government's children's services program will increase from $113m in 1983-84 to about $158m this year. It is a very significant increase. Any member of this House or of the Senate knows of the problems constituents have in obtaining a place for long day care and the problems of working women who are confronted with going out to work and finding that most of the money they earn goes to pay child care facilities for one or two children in a long day care centre. I congratulate the Treasurer on increasing finance for child care facilities by more than 60 per cent in two years. In my electorate, some children start school unable to speak English. The need for child care is paramount because teachers are not trained to teach English to children. They are trained to teach them other things such as how to read and write. There is an art in teaching English to little children, and if they can go to a preschool to learn English this greatly helps the school system in both government and non-government schools. The Government has established a new home and community care program. This will be negotiated between the States and the Northern Territory to provide care to the aged and to young disabled people. This is a very important initiative, and Commonwealth expenditure on this program will be $300m over the next three years . It is important that old people and disabled people are able to remain in their homes and are not forced out of the home situation into a nursing home or full time care. I hope that the Government will do something about the funeral benefit which has been pegged at, I think, $40 for many years-since 1943. Fortunately, it has not been removed, although the previous Government tried to abolish it. It concerns me that only $20 is payable to an organisation such as the Salvation Army or the St Vincent de Paul Society for the burial of a pauper. I feel that the amount is not relevant these days. I was interested in the reply to a question I asked of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) on this issue, following representations from the St Vincent de Paul Society, which has a large paupers plot at Rookwood Cemetery adjoining my electorate. The Government is to be commended for the assistance it is giving in the Budget to the Aboriginal community. There has been an increase of 14 per cent to $234m in the vote for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. The Treasurer pointed out that priority will be given to improving water, sewerage, housing, and other services for Aboriginal communities, including fringe dwellers. Any member of this House or any Australian who has visited the areas in our nation where Aborigines comprise the majority of the population will know of some of the problems that these people experience. I have visited the Kimberleys in Western Australia and Bourke, Brewarrina and other parts of New South Wales. I was appalled in the Kimberleys to find that Aborigines suffer from leprosy, a disease that I believed in my innocence did not exist in our rich and prosperous nation. I have learned that leprosy is a result only of appalling living conditions over a long period; it is not a disease which is easily transmitted from one human being to another. I was saddened by what I saw, and I support the Government in its initiatives to help the Aboriginal community to provide decent water, which we in the cities of Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne and elsewhere take for granted, sewerage facilities, and decent housing so that people can live with dignity as a family. I commend the Government for what it is doing in this regard, and I know that Australian people will support the Government in its efforts to help the Aboriginal community. No matter what opposition is raised I know that the Australian people will ultimately support the Aborigines, as they did in the great referendum in 1967, when every electorate in Australia voted to assist the Aboriginal community. Another matter I wish to touch on briefly is the housing aid the Government has given to our young people through the first home owners scheme. This has been important in helping the families in our nation. It has had a significant impact in urban and even in rural areas of our country. For the first time 80,000 families have been able to buy their own home. In this day and age they have received really significant aid to buy a home. It is very important that people have access to buying a home of their own, and I commend the work done by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford). To touch briefly on the Government's capital expenditure and works program, my colleague the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) has pointed out to me that the Government's development of the Burdekin Dam, which was promised by every previous Liberal government but not acted upon, is the largest water resources program since the Snowy Mountains scheme. Mr Lloyd —That is absolute rot. The previous Government started the Burdekin Dam . Mr MAHER —No matter what our opponents might say, the Labor Government, to its credit, is building the Burdekin Dam. Labor has developed the Townsville Airport and developed the Northern Territory RAAF base. Only the Labor Government will actually fulfil its promises. If anything, it should be called the Lindsay Dam, after the honourable member for Herbert, whose hard work has got that dam underway. Another area I want to touch on is the important area of assistance to the motor vehicle industry. We have a five-year program for Australian design and research activities. At Homebush, in my electorate, the Ford Motor Co. of Australia Ltd has a most successful plant where it is producing the very popular Laser motor car. Last year when I visited the plant and inspected facilities it was taking on 50 employees a month, despite the recession. It was taking on people mainly who did not speak English. It was taking advantage of Government's schemes to employ the long term unemployed. I praise Ford and I know that where it has a good product it will be very successful. The Government is taking a number of steps to stimulate trade with Japan, China and the North American markets. I pay full tribute to the Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen). Having just visited a number of countries both as a member of a parliamentary delegation and at my own expense, I know of the work of the Trade officers and our consular officers overseas, whose job it is to stimulate interest in Australian trade. There are many problems. There are long term problems for Australia with the developments in iron ore in Brazil that will be coming on to schedule in a few years time. Our Trade people are outstanding representatives of Australia. They are very sensitive people who do everything they can to promote their nation. I must move quickly as my time is fast expiring. I congratulate the Treasurer on amending the requirements relating to the bank accounts debit tax which was introduced by the previous Government and which for some reason always affected parents and citizens associations. I am pleased that this onerous tax has been removed and no longer has to be paid by parents and citizens organisations, by parents and friends organisations or by non-business local councils and government bodies. It was a very silly tax. Local councils which ran any sort of trading activity had to pay tax on their accounts. Another matter I wish to touch on is the Government's program for the unemployed. That is probably the final matter I will have a chance to mention. I refer to the work of the Government in stimulating employment and the work of those involved in the community youth support scheme, which fortunately is now underway in Burwood in my electorate. I give full praise to all of the local people who launched this scheme. It is very unfortunate to be unemployed and many of the fringe benefits available to pensioners do not go on to the long term unemployed. I am talking about young people and older people, migrants who do not speak English and cannot get a job once they reach the age of 55. I congratulate the Government on the outstanding Budget. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(11.31) —This Budget provides a good opportunity to take a hard look at Medicare after six months in operation and when a full year's estimates of the costs of Medicare are available for the first time. We can and will judge Medicare against the claims made for it by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett). Also, because the Government has now been in office for 17 months we are in a good position to judge its overall performance in the administration of the Department of Health. The Prime Minister, in his 1983 policy speech, made the following commitment: 9 out of 10 Australians will pay less for the health needs of themselves and their families. The Prime Minister, in his letter to all Australians, before the introduction of Medicare, had already and characteristically shortchanged the public on his policy speech commitment when he said: Two out of three families will be paying less for the cover that they now enjoy . So he had gone from nine out of 10 Australians to two out of three families. In practice, the Government has delivered on neither of these promises. Individuals and families who have decided to maintain the same degree of private insurance cover which they had before are, in the majority of cases, worse off than they were before. They pay their one per cent Medicare levy on all their family incomes and on top of that they pay a private health insurance premium. They have lost the tax rebate they used to enjoy on their basic health insurance contributions. They are prevented by law from insuring to cover the gap between the schedule fee for medical services and the Medicare rebate. Therefore they have to meet this expense each time they visit the doctor. They have lost the benefit of a $80m hospital reinsurance subsidy. So despite the fact that they might have insured privately for years, they are restricted in the number of days they can stay in hospital without incurring serious out-of-pocket expenses. Many of those who are privately insured are simply not aware of this restriction , and that is of particular concern to the elderly. The claim that nine out of 10 Australians or two out of three families, whichever claim we believe, will pay less for the same cover was always a fraudulent claim. The Government had no capacity to deliver on this promise, and I take no pleasure in pointing out that millions of Australian families have been cheated by the Prime Minister, the Minister for Health and the Australian Labor Party. Let us examine another Medicare claim. The Medicare leaflet states: Medicare will be paid for by a 1% levy on your taxable income. Again, this claim is simply untrue. As the Budget Papers demonstrate, the one per cent levy on taxable incomes will raise, we are told, $1,191m in 1984-85. That is approximately $1.2 billion. I estimate that the total cost of our health system to Federal and State governments will be somewhere between $9 billion and $10 billion, of which the Commonwealth will provide $5.5 billion from taxpayers' funds in this financial year. So the Medicare levy of one per cent pays for about one-eighth of total Government expenditures on health, both Federal and State, or about one-fifth of the Federal expenditures. On any reasonable definition of Medicare expenditures, the claim that the levy pays in total for such expenditures is fraudulent. Were such a claim made by a private organisation in the course of business the proprietors would be prosecuted under the Trade Practices Act. If it were in a prospectus, which is more akin to the Medicare literature, those responsible would be prosecuted under section 125 or 126 of the Securities Industry Code. Let me take the most charitable interpretation of the claim that Medicare will be paid for by the one per cent levy. The narrowest possible definition of the costs of Medicare would be the increase in medical and hospital benefits resulting from the nationalisation effects of Medicare. The Budget Papers tell us that medical and hospital benefits have risen by $2,021m, compared with the old scheme. The levy brings in $1,191m, leaving a shortfall of $830m. Thus a secret additional levy of $830m, equivalent to 0.7 per cent of taxable personal income, is being taken from taxpayers to pay for Medicare, even on this narrowest definition of additional costs. It is clear that the one per cent levy relates to no particular expenditure. It is a meaningless figure in all but one sense, and that sense is its role in creating an illusion of low cost for our national health. The Minister's commitment to maintain the levy at one per cent is therefore quite meaningless. While he takes our money openly at the counter, at the same time he is secretly milking our bank accounts of the funds he needs to keep the shop open. People did not realise that the plastic Medicare card was not a guarantee of health care; rather is it the Hawke Government's version of instant money transfer, secretly transmitting money from the taxpayer to the Treasury. Let us take a look at the weekly effect of Medicare on the finances of a family which has maintained its private hospital cover after the advent of Medicare. I give as an example a family consisting of a man, earning the average weekly male earnings for Sydney of $384 a week, with a dependent spouse. I have taken that example just to get that income figure but I could take the double income family or any combination of incomes adding up to $384 a week. The average weekly cost of health insurance on the most commonly used private table of three major funds in New South Wales, after deduction of the 30c in the dollar tax rebate applying before Medicare and allowing for the consumer price index adjustments to insurance rates to bring them up to an assumed May 1984 level, was $11.56 a week for that family. After Medicare the average weekly cost of the three funds for the same level of private cover excluding medical cover, which is now covered by the levy, is $8. 77. Of course there is no tax rebate. Add to this the one per cent Medicare levy of $3.84 a week plus the secret levy of 0.7 per cent, that is $2.69, and we get a weekly outlay in total of $15.30 against the original $11.56. Thus the additional cost to that family is $3.74 a week. I have not taken into account the likely additional cost of meeting the uninsurable gap between the schedule fee and the Medicare rebate for medical services, which could add quite substantially to the extra costs if there was chronic illness in such a family. Some might ask why we should continue with private hospital insurance when the Medicare leaflet told us: If you go to a public hospital, Medicare will provide free accommodation and treatment by doctors appointed by the hospital. One obvious reason why people would want to maintain private cover is that they would wish to choose their own doctor or to change their doctor if they were dissatisfied. Anyone who has gone through a period of serious illness and has not been totally satisfied with the attention received will understand why so many people consider being able to choose their doctor worth the extra insurance cost. However, those who have met the extra cost rightly become infuriated when they find that a person on equal or greater income who has not insured privately is charged nothing for a public hospital bed, while the insured person, through his or her insurance fund, is charged $80 a day by the same public hospital for the same kind of bed. If one lives in a country area not served by a public hospital one is in real trouble. The Government made no arrangements to provide for Medicare patients in community hospitals such as bush nursing hospitals before making its fraudulent promises to provide care on the production of the card. Mr Lloyd —And they pay the same taxes and the same Medicare levy. Mr CARLTON —As my friend the honourable member for Murray says, those in country areas pay exactly the same taxes and levy but they do not get any service. Even in areas served by public hospitals the promise of a free bed is not always met. The bed may be free, but it is available only at the end of a queue. In Victoria at the moment there are 8,000 patients on waiting lists for public hospitals. I visited the City of Ballarat recently. Four hundred patients were on the waiting list for the Ballarat Base Hospital, all uninsured patients, all coming along with their Medicare cards and wanting to receive the service promised to them by the Federal Minister for Health. They are still on that waiting list. Before Medicare, there was no waiting list at the Ballarat Base Hospital. Now there is a waiting list of 400, all uninsured, mostly elderly, sick people. There is a good private hospital at Ballarat, the St John of God Hospital, which could accommodate these people. People who have given up private insurance are going to the public hospital and taking the place of those pensioners and the poor. A two-year waiting list for orthopaedic work in public hospitals is reminiscent of what has happened in the British national health scheme. It provides free health at the end of a queue for the poor and the inarticulate. The organised and the articulate will manipulate the system to get ahead of the queue. Influence is used. That same influence is being used every day already in Australia to get around the Medicare rules. I know of many people who are doing that. Those who can afford private insurance are occupying the beds that the poor and the inarticulate cannot obtain. Those who are most in need are left out in the cold. The promise of a free bed is fraudulent. The $80 charge to the insured is unfair under our 'simplest and fairest health scheme ever'. The Health Minister in his letter to those compulsorily enrolled congratulated them on becoming members of this compulsory scheme and said: You are now enrolled with Medicare, the simplest and fairest health insurance scheme Australia has ever had. Is Medicare simple? Whereas previously Australians could get all their health insurance in the one place at the one shop, if they now wish to continue with private health cover they have two-stop shopping. They have to go to the private health insurance office and also to a Medicare office. Medicare offices are few and far between. We heard this morning the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) point out that in the north of New South Wales people have to go hundreds of kilometres if they wish to attend a Medicare office; otherwise, they have to depend on the decrepit Post Office. Is Medicare fair? The chronically ill cannot insure for the gap. They find it difficult to pay for the gap. There is a $150 limit, but it applies only to individual patients. If there are a number of children in a family it is necessary for each one to get to the limit before claiming the 100 per cent rebate. In addition, we find that this is administratively complicated. Unless one pays the full bill with the receipt before going to the Medicare office it is devilishly complicated to get that gap recorded in the computer. If it is not recorded, it does not apply. Is it fair when the elderly and the chronically ill, after years of membership of funds, find that because of the reduction in the government reinsurance subsidy of $80m they have not complete private cover as they expected? When they are most in need they find that there are limits to the number of days that they are privately covered, even though they have paid into funds for years. Is it fair when the long term sick, many of them elderly, are forced out of public or private hospitals under the 35-day rule or have to pay a great deal out of pocket? Is it fair that doctors are threatened with a $5,000 fine or five years in gaol if they incorrectly sign the section 3B form under the 35-day rule to say whether or not a person is in need of acute care? This 35-day rule was based on economics that appeared to be sound, but it was brought in without any plan as to where these people are to go if they have to leave the private or public hospital after the 35 days have expired. In a provincial hospital just recently, I was told that the administration found the covering of the section 3B certificates almost impossible administratively. The patients themselves were ticking off the 35 days and asking each day how many days they had to go. That is cruel to those kinds of people. The rule was brought in as an economic measure without any concern for its effect on people. At the same time, there has been a freeze for 15 months on nursing home bed approvals. New guidelines have now come in; they are almost impossible for anybody to comply with. In effect, there is still a freeze on new nursing homes. The extra domiciliary support that was promised is non-existent. Chronic psychiatric patients are being forced into astonishing expense because of the categorisation of private hospitals and the fact that the subsidies for their beds have been reduced. Thus, Medicare is not cheap; it is not simple; and it is not fair. It has been fraudulently advertised and incompetently and cruelly administered. Medicare is a giant step towards the nationalisation of health. Medicare is also damaging the whole system of health care delivery, built up to a very high standard over the last century. It is destroying the motivation of those working in the system to provide good service and to achieve excellence. Public hospital budgets have been squeezed to the point of inefficiency, poor patient service, and loss of staff morale. Private medical practitioners, whose contribution to health care is a vital ingredient of the quality of the Australian system, have been attacked professionally and financially and subjected to unwarranted abuse by the Prime Minister, who compared them with the Builders Labourers Federation, and by the Federal Health Minister and Labor State health Ministers. Medicare has provoked the first doctors' strike in Australia's history and State legislation to complement Medicare has led to mass resignations by doctors . Bulk billing by doctors has been extended beyond necessity, turning doctors into employees of the Government rather than professional consultants to the patients, reducing doctors' incomes quite unfairly and tempting patients and doctors into excessive use of medical services. The campaign against fraud and over-servicing has been turned into a crusade, with the vast majority of doctors going about their work ethically and professionally feeling threatened and unjustly tarnished in popular esteem. Private hospitals have been brought under arbitrary Federal control by a categorisation scheme that has no logic with the threat of financial loss and ultimate nationalisation. By discouraging self-provision and increasing the proportion of health funding provided by the taxpayer and also by removing disincentives to overuse of services at the doctor-patient level, Federal and State Labor governments have created a system that has become obsessed with cost at the expense of quality, security and comfort. With fewer private dollars going into the system and with more calls in the Budget to meet health costs, Labor governments have centralised control and tightened the screw on expenses without knowledge of, or regard for, real patient needs. This is a system run by bureaucrats and bookkeepers without feeling for the patients, the doctors, the nurses or other health professionals and health workers who have to make the system work. What has this Budget done to deal with the problems that have become evident during the first six months of Medicare? It is painfully clear that the poor, the sick and the elderly were not present when the Australian Council of Trade Unions dictated the outline of the Budget. Under the accord, Medicare is required to provide free services, so called, to many who could afford to take out private insurance, leaving the poor and the elderly in a queue. The Budget is notable for the absence of measures to deal with these problems caused by Medicare. No special provision is made for reducing queues of uninsured patients in public hospitals to help the 8,000 on waiting lists in Victoria alone. The hospital reinsurance subsidy, cut from $100m to $20m last year, remains at $20m for 1984-85, a cut in real terms of about 6 per cent. It is the cut in reinsurance subsidy that has forced the health funds to limit the hospital cover of contributors to a set number of days each year. People who have insured privately for years have lost their security. There is no provision for additional nursing home care to cater for those thrown out of hospital under Medicare's 35-day rule, thus leaving the chronically ill-most of them elderly- with nowhere to go. The long promised scheme for medicines for the chronically ill has failed to materialise despite the continuing promises by the Minister for Health. The $ 300m home and community care program for the aged and disabled announced in the Budget allocates only $10m of the $300m in new programs spread between two departments, Health and Social Security, to be spent in 1984-85. Thus, 17 months after taking office, the Hawke Government has nothing to show against its election promises on care for the aged and will still have nothing to show by July 1985. This Health Minister, as proved by this Budget, has turned the whole system upside down when the one worthwhile objective of Medicare, universal insurance cover, could have been achieved leaving the existing system in place. He has attacked the medical profession without cause and on bad evidence as the Penington inquiry shows and caused the first doctors' strike in Australia's history. He has removed the security of the sick and the elderly, the most vulnerable in our community, and left them out in the cold and at the end of a queue. This Minister has failed in his task; he should be replaced. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Hunter)(11.54) —I wish to make a number of general observations about the Budget and I am certainly not going to be side-tracked by some of the hypocritical statements I have just heard from the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). The only comment I wish to make on his speech is to remind the House and the community generally that as a result of the dismantling of Medibank, which he and his Government undertook during those seven disastrous years that they were in government, we finished up inheriting a situation in which three million people in Australia were left without any type of medical cover at all. There was the prospect of those people on low incomes with large families finding themselves saddled with medical expenses and bills that they could not possibly handle. Liberal and National Party members, who have been quite rightly relegated to the Opposition benches now talk about the sick and infirm and about low income earners, while their chief concern is now, always has been and always will be to protect and nurture the privileged sections of the Australian community. They do this by mouthing platitudes about the sick, the infirm and the poor. They are not only not concerned about them; they also do not even know where they are. In fact, the former Liberal Prime Minister said that he did not believe that there was any poverty in Australia at a time when the Australian Council of Social Service and all independent commentators in the country were indicating quite clearly and with more than substantial evidence that the number of people living below the poverty line in Australia was growing to three million. One person in every five in the Australian community fell below the poverty line as a result of the former Government's disastrous policies. Honourable members opposite should not come into this House and mouth platitudes about the sick, infirm and poor after their policies were responsible for creating the vast majority of those poor people. I wish to make some particular observations about the Budget. By any measure, the economic performance of the Hawke Labor Government and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has been outstanding and remarkable. No government in the history of Australia has ever inherited an economic situation of the kind that this Government inherited in March last year. Not even during the Depression did any government inherit the types of problems that existed in March last year and which this Government inherited after years of Fraser Government. Let me identify that Government clearly so that people are not mistaken about it. It was a government made up of representatives of the Liberal and National Parties, those people who now sit on the Opposition benches. Those are the people who in March of last year were relegated, thrust to the Opposition benches as a result of that very intelligent decision that was made by the Australian electorate at large after seven years of the Fraser Government. That was a government which, incidentally, before the election in 1975 promised to 'turn on the lights'. We all remember the advertisements that they used. 'Are you employed by small business? Will you have a job if the Labor Government is returned? Turn on the lights, vote Liberal'. Madam Deputy Speaker, any light that may have existed in 1975 was utterly and completely extinguished by March 1983. Of course, the Australian electorate became increasingly aware of it. It became increasingly aware that these people who are now on the Opposition benches, who masquerade as the economic managers, were a bunch of incompetents. Not only did they reject Treasury advice in connection with the economic policies that they adopted; they also neither sought nor had recourse to any other source of advice. They were left floundering. They adopted incoherent, incomprehensible, inconsistent, contradictory economic policies, which not only did nothing to bring about a recovery in Australia but actually exacerbated the situation which prevailed and which developed increasingly under their incompetent, incoherent economic management. Mr Donald Cameron —Malcolm Fraser was responsible for the drought, too, I suppose. It did not help us in the recession. Mr ROBERT BROWN —The honourable member for Moreton interjects. Undoubtedly he endorses the economic policies that were adopted. Let him and everyone else realise the situation that he is endorsing and which existed in March last year. The situation can be explained by the following details: First, the percentage of unemployed was measured in double figures. I well remember in 1961 when a government almost lost office as a result of unemployment creeping up towards 3 per cent. Yet on this occasion it took an unemployment rate of 10.4 per cent to make the Australian electorate turn in vengeance against those people who were responsible for it. And turn in vengeance they did. As a result of that vengeance which was wreaked on those incompetents by the Australian electors in March last year, we have a situation in which there are more Opposition front benchers, more shadow Ministers squeezing themselves along that front bench than those who sit behind them. If that situation recurs, as it undoubtedly will at the next election, we, the members on the Government side of the House, will need to take over those benches on that side of the House in order to accommodate us. I was a member of the New South Wales Parliament when we had to do that there. Under the magnificent leadership of Premier Neville Wran we had to spread ourselves on to the Opposition benches. Under the magnificent leadership of Prime Minister Bob Hawke after the next election we will need to do the same thing. So honourable members opposite need to get ready to contract themselves into a corner of the Opposition benches because that is all they will need. Not only did we have a situation in which unemployment reached 10.4 per cent; we also had a situation in which one out of every four teenagers was unemployed. That situation was created by a government led by a Prime Minister who said that there was no poverty in Australia. No poverty indeed! There is no poverty indeed down on that million dollar farm he occupies at Nareen in Victoria. Anyone living in such affluent circumstances, completely isolated, separated, divorced from the realities of Australian society could not and would not know where the people in poverty were. Not only did the previous Government not know them, they had never seen them and they did not believe they existed. Inflation had reached what was almost an all time record. We inherited a situation in which inflation in Australia was running at the rate of 11.5 per cent. Interest rates were the highest they had ever been. Private sector investment had fallen by 15 per cent in one year alone. Housing commencements had fallen to something just in excess of 100,000 per year, when what Australia needed to overcome the backlog in housing, to provide decent accommodation for decent Australian families, was something like 140,000 commencements. What was it? Marginally over 100,000. We had in Australia 250,000 people-a quarter of a million people-living in inadequate accommodation. Those people were looking for decent homes but were living in tents, tin sheds with dirt floors, caravans and humpies. They were living in temporary accommodation. That was the situation brought about by those seven disastrous years. Increasing numbers of people were living in appalling conditions, in the lucky country. It was the lucky country, certainly for some people-for those who were represented by the previous Government. In New South Wales alone 40,000 families were on the Housing Commission waiting list. Liquidations and bankruptcies were occurring in Australia at a rate which had never been surpassed in the history of this nation. Not even during the Depression of the 1930s did we have the number of liquidations and bankruptcies occurring at the time the previous Government was thrown out of office. As I have indicated before, increasing numbers of people were being relegated to poverty-one person in every five, as I mentioned. What a damning indictment of your seven disastrous years in office. Mr Lloyd —How can you say that after what Canon Hollingworth has said about the way in which the position of these people has been worsened by this Budget? Mr ROBERT BROWN —Do you defend that record? Mr Lloyd —You have just increased their problems with this Budget; you haven't helped them at all. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Do you defend it? Mr Lloyd —What falsification; what a hypocrite! Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member for Murray will cease interjecting in such an intemperate manner. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can well understand why he should become so excited about it; he was part of it. The honourable member for Murray voted every time for the policies that that Government adopted. Not once did he vote against them. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will stop being provocative. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I thought I was being remarkably restrained in light of the disastrous situation we inherited. I think the Australian people and this Parliament have been remarkably restrained in light of that disastrous situation . Let me go on. We will remember that members of the previous Government were talking in terms of making their primary objective the reduction of inflation. They inherited an inflation rate in Australia of about 4 per cent, and their primary objective was to reduce it. When they were cast out of government that primary objective had been achieved to the extent that inflation was 11.5 per cent! What a magnificent achievement of their economic policies! As well, for the first time since the Depression of the 1930s, economic growth in Australia was negative. Economic growth declined. The total volume of production in Australia during the last of those seven disastrous years actually fell by 2.5 per cent. The degree of recovery which has been brought about by the economic policies of the Hawke Labor Government could not possibly have been anticipated by any objective, fair commentator. No one-not even a person like myself, who had the greatest confidence in the likelihood of our economic policies proving to be effective-anticipated that the recovery would be as wide, as sound, as firmly based and as sustainable as it is obviously proving to be. I wonder whether any or all of those hundreds of thousands of people who finally brought their votes to us could have anticipated that the success of our economic policies would be achieved with such magnificence. Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not believe that anyone anticipated it. From a situation in which economic growth was minus 2.5 per cent in that last year of the previous Government, the situation has been completely turned around as a result of our economic policies. June on June, for the last financial year, real economic growth proceeded in Australia at the rate of 10 per cent. Never in the history of Australia had economic growth, June on June, reached 10 per cent. But reach 10 per cent it did in the last financial year, and year on year real economic growth reached 6 per cent. That represents a turnaround in the level of economic growth of something approaching 10 per cent between that last year of those seven disastrous years and this first year of renewed confidence that has been brought about as a result of the Hawke Labor Government. Mr Braithwaite —Say something charitable, Bob. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I respond to the honourable member for Dawson; he asked me to say something charitable. I would rejoice at the opportunity of being able to do so. The most charitable thing I can say about those opposite and their policies is that they simply did not understand. I do not believe for a moment that those fellows on the other side of this chamber or the people responsible for their economic policies deliberately set out to bring about a reduction in economic growth of 2.5 per cent. I do not believe that they deliberately set about to have three million people living below the poverty line. I do not think they did those things deliberately. I will be as charitable as I can and say they simply did not understand. And I do not think they have learned. I listened last night to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock)-- Mr Hodgman —A great speech. Mr ROBERT BROWN —A great speech, says the honourable member from Tasmania. Mr Goodluck —Franklin. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Is the honourable member dobbing him in, saying he comes from his electorate? It was just suggested that it was a great speech. Let us just see how great it is. I do not have to make personal comments about it; let us see what the Sydney Morning Herald says. Does anyone here suggest that the Sydney Morning Herald, that flagship of capitalism in New South Wales, is in our pocket? Let us see what it said in its editorial this morning about this speech which the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) refers to as a brilliant speech. It said: In places Mr Peacock's attack on the Government's economic policy is blatantly dishonest. Is that a great speech? Does that reflect well on the Leader of the Opposition or on honourable members opposite? They sat behind him and applauded the dishonesty. The Sydney Morning Herald went on to say this: It is also dishonest to call the Government's personal income tax cuts a 'total fabrication'. It went on further: . . . we still do not have a coherent statement of economic policy from the alternative Government. The most damning indictment of the speech which the honourable member for Denison refers to as a great speech by his Leader, the supposed alternative Prime Minister leading a supposed alternative government, from the Sydney Morning Herald editorial, reads: . . . while vague promises of fair and balanced policies have been winning local government elections for years, they hardly suffice as the economic policy of a prospective Prime Minister. So what did this brilliant speech dish up? We heard the same sorts of things that have been winning local government elections for years. Yet the honourable member referred to it as a brilliant speech. I hope that the Opposition's next leader at the time of our next Budget-it will not be Andrew Peacock and it will be a Labor Budget-will show a little more competence in responding. Where was the alternative Budget from the alternative government? There was not one. Mr Hodgman —Oh, yes, there was. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I would be interested to hear it spelt out. For the first time since 1975 the economic policies that are being pursued by a national government are quite clearly designed to bring about the type of recovery that the Australian people have been looking for. For far too many years the people who could least afford to shoulder the burden were required to carry the burden. They were the people who were sacrificed at the altar of the mismanagement and incompetence of the previous Government. These people, increasingly with all people throughout the whole of the Australian community, look forward to the future with greater confidence. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(12.12) — We all know that the previous speaker, the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Robert Brown), is motivated by the recent redistribution which requires him to change his seat. He has to face a pre- selection council in New South Wales in a few weeks' time, and I suppose his speech could be discounted by that factor. I want to comment briefly on some of the statements and observations of the honourable member. It is totally unfair to blame the previous Government for all the ills this nation suffered. Mr Robert Brown —You created it. Mr DONALD CAMERON —We created it? Is the honourable member trying to say that we created the drought? Is he trying to suggest that we created the recession that swept the world? Whether we like it or not, Australia is affected by the world economic climate. It is interesting to note how the electorate behaved back in 1929 when Australia, like the rest of the world, was moving into a world recession. At that time, the Bruce Government was turned out of office because the people were desperate for something that they believed might turn the tide. I am suggesting that the present Government has not quite turned the tide to the extent that we are being led to believe. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is scurrying to the polls this year before the facts of life on how Australia is truly performing become known to all Australians and before the fate that beset us in March 1983 besets the present Government. The honourable member for Hunter , with his three-piece suit and gold chain hanging out of his fob pocket, is not representative of the problems, much as he might postulate in this place. Mr Robert Brown —I take a point of order. I do not mind having my three-piece suit referred to, but to say that I have a gold chain hanging from my fob pocket is a serious misrepresentation. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Like the honourable member's speech, it may well be brass. I wish to cover an aspect of this Budget which I believe is very important to all working Australians. If Australia is to prosper, those in the work force need to have an incentive and a reason for working. Further, if Australia is to have the capacity to care for its aged, its unemployed, its invalids, and the unfortunate sections of the community, the nation needs wealth and productivity. I go further and suggest that the Hawke Government is not just pulling down the tall poppies, it is smashing the middle income earners and reducing their standard of living. One of the reasons for this is that Labor governments, on gaining power, cannot help themselves when it comes to controlling the desire to spend, spend, spend. We all know of people on good incomes who never have a bean in their pockets because they cannot help themselves and they spend and spend. The Government could well be compared with a kid with his hand in the cookie jar. However, unlike the kid, when the jar is empty this Government goes out and taxes and taxes. I will cite a few examples. Expenditure on health under this Budget is up 40 per cent, or $1,700m. Expenditure on culture and recreation is up 20 per cent, and expenditure on something the Government calls legislative services is up 53 per cent. Expenditure on administrative services is up 21 per cent to nearly $2,000m. I guess a lot of that expenditure has been put aside to cover the cost of the 36 extra politicians, their offices and staff, this Government has created. Even more significantly, public debt interest is up 29.4 per cent. Mr Hodgman —How much? Mr DONALD CAMERON —Almost 30 per cent-from $4.3 billion to more than $5.5 billion. In this time of economic difficulty, this Government has absolutely no hesitation in going out and implementing as many spending policies as it can. There is no control on spending. During discussion on the 1983-84 Budget the Prime Minister and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) screamed and cried about how the previous Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), had mismanaged the economy and allowed the deficit to blow out to $9.6 billion. In reality, the deficit came down to about $5 billion. Yet the Government in last year's Budget undertook additional expenditure of $2.5 billion. This has all led to more and more taxation. As I said a few minutes ago, we have an obligation to the aged, the unemployed, the invalids, and the people who are in tragic circumstances. However, if this nation is to provide for the needy as it has in the past, there must be an incentive for those in the work force to keep working and to realise their expectations of improving their lot in life as a result of that work and effort. The Hawke Government is not only eroding expectations but also eroding the ability of people to provide a better lifestyle. The new tax scales, in combination with the new tax thresholds, will mean that the majority of people working overtime will be paid on the basis of 'one for you, Bob, and one for me' . Well may the honourable member for Hunter laugh. The facts of life are that $1 out of every $2 that a person earns in overtime will be lost by way of taxation. I will put a $20 note on the table. It is a case of '$10 for Bob and $10 for me' . We all remember the Prime Minister's promise of just 18 months ago that 99 per cent of Australians would pay less tax. So much for the Sydney Morning Herald editorial referred to by the honourable member for Hunter. We are all being dragged under. This Government is killing the will of people to work. In recent weeks we have seen the spectacle of some Public Service unions demanding of certain State governments that their members be allowed to work part time, that the wife and the husband each be allowed to work for 20 hours a week. When we combine the advantages of income splitting in terms of tax obligations, it is understandable that so many Australians now want to opt out of the work force. The fact is that working now carries a penalty-the penalty of heavy tax. In 1979-80, just five years ago, a person on average weekly earnings of $234 a week, or $12.000 a year, was $4,600 off paying the 47c in the dollar which he now pays in tax plus the Medicare levy. What I am saying is that five years ago a person on average weekly earnings was almost $5,000 off having to pay tax at the rate of 46c or 47c in the dollar. I notice that the honourable member for Hunter acknowledges that that is fact. Today the average weekly wage, which has gone up over the five years due to inflation and other factors, is $383, which represents a yearly income of $19,896, that is, just under $20,000 a year. That means that the average weekly income earner-I refer to the brickie, the carpenter, the car mechanic and even the honourable member's secretary who is on a salary of about $21,000 a year-is now in the tax range that once applied to Second Division public servants, government-employed doctors, Federal politicians, lawyers, A grade journalists, merchant bankers and a large number of other high fliers. That demonstrates how the situation has changed in just five years. People have been jettisoned into the higher income tax range. I do not say that the Hawke Government is totally responsible for those figures , but when one takes that situation against the promise that 99 per cent of the people would pay less tax it is fair to observe that one of the reasons Malcolm Fraser was removed from office in 1983 was because people had had a gut full of high taxes. The promise that 99 per cent of the people would pay less tax appealed to them. But instead of eliminating the problem and correcting the situation, this Government has pushed more and more people into the 46c in the dollar, plus one cent in the dollar for Medicare, income tax level. There has been another sleight of hand. If the $19,500 threshold had been adjusted in accordance with the Government's promise, people earning $26,500 a year would have just moved into the 46c in the dollar income tax level. Now the Government has spun in another level, 48c in the dollar. It has upped it again. So much for the Government's tax promises. I do not suggest for a moment that the plight of the average weekly income earner can be compared with that of someone on $250 a week who is also paying off a bank or building society loan on his home, but this Government is not just knocking off tall poppies in true socialist style; it is also rapidly strangling this nation's middle income earners. The Government's promise of March 1983 to the people who elected it lies in tatters around this chamber and across the nation. As I said at the beginning, the Government cannot help itself when it comes to spending. Last year's Budget contained an expenditure of $2.5 billion for new programs. Australia's real rate of inflation over the past 12 months has been about 8 per cent, but Government expenditure this year will be 13 per cent above last year's figure. So in real terms the Government is spending more than $3 billion over that spent last year. When one adds that $2.5 billion new expenditure contained in last year's Budget to the extra $3 billion plus this year, one sees that the Government could have virtually eliminated the deficit. My comments on that aspect cease forthwith. I want to speak on another very important subject. Over recent months this Parliament has been subjected to claims by the Government as to how well the economy is doing. Mr Robert Brown —Remarkably. Mr DONALD CAMERON —The honourable member for Hunter even believes it himself. We do not have that many indicators to prove or disprove claims such as that. Day after day in this place the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) cites figures in a parrot- like fashion. He started off by saying that the Government had created 100,000 new jobs. Then the figure went up to 150,000, to 170,000, to 280,000, or whatever it is now. One can never quite keep up with it. Recently, Federal members and senators of the Liberal Party from Queensland conducted a survey throughout my home State of Queensland. We approached the survey on the basis that Senator Martin would be responsible for the cities of Toowoomba, Rockhampton and Gladstone; Senator MacGibbon would be responsible for Cairns and Townsville; the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) would be responsible for Brisbane; the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) would be responsible for the Gold Coast, and yours truly would be responsible for my electorate of Moreton. Mr Robert Brown —I will bet you cooked the figures. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Perhaps that is how the honourable member's Party operates; his Party is always cooking the figures. This was a fair survey. The results from 690 respondents were handed over and collated independently. Madam Deputy Speaker, may I incorporate in Hansard a table showing the results of the survey? For the information of the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes), who is at the table, the incorporation of the document was organised earlier. It was cleared with the Clerk and Mr Speaker. Before everyone starts wondering what is going on I ask them to accept my assurances. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Leave is granted. Mr Scholes —It has not been cleared with me, and if I say 'no' it will not go in . Mr DONALD CAMERON —Ministers come and go from the table. The matter was cleared with the Minister's predecessor. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I am sure that my direction can be accepted. The table read as follows- Question 1-The general business climate over the next twelve months was assessed by our 690 respondents to be most likely to: improve: 27.7 per cent remain the same: 42.0 per cent decline: 19.6 per cent those unsure: 15.7 per cent Question 2-Our respondents' own experience over the last twelve months: improve: 45.8 per cent declined: 29.8 per cent stayed the same: 24.4 per cent Question 3-The 45.8 per cent of businesses which improved in the last year attributed it to: more aggressive marketing: 51.6 per cent improved economic conditions: 23.5 per cent ending of the drought: 11.0 per cent other factors: 13.9 per cent Question 4- IMPROVED- 7.70 per cent had improved by between 1 and 10 per cent 21.7 per cent had improved by between 11 and 20 per cent 15.3 per cent had improved by between 21 and 30 per cent 6.8 per cent had improved by between 31 and 40 per cent 2 per cent had improved by between 41 and 50 per cent 7 per cent had improved by between 51 per cent or more. DECLINED- 17.4 per cent had declined by between 1 and 10 per cent 7.2 per cent had declined by between 11 and 20 per cent 10.6 per cent had declined by between 21 and 30 per cent 4.3 per cent had declined by between 31 per cent or more. Question 5-80.4 per cent of the businesses surveyed have customer accounts. Of these, fully two-thirds (65.3 per cent) have found that customers are taking longer to pay than they were a year ago. Question 6-The ''longer to pay'' aspect had the following effect: marginal: 66.2 per cent considerable: 25.7 per cent substantial: 8.1 per cent Question 7-Concentrating on manufacturing and processing companies, we found that utilisation of productive capacity was: satisfactory in 55.7 per cent of cases unsatisfactory in 44.3 per cent of cases. Question 8-Businesses were asked as to the single most important factor limiting their ability to produce or sell more. This was found to be: lack of demand: 47.7 per cent labour: 6.2 per cent labour costs: 25.9 per cent disputes: 1.2 per cent import competition: 4.6 per cent other factors: 14.4 per cent The 'labour' factor is mostly a lack of skilled or suitable labour. 'Other factors' include cash flow problems, price-cutting etc. Question 9-Compared to the last twelve months, the respondents expect their capital and leasing expenditures in the next twelve months to: increase in 30.5 per cent of cases stay the same 45.3 per cent of cases decline 13.5 per cent of cases spend nothing 10.7 per cent of cases Question 10-Staff numbers over the next twelve months are expected to: increase in 18.3 per cent of cases stay the same 66.6 per cent of cases decline 15.1 per cent of cases Question 11-Over the last twelve months staff members have: increased in 26.6 per cent of cases stay the same 44.9 per cent of cases declined 28.5 per cent of cases Question 12-During the next twelve months businesses expect their profitability to: increase in 36.2 per cent of cases stay the same 41.4 per cent of cases decline 22.4 per cent of cases. Mr DONALD CAMERON —The findings of the survey-I can speak only for Queensland- give reason for grave doubts as to the claims that have been made continually in this Parliament. I refer particularly to unemployment and employment opportunities. I believe one of the greatest curses upon this nation at the moment is the plight of the 600,000 people who are unemployed. Of the 690 businesses which we contacted we found that in 44.9 per cent of cases staff numbers had stayed the same over the last 12 months. There was an increase in staff numbers in only 26 per cent of the cases. A decline was recorded in 28.5 per cent of the cases. What that boils down to is that more employers put off labour in Queensland in the last year than put on labour. The figure is only one per cent, but it does indicate that more employers are putting off labour than employing. That is only one aspect of the survey. The expectations are that in the next 12 months only 18.3 per cent of cases surveyed will put on more staff; 66.6 per cent will stay the same and there will be a decline by 15.1 per cent. Those figures do not indicate good times ahead, at least in Queensland, in terms of the so-called economic recovery. I suggest that the quarter of a million jobs that we are told have been created have been created mainly in the public sector . Mr Robert Brown —No, that is not so. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I inform the honourable member that this is my speech. He had his go previously. That means that if only 50 per cent plus one jobs have been created in the whole of government employment, that allows me to say that more jobs have been created in the public sector than in the private sector. The figures which came from the Department of the Treasury a few months ago confirmed this trend. One cannot get updated figures. Perhaps for some furry reason the Government has stepped on the Australian Statistician and does not want the trends to be made available. The fact is that four months ago far more people were being placed in jobs in the public sector than in the private sector . When I see the growth in the public sector of community employment programs and other job creation schemes, I am of the firm view that recovery is not taking place in the private sector to the extent that the Government would have us believe. The employment of more people by the Government leads to more money needing to be ripped out of the pockets of those in the work force to finance this higher government expenditure and commitment. In the time remaining I point out to the Government that, whilst I support work creation programs and believe that it is far better in terms of morale and a number of other reasons for people to be employed in work creation programs, we need to have a more honest presentation of the real picture across Australia. I know that honourable members on both sides of the House have a propensity for making things look better. But we are supposed to be enjoying a period of consensus and of bringing Australia together, so surely we are entitled to more honesty and we are entitled to receive more of the facts than I believe we are presently being given. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(12.31) —As is evident from the comments of the previous speaker, the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron), the coalition parties continue to play the two-card trick on the Australian people. The Opposition is a pretty shaky coalition of two parties which tell different stories to different people, depending on who is listening. The Liberal Party of Australia is the trendy party and the National Party of Australia is the user party. It hangs on to the coat-tails of the Liberal Party. We know that the National Party now stands for values. The Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) now stands for God and the family. We on this side of the House regard that as a revelation. The Leader of the National Party, of course, is living proof of the old adage that old National Party leaders never die; they just steal away. The National Party conference showed that no policy from that party is worth the paper it is written on. One of its resolutions was almost immediately disowned by the Leader and the relevant spokesman. I want to talk about some of the comments by Opposition spokesmen on the Budget because they have stretched credulity a bit too far. The Australian Labor Party has been in government for four and a half years since 1949. Suddenly, all the problems of the economy are of our creation. It seems to be forgotten-the Opposition seems to assume that people have fairly short memories-that when we came into government this country faced the worst economic situation since the Depression. If anyone does not believe that we are still in a serious economic situation, he has not seriously examined the economy. This Government has made extremely satisfactory progress in turning around the economy. Our achievements have been remarkable. Last night the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) suddenly discovered a lot of economic rectitude, as though the previous Government, of which he was a member, did nothing to create the economic situation that we face. He conveniently ignored the monstrous deficit that we inherited. He conveniently ignored the fact that the tax cuts at the end of Mr Fraser's regime were partially responsible for the deficit that we now have. One of this morning's newspapers has picked up the fundamental dishonesty of his comments. We were left with a massive deficit. We are trying to turn around the economy and our achievements have been remarkable. Let us look at the legacy of the Fraser Government-'small government Fraser' and 'small spending John'. The total debt for the Commonwealth at the change of government in 1975 was $20.338 billion. The interest liability at that time was $1.371 billion. At the end of the life of the Fraser Government the debt stood at $39.128 billion. It virtually doubled in seven years. We now have to pay-and this is contained in the Budget documents-$5.6 billion a year for Mr Fraser's profligacy, and to pay for the resources boom which was pushed down our throats and which never eventuated. Due to Mr Fraser's profligacy, the amount that the Australian taxpayers must pay is now about 7 per cent of gross domestic product. The Opposition says that the tax cut is illusory, but at the same time we must lower the deficit. So where would it obtain the money? Would it wipe out Medicare? Would it wipe out the money that we are spending on housing, education , employment and social security? Those areas cannot be quarantined or isolated from the rural sector. Is the National Party saying that it would spend money in its particular so-called specialist areas, but it would rely on its Liberal colleagues, if they ever return to the Treasury benches, to wipe out all of the spending in other areas that hurts people in Australia, wherever they may live. So on the one hand the opposition says that the Budget deficit should be lower, and on the other it makes profligate promises. Total spending on agricultural and pastoral industries in this year's Budget is estimated to be $316.8m, an increase of $45.5m or 16.8 per cent. Using the same calculations, the mining and manufacturing industry sectors receive a combined amount of $305.6m. The big one-off drop in expenditure this year in regard to primary industries was for drought relief, which has been lowered by $29.2m. We all welcome that fact. It is very difficult to obtain an accurate basis for comparison of year to year expenditure by governments on Australia's agricultural and pastoral industries because of one-off factors such as loans, collections of levies, repayments and disbursements. However, if one consistently and honestly isolates expenditure that distorts the calculations to try to calculate a consistent figure for net expenditure by the Commonwealth, the following figures are produced: In 1981-82 net expenditure was $151.16m; in 1982-83 the figure was $167.5m; and in 1983-84-the first year of the Hawke Government and the first Keating Budget-the figure was $182.7m. This year the calculation is an amount of $211.8m. So expenditure in the agricultural and pastoral industries is increasing gradually and consistently. In other words, there has been no cut by this Government. If we include in the calculation some of the one-off items, such as drought interest rate subsidies, expenditure would be increased substantially. All sorts of comparisons can be given. One comparison of expenditure that was given to me by the Department of Primary Industry-it is not my calculation; it was calculated by the Department-gave net outlays under the previous Government. The lowest was in 1979-80, with a figure of about $78m and the highest was in 1982-83, which included drought subsidies, of $248m. I concede that these figures are distorted but they were calculated on the same base. This calculation shows not only the distortion but also the fact that outlays under the coalition parties varied widely. That is understandable. But let us return to the two-card trick. The Liberal Party says that it wants small government and small spending. But it does not say how this can be achieved. It says the tax cuts are illusory, but it does not say that it will give a tax cut which is double or treble the amount which we have given. The National Party says that the deficit is too large. But it has recently brought out its policy document on agricultural industries which gives, on a conservative estimate, an extra $312m. The Leader of the Liberal Party has agreed with this document. In his comments last night he implied that the figure would be even higher-at least an additional $30m. The National Party composed this document by consulting with rural organisations and composing a wish list. I have analysed the document. It consists of 54 general paragraphs which are uncontentious and contain articles of faith and propaganda-one cannot avoid having motherhood statements in such a document-and 108 specific paragraphs. Sixty-six refer to matters which have been or are being carried out by the present Government or which are not contentious. Seventeen paragraphs use the words 'review', 'encourage', 'if', and 'then', all of which invite the response 'how?'. Two are repetitive, three contradictory and seven complete nonsense, impossible or meaningless. That leaves 13 which are substantive. That is the way I arrived at my figure of $312m extra. First of all, the payment for all export inspection would cost $45.45m. The boost to research and promotion funds would cost a minimum of $5m. The underwriting for the sugar industry would cost $173.27m if one assumes that the Opposition would adopt the Joint Industry Sugar Group's underwriting formula. Mr Braithwaite —That was in 1982 though. Mr KERIN —The additional fertiliser subsidies would cost a minimum of $1m. Mr Braithwaite —You are being dishonest. Mr KERIN —The honourable member had better tell me what formula the Opposition is to use for underwriting sugar. What will be the period? What pools will it underwrite? Will it go for gross or net? What will be the basis of the underwriting scheme? There is no sense promising an underwriting scheme-- Mr Braithwaite —Your candidate did. Mr KERIN —I did not. That is an absolute lie. Mr Braithwaite —Your candidate in north Queensland promised an underwriting scheme in 1982 and I can prove it. Mr KERIN —The honourable member promised sugar for the Ord. Mr Braithwaite —I did not; that is a lie. Mr KERIN —If the Opposition is to promise an underwriting scheme for the sugar industry it has to lay down what is the basis for that scheme. Let us go on to other promises. The reintroduction of income equalisation deposits would imply a revenue loss of at least $4m. We do not know whether the Opposition would go back to an opt-in opt-out situation which would push it up substantially more. It would cut out threshold payments by the States for drought. That would cost $ 28.225m. Increased funds for drought research would cost $4m. Additional funds for soil conservation would cost $6m. To provide $2 for $1 for research would cost at least $20m. The increase in funds to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation would cost $5m. The extra money for wool promotion would cost $5m. Feral animal programs would cost $5m. Adjustment support for fishing would cost a minimum of $10m. This adds up to $312m. This small spending coalition, on top of the net figure this year which can be variously estimated at anything from $211m to $316.8m, would spend an extra $ 312m. This is the two-card trick. The Opposition can say what it wants to say to one interest group and it can talk at the same time about a lower deficit. It can say that tax cuts are illusory, which is nonsense. What the National Party policy reflects is the old handout philosophy, the old idea that to give tax deductibility makes people feel warm inside. It assumes that they have income from which expenditure can be deducted. We know that National Party philosophy is populism. It is the Muldoon approach. We know what a mess he landed New Zealand in. The Opposition has no idea that a government should not be indulging in handouts to the rural sector. It should get into some concept of investment in the future. It should try to invest in those areas of the primary industry sector where there is a long term benefit. It should not provide palliatives to solve immediate issues. It should not give a handout because one part of the sector squeaks; it should have some long term idea about the whole sector across the board. It is areas such as promotion, research and resources into which government investment, the people's investment should go. The National Party did nothing about soil conservation. The National Party in New South Wales at the last election said that it was for the States and it should be settled by tax deductibility if the Commonwealth got involved. The Leader of the National Party said the same thing in a debate in the House. Let us look at resources in the fishing industry. The Ministers for primary industry in the coalition-the Ministers always came from the National Party-did nothing about resources in the fishing industry. Even when stocks had almost reached the point of depletion they still did nothing. This Budget sets out to capitalise on the growth in the economy. Under the Treasurer (Mr Keating) that growth is calculated to increase by 4.4 per cent. Investment will rise; interest rates will come down; employment will go up. We have the lowest inflation for 10 years and the prices and incomes accord will give us a period from April 1984 to April 1985 without any wage rises through the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Under the Fraser Government there was a big wage blowout in 1980-81 of over 14 per cent. There will be no more of that. This Budget is investing in the basics of our primary producing industries so that we can get the industry on a better basis. A reduction in costs is vital if our agricultural and pastoral industries are to survive. It is this reduction in costs that will keep our primary industries internationally competitive and nothing is more important for those industries than the work that this Government is doing with the economy. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 1.46 to 2 p.m. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Treasurer. I refer him to the Budget announcement that there will be a record level of Commonwealth borrowing overseas in 1984-85 because of the Government's decision to have the highest ever overseas deficit of $2.9 billion in the current Budget. Is the Government increasing its overseas borrowings by $378m while reducing its domestic borrowings by $1.6 billion simply to window-dress the impact of its excessive Budget deficit on Australian money markets? As government capital spending overseas this year is rising by only $146m to $1.5 billion, equal to about half the level of overseas borrowings, what is the Government's justification for disregarding concerns already expressed by leading commentators about Australia' s excessive dependence on overseas borrowing? Why is the Government borrowing twice as much from overseas as it is spending overseas on capital items? Mr KEATING —Again I must refer to the disastrous fiscal inheritance left to this Government by the former Government. To bring the monetary policy in on target for the first time in six years, as this Government did to 30 June, we had to sell a lot of Commonwealth bonds not only to finance the Budget deficit, which was as high as it was last year because of the disastrous policies of the former Government, but also, as I said yesterday to the Leader of the Opposition, to mop up the $4,000m of capital inflow to Australia in the first half of the financial year 1983-84. That factor, plus the fact of the grossed bond selling program for 1983-84, does have consequences in terms of the amount of Commonwealth paper which the market is prepared to digest. The Government took the view that as we had a record addition to our foreign reserves as a result of that capital inflow in the first part of 1983-84, and given the earnings which our foreign reserves will in fact accrue, the Government is in the position this year, if it chooses to-we will be looking at this as we move through the year-to run down our foreign reserves, particularly to the extent of the interest earnings upon that capital inflow. Floating of Australian dollar reserves of that order would permit the Government to run them down somewhat and, coupled with the normal kind of borrowing program overseas, which the Commonwealth Government has had under a succession of governments, that would permit a substantial proportion, if not all, of the funding of the overseas deficit in 1984-85. One could argue in theory that if we are not selling another $2.5 billion or $2 .9 billion worth of bonds in the local market to fund the foreign exchange purchases for the satisfaction of the overseas deficit, it is also true to say that we are not funding that amount of liquidity in the economy. So theoretically there should be no change in interest rates in terms of the fact that we are not pumping $2.9 billion in and we are not taking $2.9 billion out. The problem is that the market has to digest so many bonds owing to the disastrous policies of my predecessor. Since we had such a tremendous addition to reserves in 1983-84, the Government thinks that for this year-I emphasise this year-it would be prudent on the Commonwealth's part to run down reserves and borrow abroad in satisfaction of all or part of the overseas deficit. Mr CROSS —I direct my question to the Minister for Housing and Construction and ask him whether he has noted industry reaction to the changes in the first home owners scheme? If so, what is his response? Mr HURFORD —I can tell the honourable member for Brisbane that I have noted the responses of the industry in this matter of changes to the first home owners scheme. I am delighted to be able to add, both for his benefit and for the benefit of the House, that the reactions have been excellent and most helpful. The Federal President of the Real Estate Institute of Australia, Mr Malcolm Gray , applauded the housing measures in the Budget. The federal office of the Housing Industry Association headlined its Press release: 'Budget brightens interest rate outlook'. The South Australian office of the Housing Industry Association is quoted as commending the Government for continuing the first home owners scheme. Certainly some disappointment was expressed at the need to change the first home owners scheme, yet the need for change, as outlined in the statements to which I have referred, was understood. All of this was in the face of articles which were published before the Budget, which were based on rumours and which were frankly quite inaccurate. I ask the people who wrote those articles to go back over what they wrote and to recognise that perhaps before commenting on the next Budget they should be a little more responsible. These informed commentators to whom I have referred recognise three things: Firstly, the wisdom of the Government's overall economic strategy-how cutting the deficit is going to help the housing industry because it will take pressure off interest rates, which is enormously important for the housing industry. Secondly, they recognise that expenditure on the first home owners scheme in the 1984-85 financial year, will be $265m, as opposed to $141m for the first nine months of the scheme in the last financial year. Thirdly, they recognise that in 1984-85 80,000 people in Australia will be helped through the first home owners scheme compared with 55,000 helped during the enormously successful nine months from 1 October last. So that is the responsible outlook. I am pleased to say that responsible leaders of the housing industry recognise that in the statements they have put out. It is very important that they should recognise it because confidence is enormously important to the housing industry. Unfortunately, there has been one exception to this, and I need to draw attention to it. That one exception is the New South Wales President of the Real Estate Institute, a Mr Chris Scott, and the best thing I can say for him is that he has a good first name. Mr Scott —What is wrong with his second name? Mr HURFORD —Down in Hindmarsh they reckon he has a good second name too, but his first name is particularly good. His statement was based on half knowledge, and it led to the Sydney Daily Telegraph yesterday printing something which was inaccurate and damaging. It put on its front page a statement headed: 'Hundreds miss out on homes cash'. The article went on to say: Hundreds of young couples will be unable to go ahead with plans. There is not one young couple in this country which will be disadvantaged, other than in a very minor way, under the changes to the first home owners scheme. The Sydney Daily Telegraph has now acknowledged that what it meant to say was 'young singles', not 'young couples'. Members of the Opposition should follow the details of this scheme. They are merely showing that they have about as much interest now in housing schemes in this country as they have displayed in the past 17 months. Since I have been Minister for Housing and Construction there has been one question on housing from the Opposition in this Parliament. I pay tribute to the honourable member for Paterson, who in April 1983 asked the last question from the Opposition on housing. Of course, the Opposition's policies on housing are attested to by the fact that when we took over the government of this country, the housing commencement rate was running at 105,000 -a 20-year low. Every couple in this country will have an entitlement under the first home owners scheme after the Budget, as was the case before the Budget. I admit there will be some reduction in benefits because of the tapering above $20,000, but it is still available up to the same income limit of $27,900. I want the industry and the Parliament to know that we shall be continue to monitor this industry closely. It is going well in South Australia, Western Australia and Victoria. There is some slight downturn, for one month anyway, in New South Wales and Queensland, but we shall continue to monitor it. Not only will we do that but also we will make alterations if they are needed. However, we can do without inaccurate articles such as this one. We can do without damaging statements such as we had from that New South Wales President. All I can say is that some people in the private sector are their own worst enemies. Mr STEELE HALL —I direct my question to the Special Minister of State and ask: Are there Australian Federal Police files connecting the matter of the drug trafficker Ramon Sala in 1974 with the more recently publicised direction that Mr Saffron's luggage be exempt from Customs search in the same year, 1974? Do those files indicate that the approach by Mr Morgan Ryan on behalf of Mr Saffron to discontinue Customs searches on Mr Saffron's baggage resulted from Mr Saffron 's concern over police evidence linking him with Sala and associate Michelle Senannes? Why was Inspector Dixon's request in 1974 to interview the Attorney- General about this matter not approved? Who prevented that proposed interview with the Attorney-General from taking place? Mr YOUNG —I must say that it is quite extraordinary for the honourable member for Boothby to think that I would have known what was happening with the Ministry and the carrying out of its duties in 1974. It seems that the Opposition is always asking questions about things that occurred under its regime from 1975 to 1983, when all the crooks took over in Australia. Senator Chipp in another place has asked questions about this matter. It is the subject of an investigation. As soon as the investigation is completed, the Attorney-General will make the information available. Mr Steele Hall —I seek leave to table documents on which my question is based, to help the Minister's memory of the files within his possession. Leave not granted. Mr BEDDALL —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Can he inform the House what the reaction of the business community has been to Tuesday night's Budget? Mr KEATING —There has been a generally favourable reaction by the business community to the Budget, I am pleased to report. One of the best ways of demonstrating that is that the all ordinaries index on the stock exchanges rose by 12.5 points to 751.9 points, while the all industrials rose by 11.2 to 1,041. This means that the all ordinaries index was more than 240 points higher than in March 1983 and the all industrials was more than 390 points higher. I will quote from various newspapers. The Australian Financial Review said that the market was being 'led by the favourable Budget news and a rally in Wall Street'. The Australian said that 'several brokers pointed to the Government's tax incentives to the exploration industry and reductions in company charges as bull points contained in the Budget'. The Age said: Prices jumped on Australian sharemarkets yesterday as investors took heart from the good news Budget. The Sydney Morning Herald said: Mr Keating was the toast of the Australian stock exchanges yesterday. That is a point of view with which I heartily concur. All in all, the reaction of the business community was very favourable. The Australian newspaper reported that in a telephone poll which it conducted 52.8 per cent of chief executives or financial controllers believed that the Budget would maintain the economic recovery, while only 7.9 per cent said they thought it would jeopardise it. Those were the ones with their Liberal Party tickets in their pockets. I will also quote some of the major business groups. Sir Arvi Parbo, representing the Business Council of Australia, said: With all the positive signs in the economy and given the need to reduce the deficit this implied no adverse changes in investment conditions. The Budget proposals relating to investment have, on the whole, achieved this. Mr Don Hughes from the Confederation of Australian Industry said that the 1984- 85 Budget was notable for the lack of disruption it would cause to business operations. This, he said, had not been the case in recent years. Mr David Abba of the Sydney Chamber of Commerce said he was pleased to see that the Government was making an effort to boost business confidence in the Australian economy. I did not see any impartial comments from Mr Alan Jones or Mr Alexander Downer on this occasion. They were too busy running around chasing their Liberal Party preselections. Normally we have come to expect and are used to their impartial comments on Government policy. The Housing Industry Association also said that it welcomed reductions in the Budget deficit, combined with Australia's improved inflation outlook. It set the scene for lower interest rates. On interest rates, which are a pretty fair guide in the market to the reaction to the Budget, rates continued to fall on money markets in the wake of the Budget. According to the Australian Financial Review, buyers of Commonwealth Bonds appear to be convinced that rates will continue to ease. Ten-year Government bonds are now trading at 12.6 per cent, down from 13. 85 per cent at the end of last financial year and 14.4 per cent at the end of March 1983, while 180-day bank bills, to which I referred a couple of days ago, were 10.8 per cent yesterday compared with 15.75 per cent in March 1983. I also mention that two days ago Treasury notes fell by around one per cent-on Wednesday, after the Budget. Thirteen-week notes closed at 9.735, while 26-week notes were down to 10.086. So we have not only a rally on the stock market, favourable comments from the business organisations and falls in interest rates, but also the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, in its latest survey of consumer confidence, indicates that consumer confidence in the economy has soared to its highest level for more than 12 years, when the survey was first started. I conclude by quoting Don Stammer, an economist, formerly with the Reserve Bank of Australia and now with Bain and Co., who gives a very learned commentary on the economy, and who said: Overall the Budget was sensible and balanced with a manageable deficit- deserving of many marks out of 10. I will leave members of the Parliament to make their own judgment of the reaction of the business community in terms of the stock market, informed comment and interest rates. It is something upon which the Liberal Party may well ponder. Mr ANDREW —I ask the Minister for Primary Industry whether, since the Hawke Government came to power in March 1983, incomes and employment in grape growing areas have improved? Mr KERIN —No. Mr CHYNOWETH —My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport. Given the high proportion of deaths from head injuries amongst bicyclists and the obvious benefit of reducing this loss of life by the wearing of helmets, does the Minister recall giving an undertaking to the Peninsula Road Safety Committee in the Flinders electorate during his visit there on 2 August 1984 to examine the position on sales tax on helmets? If so, can the Minister inform the House whether sales tax is payable on bicycle helmets and can he inform the House of the ways in which people can be further encouraged to wear them? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for Flinders for his question and for the courtesy extended to me during my visit to his electorate on the date he mentioned. The Government is particularly concerned about the number of fatalities among cyclists, particularly among children. Of the hundred cyclists who have died or are expected to die on our roads this year, about two-thirds are children. Of the number of fatalities among cyclists, four out of five of them are the result of head injuries. So the point that the honourable member raised is very important. If more cyclists can be convinced of the need to wear protective helmets, obviously the casualty rate will be reduced. As I undertook to do in my discussions with the Peninsula Road Safety Committee in the honourable member's electorate, I have sought advice on whether sales tax is applicable to approved protective safety helmets for bicyclists and I am advised that they are not eligible for sales tax. That helps to reduce the cost, but the cost still ranges from some $30 to $50. If a family with young children purchases a bicycle the added cost of a helmet becomes a major item. If more than one bicycle is being bought by a family it becomes an even greater item. There are ways of overcoming that problem. One thing which impressed me during my recent visit to the Flinders electorate was that the Peninsula Road Safety Committee has encouraged groups within the schools to join together in buying groups to buy on a co-operative basis. That has resulted in a considerable reduction in the price of helmets, but even then the price is still considerable . If community groups and other communities could follow the example set by the Peninsula Road Safety Committee in Frankston I am sure that a substantial reduction could be made in the level of casualties among bike riders. I wish to take this opportunity to remind the House of the priority this Government attaches to road safety and to the development of our road networks. Mr Tuckey —Well, why did you tax low alcohol beer? You are driving people away from it. Mr PETER MORRIS —The honourable member is aware that the tax on light beer was reduced. I will now get back to the issue I was discussing. As I was saying, I wish to remind the House of the very important priority we attach to improving road conditions and road safety. That is evidenced by the 31 per cent increase in expenditure for road safety promotion and research. Mr Peacock —Oh, cut it out. Mr PETER MORRIS —It is no good the honourable member opposite complaining about this Government. Road safety was a very poor priority under his Government. Mr Goodluck —He was on the Committee with me and attended the meetings. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Franklin will cease interjecting. Mr Goodluck —Don't start on the Road Safety Committee. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr Goodluck —He attended the meetings. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Franklin. Mr Goodluck —I don't care. Mr SPEAKER —I name the honourable member for Franklin. Mr Young —Mr Speaker, I suggest that the honourable member will cool down and offer his apologies to the Chair. Perhaps we can wait until he cools down and offers his apologies. Mr SPEAKER —I take the point made by the Leader of the House, but I do not think members should feel free to defy the Chair when a request has been made of them. Under the circumstances I will not persist with the request for his suspension. I ask honourable members to pay the Chair courtesy and respect and not to answer back when a request has been made. Mr PETER MORRIS —There has been a 31 per cent increase in expenditure for road safety and promotion and research under this Budget and that evidences the importance we attach to improving road safety. But even though a substantial reduction was made in the level of road casualties last year, there is no room for complacency and this Government has no intention of relaxing its efforts to increase road safety and to reduce the level of road casualties and injuries. Mr SHIPTON —I ask the Minister for Administrative Services, who represents the Minister for Industry and Commerce, whether in 1983, when launching the small business policy of the Australian Labor Party, the Prime Minister said that ' small businessmen would no longer pay tax on profits invested in their companies if the ALP was elected'? Why is it that in this year's Budget, last year's Budget and the mini-Budget, the Government has not honoured this promise or any of its pre-election promises of tax relief to small business? Mr JOHN BROWN —I am pleased that this question has been asked. I have known for the last couple of days that it was coming, having heard the rantings of the honourable member on the grievance debate yesterday. I think it is fair to say that small business in Australia has done ever so much better under this Government than it has done- Opposition members interjecting- Mr JOHN BROWN —Honourable members may well laugh. I happen to have the advantage of being a practising small businessman for 30 years, which is something that no honourable member opposite can ever suggest about himself. What is more, in contrast with most honourable members opposite, I was a very successful one. Mr Shipton —Under the Liberal Government. Mr JOHN BROWN —Under the previous regime the only record achieved for small business was a record bankruptcy rate year after year as small businesses, which happen to be the backbone of the Australian economy, went to the wall. Certainly we made some promises prior to the 1983 election concerning retention of profits and the penalty that is paid to the Australian Taxation Office because of them. We also made some promises in a general fashion to the Australian community that we would improve the economy. I do not think that any honourable member opposite who has a vestige of honesty could suggest that we have not fulfilled that promise. I do not need to illustrate to honourable members opposite the litany of things which the Treasurer has managed to do to improve the economy. Reducing inflation, unemployment and interest rates have been of inestimable benefit to businesses, both small and large. So for honourable members opposite to start dragging out some promise which we have not fulfilled is probably mute testimony to their own stupidity because any person in small business who is in any way honest in his judgment will suggest that in Australia the environment for small business now in 1984 is the best it has been for a decade. Mr Shipton —Have you read what they said about the Budget? Mr JOHN BROWN —I read what was said about the honourable member for Higgins in Inside Canberra. I think it is worth repeating. The Liberal Party recently organised and held a small business conference in Sydney and, as I understand it , delegates were singularly unimpressed. I will not read the first paragraph except to say that it states that John Howard, Nick Greiner, Andrew Peacock and Mr Shipton all spoke about Liberal Party small business policy. The next paragraph makes interesting reading. It states: This week we asked the NSW State President of ASBA, Paul Greenwood, whether there was a connection between his organisation and the Liberal Party. He denied any such connection but added that ''there is a tendency among small businesses to be more free enterprise than socialist''. That is a very profound statement. Mr Greenwood was highly critical of the Sydney conference. He said: As a Liberal myself I am absolutely disgusted that the Liberal Party doesn't have a small business platform . . . The trouble is that Roger Shipton doesn't know what he wants. I know what the electors of Higgins want and I know what they will probably get at the next election-a new member. It strikes me as arrant nonsense for honourable members opposite to come in here and poke fun at this Government's economic performance, which is by far the best in the Western world at this stage and the best practitioners in the small business area have seen in a lifetime. It also strikes me as very odd that people such as Mr Greenwood and a Mr Boyle with whom I debated the subject on radio in Melbourne this morning have come to light in the 18 months this Government has been in power. Where have they been for 31 of the last 35 years when the conservatives ruled over the smallest growth rate and the worst economic performance in the world? They were under their rocks. It is a pity they did not go back there. All the Opposition has to understand is that this Government is providing more prosperity for small business than it has known for a lifetime and will continue to do so. The promises that the Prime Minister made will in time be honoured. The Opposition will just have to wait its turn. Mr KEOGH —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I ask whether he can inform honourable members of the impact of the Federal Budget on Queensland. Mr HAWKE —As distinct from my good friend the Premier of Queensland, Sir Joh, I happen to regard Queenslanders as Australians and so, of course, all Queenslanders have benefited from the Budget in the same way as all other Australians in terms of tax cuts, the assurance of more jobs, more growth, falling inflation and falling interest rates. But my friend Sir Joh has tempted me to become a bit more specific because with that well known tongue and that well known cheek he said, or at least is reported to have said, of the Budget that Queensland had been treated with a fair amount of contempt. I know he did not mean it, but nevertheless he has provoked me to remind the House of just a few of the specific initiatives from which Queensland will benefit. It will not take me long to go through them. First, $61m has been allocated to develop the new Brisbane Airport in the financial year 1984-85. I assure the people of Queensland that this Government intends to complete that new airport in time for Expo 88. In this Budget we have made an initial contribution of $3m for Expo 88. Having put that money on the line, we will then negotiate with the Government of Queensland about our final contribution. Further, we have made the decision to construct a new Family Law Court building in Brisbane at a cost of $41m. Queensland will get $58m under the community employment program. That will mean 11,000 jobs for Queenslanders. Over $50m has been allocated to Queensland for the first home owners scheme. In 1984-85, $259m has been allocated to Queensland for road funding. That is a 44 per cent increase on the 1982-83 allocation. Air services to western Queensland have been subsidised with an amount of $1.2m. In this financial year $500,000 has been allocated to Queensland to subsidise diesel fuel costs to the Great Barrier Reef island tourist resorts. A sum of $ 19m has been allocated for the construction of the Burdekin Dam-our dam! Mr Howard —You pinched it! Mr HAWKE —Just a minute, Johnny; you have had your day. However, the honourable member does provoke me. I remind the House of what the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party was reported to have said last year. It was reported in the Age on 19 August, so it must be right. I am sure that all Queenslanders will remember that he said: I wouldn't have regarded the Burdekin as any more sacrosanct than other areas. I'd have put it into hotch potch with some of the other things. If we talk about Queensland being treated with a fair amount of contempt, I suggest that it was the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, no doubt speaking for the Liberal Party component of the coalition, who treats Queensland with contempt. Mr Speaker, I know you will excuse me if I conclude on the subject of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and what he has had to say about its having no policy on the Burdekin Dam. Just to round it off, I should say that that fact is consistent because a report in yesterday's Daily Telegraph reads: In a meeting at Chifley Square last Thursday of the party's New South Wales defence and foreign affairs committee, Deputy Leader John Howard said 'the Libs have little in the way of policy, would be lucky to hold what seats they have, and could even lose some'. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —I direct my question to the Minister for Science and Technology. How do the Minister and the Government to which he belongs reconcile the increase in money terms of only 1.6 per cent, representing a disastrous real cut in spending on science and technology, to pick up a word from the Australian Academy of Science in the context of this big spending Budget with its overall increase in outlays of 13 per cent-there is plenty of money for everything else- with his constant insistence on science and technology as a major driving force in sustainable economic growth and new jobs, as science and technology surely are? Alternatively, is it true that he threatened or is about to resign? The Minister evidently gets trampled on when the big unions crack the whip at this Government. Mr BARRY JONES —I congratulate the honourable member for Berowra on his question, I think the first he has asked this year as the Opposition spokesman on science and technology. That is an interesting indication of the very high priority the Opposition gives these matters. I thought the question that he asked might in fact be harder. I think it is easy to reconcile. First, we need to recognise that between last year and this year there has been an enormous change in the political climate so far as the funding of science and technology is concerned. Last year, my Department was Robinson Crusoe in this area. This year that is no longer the case. Since last year, the States have become seriously involved in the funding of science and technology. Western Australia, Queensland and Victoria, particularly, are putting many millions of dollars into it and are carrying out programs that to a large extent parallel those that have been developed by the Commonwealth. Secondly, even the much vaunted private sector has now come out of the closet to some extent. It is now starting to put investment into research and development, even in the small business area. It was not doing so before. The banks are much more liberal and flexible in the area than they were. We also have to take into account the amount of Commonwealth revenue forgone in the management and investment companies scheme. That also does not get added to the Budget outlay for science and technology, but it has to be taken into account. In addition, the very significant increase in expenditure in education, particularly in the university sector, has very serious implications for research work. In addition, there are three other major areas for which funds were not required in this year's Budget. These are Landsat which is transferred to the Department of Resources and Energy, Interscan which has now finished the research and development phase and the construction of the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory. I would not pretend that this was an overwhelmingly expansionary Budget in science and technology-- Mr Hawke —But things will get better. Mr BARRY JONES —The Prime Minister assures me, and I would not want Hansard to miss it, that things will get better. That is absolutely correct but it has to be recognised that the Budget-- Mr Sinclair —Is the CSIRO happy? Mr BARRY JONES —Of course it is not happy. The Academy of Science is not happy either and I would not say that I was particularly happy, but I recognise that we live in a political reality. By the end of the year we will have had seven elections in 12 years and it was obvious that there were a number of priority areas which we all agreed to in the overall Budget strategy. There had to be a recognition of the need for tax relief, especially for people on lower income levels. There was a recognition of a need to provide greater social justice for the people at the bottom of the socio-economic pyramid. There was a need to keep the prices and income accord on foot, and also to provide funding in areas where it was possible to do immediate good. The difficulty that I face in my portfolio is that we are dealing with a longer timeframe. In a Budget we are dealing with matters that can be dealt with within a 12-month period. I am concerned about the things for which we make plans for 10, 15 or 20 years ahead, to the year 2000 and beyond. In a democratic society it is inevitable, especially in an election year, that the immediate demands will always win out over long term ones. However in the long term we will all be disadvantaged unless we undertake that long term planning. I believe that that aspect of our Budget processes is seriously defective and I hope it will be redressed in 1985. Ms FATIN —Can the Minister for Health advise whether any decision has been taken on the possible transfer of nurse education from hospital based courses to courses in colleges of advanced education. Dr BLEWETT —I am glad to be able to tell the honourable member for Canning that a decision has been made by the Government and I take the opportunity to commend her for the very constructive and creative role she has played in negotiations for the development of this program. The Government is committed in principle to the transfer of nurse education from hospital programs to colleges of advanced education. Subject to satisfactory transition and cost sharing arrangements with the States, the last intake into hospital based courses will be in 1990, meaning that the phasing out will be completed by 1993. The Government believes that this decision will bring benefits to the health care area. First of all, it will provide a better educated and more flexibly trained nursing profession. Secondly, it will create greater employment opportunities for fully trained nurses. Thirdly, it will bring occupational and vocational benefits, particularly to women. Fourthly, it will certainly help to underwrite the status of nursing as a major profession in the health care field. The timing to which the Government has committed itself is designed to ensure that the transfer of nurse education from hospitals to colleges will take place in a planned and orderly way gradually over the phased period. If this were not so there could be problems with the replacement of trainees taken out of the hospitals by trained nurses and there could be an over-stretching of resources in our tertiary sector. So recognising the need for this, the Government has determined to play a role in its planning to ensure an orderly and proper transfer. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Treasurer. Using the Government's own Budget estimates of the non-farm product deflator and growth in average weekly earnings in 1984-85, is it a fact that an Australian taxpayer on average weekly earnings with a dependent spouse and two children will actually have less real disposable income in 1984-85 than in 1983-84, despite receiving the so-called tax cuts and working more overtime? Mr KEATING —The answer is no. The fact is that a taxpayer will be better off. I indicated yesterday that 2 1/2 million taxpayers will have a lower marginal rate of tax as a result of these progressive tax changes in the system than the Deputy Leader of the Opposition suggests. I wish to make this point because there seems to be a misunderstanding by both the Leader and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. They have tried to put the view about that the only rate that matters is the marginal rate. In fact, every taxpayer in Australia will have the benefit firstly of the tax free threshold of $4,595, then the new tax rate of 25 per cent which cuts in at $4,595 and runs to $12,500. The 30 per cent rate comes in at $12,500-- Mr Sinclair —Disposable income has nothing to do with that. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable Leader of the National Party will cease his interjections. Mr KEATING —While the 46 per cent rate remains, the fact is that there is a lower marginal rate of tax and more taxpayers will receive a cut in their tax. This is a real tax cut and the taxpayer's disposable income will rise as a result. Because of some convoluted logic and arithmetic, the Leader of the Opposition is trying to suggest that disposable income will in fact decline when there is a very real tax cut of $2.1 billion in a full year and $1.3 billion in 1984-85. Mr BILNEY —My question is directed to the Minister for Health, who represents the Minister for Social Security in this House. It relates to the strike by computer operators in the United Kingdom Department of Health and Social Security which is now entering its fourth month. Is the Minister aware of the continuing distress which is being caused to United Kingdom pensioners, many of whom are located in my electorate of Kingston, by the disruption to United Kingdom pension payments resulting from that computer operators strike? Can he outline to the House the measures that have been taken to alleviate the situation of those United Kingdom pensioners, particularly those who rely on that pension for a substantial part of their income? Can he particularly reassure the House that the recent change in the notional rate of exchange which applies to United Kingdom pensions will not disadvantage many of those pensioners who are not receiving the cheques to which the new rate of exchange applies? Dr BLEWETT —I am aware of the difficulties caused by industrial trouble in the British Department of Health and Social Security. I have noted that the honourable member for Kingston has been assiduous at all levels in trying to solve the very real difficulties that have occurred for British pensioners. Since May there has been a strike of computer workers in the British Department of Health and Social Security and this has affected, or has the potential to affect, some 85,000 United Kingdom pensioners in Australia. While those pensioners are no longer getting computer cheques, they should be by now getting their cheques on a manual basis through a system of emergency relief. Let me explain to honourable members because this might be useful for the advice they can give. The British Government has put in place three mechanisms to deal with this problem. First of all, the pensioners concerned can write direct to the British Department of Health and Social Security and ask in return mail for emergency relief which will continue until the strike is settled. Secondly, they can go to British consulates-general which will telex the British Department of Health and Social Security and get an immediate payment of emergency relief, by return mail, which will again continue until the strike is settled. Thirdly, they can go to consuls and there are provisions for immediate relief to be paid for out of funds in Australia. We are aware of the difficulties. The Department of Social Security is closely monitoring the problem and it is maintaining liaison with the British authorities in this country to make sure that particular personal difficulties are resolved. In relation to the other point raised by the honourable member for Kingston, the system of a notional exchange rate is the most effective method for dealing with computer cheques but I should make it clear to all honourable members that if any pensioner finds that there is a difference between the actual exchange rate and the notional exchange rate, he can get a manual assessment. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —For the information of honourable members and with the concurrence of the Governor-General, I present a copy of the amended letters patent relating to the office of Governor-General, together with the text of a statement relating to the document. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —I present the following paper: Advance to the Minister for Finance 1983-84, a statement of heads of expenditure and the amounts charged thereto pursuant to section 36A of the Audit Act of 1901 , and move: That the statement be taken into consideration in the Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —by leave-In making this statement the Government is continuing its practice of announcing the legislation program at the start of each period of sittings to provide a basis for informed and open public debate about major national issues. There would be no stronger indication than that already given by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) that during the current sittings the Government will be building on its proud record of sound economic management and progressive social reform which was established by last year's Budget and consolidated during the autumn sittings this year. This Government has had to tackle during its 17 months in government economic and social problems of a kind not seen in this country for over 50 years. Our program should be seen in this light. Our major objective this sittings will be to provide sufficient fiscal stimulus to maintain the momentum of private sector expansion, including by direct support for business; to provide further improvements in pensions and other welfare payments; and to provide tax cuts which will support the accord, boost family income and stimulate consumer spending-all this while achieving a significant reduction in the Budget deficit. In addition to the key Budget Bills already introduced on Budget night, we intend introducing further Bills to amend the Income Tax Assessment Act, the Income Tax (International Agreements) Act and the Bank Account Debits Tax Administration Act to implement measures announced in or before the Budget. We intend to continue our fight against tax avoidance with Bills to counter trust stripping schemes. In addition to revising the Medicare levy threshold and ceiling we will introduce a Bill to amend the National Health Act and the Health Insurance Act which will, among other things: Alter drug pricing arrangements and encourage provision of respite care in nursing homes. We will introduce a Bill to implement a new Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement which will launch a 10-year assault on housing related poverty. In addition to a further social security and repatriation legislation amendment Bill we intend if time permits to introduce a supported accommodation assistance program to provide support for those in crisis situations and for the chronically homeless. The home and community care part of the aged care package is to be introduced in the autumn sittings next year. We intend to amend the Trade Practices Act by repealing sections 45D and 45E and will be amending the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to provide a mechanism whereby secondary boycott disputes can be dealt with by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. We also intend to introduce a Bill to bring about a major consolidation of all existing veterans' entitlement legislation. The Government will be embarking on major industry restructuring and assistance measures, all of which have already been announced and some extensively canvassed. Briefly, these will include legislation to: Establish an automotive industry authority as part of the revised assistance to the industry. Associated with this initiative will be the introduction of measures to provide support for the design and development of motor vehicles; Revise industry arrangements for the retail marketing of petrol; Amend the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act to facilitate and encourage off-shore petroleum exploration and development activity, and to give effect to the area to be avoided by ships around the Bass Strait petroleum production facilities; Introduce a package of Bills to restructure the wheat marketing and pricing arrangements; Revise arrangements for the fishing industry to introduce a new management policy and further assistance measures; Amend the export inspection charge provisions for meat, dairy products and eggs following review of these procedures; and Revise arrangements for the canned fruits marketing industry. The Government also intends to introduce, if time permits, a package of Bills to reorganise the dairy marketing industry. These will not be passed during the Budget sittings but will provide the opportunity for detailed public debate to take place on a more informed basis. As already announced by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan), the Government will introduce a major item of legislation to revise the system of grants to the States and the Northern Territory for schools assistance . This will be introduced together with States grants bills for tertiary education, as well as Bills to adjust grants levels in line with cost supplementation arrangements. In line with an announcement made last April the Government intends introducing a Bill to amend various electoral, health, social security and education Acts to bring arrangements for Christmas Island broadly into line with those for the rest of Australia. Bills will also be introduced to : Enhance the role, jurisdiction and enforcement powers of the Human Rights Commission; Introduce changes to the supplementary licence scheme for broadcasting and television in preparation for its early commencement; Guarantee borrowings raised by Qantas to purchase Boeing 767 aircraft; Enhance the Commonwealth's ability to collect air navigation charges and introduce separate airport charges; Enable the Empress of Australia to be replaced, thereby ensuring the survival of the Bass Strait sea passenger service; Replenish Australia's contribution to the International Development Fund; Restrict the use of Australian passports to Australian citizens and remove the distinction between immigrants who are British subjects and those who are not; and Implement the report of the Remuneration Tribunal in respect of salaries and allowances following the 1984 general review. In addition, the usual Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill will include a number of matters of minor significance. We will, of course, be proceeding with Bills before the Parliament, including: The Constitution alteration Bills; Defence and repatriation Bills; Conciliation and arbitration; and The six export inspection charge Bills. As always, unforeseen circumstances may give rise to additional legislation, and pressure on parliamentary debating time as well as on the Parliamentary Counsel's time and resources may not enable all of the legislation forecast to come forward as soon as we would like. In addition, the Government may still consider other measures which could result in legislation in the current sittings. However, the program I have outlined continues the direction of reform established by the Government thus far. I commend the Government's program and look forward to the assistance of honourable members from both sides of the House for its implementation. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —by leave-The Opposition endorses the concept of a statement of this order which gives some idea of the intended legislative program. However, a number of aspects of this particular program need commenting on. The first relates to the comments today by the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones), who indicated yet again to us that this is an election year and we can expect anything and perhaps all things from this Government for the purpose of trying to achieve electoral success without really knowing whether or not it will achieve it. The Leader of the House (Mr Young) in his introductory comments showed further indication that that is his intent. His peroration referred to economic and social problems of a kind not seen in this country for over 50 years. The economic problems, of course, were significantly better because of the actions of the previous Government. The breaking of the drought, beyond all other factors, contributed very much to the improvement in economic conditions. This rather contrasts the beneficial aspects of the economy with almost every other period during the last 50 years. So one does not look at that peroration in anything other than a somewhat critical manner. Certainly there are social problems. One of the saddening parts of this program is that there is little in mind that is going to overcome the difficulties for private employers in trying to regenerate employment opportunities so that the business community can again make profits and employ people. Sadly, nothing in this program is going to improve that position. The program contains some very interesting contrasts. One of the omissions concerns the means test. One can only be appalled that it is not in the statement; it may be in the very vague phrase on page 2, where the Minister refers to a further social security and repatriation legislation amendment Bill. There is no indication of an intention to introduce into the House a package of means test proposals that will finally lay to rest the total uncertainty of everyone in the community about social welfare benefits. I would have thought that that would have been one of the very first measures introduced in this Budget session. Unless this legislation is covered in that embracing phrase I am afraid that every pensioner in Australia will be left in a continuing state of uncertainty about whether or not his pension will be ripped from him, whether the government pension policeman is going to knock on his door, or whether there will be yet another category of means tested items which will deny the pension to yet another group of pensioners. Frankly, it is totally unacceptable to exclude that from this Budget program. The intention to amend the Trade Practices Act by repealing section 45D and section 45E is another proposal that we on this side of the House deplore. There is little doubt that there are many abuses of the industrial system by the big and powerful trade unions. Only in the last few weeks there have been attempts to blackball a number of fuel wholesalers throughout New South Wales on the basis that they require employees to join the trade union movement before they receive future supplies of fuel. There are other indications in other parts of Australia that those same malpractices are taking place. Any proposal to weaken in any way the necessary legislation to protect the rights of employers, disadvantaged consumers and, of course, individual trade unionists is absolutely unacceptable to this side of the House. I note that there are a number of interventionary pieces of legislation in mind in respect of the industry packages. The Opposition parties will be looking at those very closely when they come before us. I note that in one area affecting primary industry there is to be amending legislation with respect to the export inspection charge. I dare to suggest that there will be no change in those very onerous increases affecting meat exports that have already been introduced by Labor in government. Every meat exporter in this country is in a state of total uncertainty about the future because of the rate and measure of the increased charge. I suggest that those measures, when introduced into this Parliament, will need to provide some reduction if there is to be any price competitiveness, and that, again, I rather doubt. I notice from page 4 of the statement that we are to see another bit of electoral rigging to try to ensure that the present honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves) is able to resist the onslaught from the very distinguished Chief Minister of the Northern Territory by including Christmas Island in the division of the Northern Territory for electoral purposes. What an incredible set-up this is. There are a good many island territories around Australia. Yet legislation is to be rushed precipitately into the House to enable Christmas Island to be included in the electoral division of the Northern Territory at the next election because the Australian Labor Party thinks it has a few votes there. I wonder why it does not do the same with Norfolk Island or perhaps Heard and Macquarie Islands? There are any number of other islands one can think of. But, oh no, Christmas Island happens to have a few potential Labor voters. I hate to disillusion honourable members opposite, but I rather suspect that by the time the people up there have met Paul Everingham they will realise that in him they have a jolly sight more effective champion than any Labor candidate would be. I think the results of the election, as the honourable member for the Northern Territory already knows, are already well and truly understood by everybody who knows the electoral realities in that part of the world. Finally, I notice with some pleasure that legislation is to be introduced to provide supplementary licences for broadcasting and television. This is an advance which we in the coalition parties welcome. It is something that follows initiatives taken some little while ago, when I was Minister for Communications. I welcome the fact that this legislation is to be introduced. There are, of course, many other pieces of legislation in this program. We will all be interested to see how long and how often the House sits in order that the legislation can be passed. Having heard from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that he is about to announce the election date, and having had that confirmed today by the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones), we can all expect that there will be a precipitate rush to the polls. The disarray that is emerging day by day within the Australian Labor Party suggests that that short term electoral popularity which at least the pollsters suggest the Government enjoys will not last for very long at all. I rather suggest that the consequences of its Budget and of this program will add significantly to the Government's disadvantage whenever the election is held. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —by leave-In his report on the financial statements of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust for the years ended 30 June 1981, 1982 and 1983 the Auditor-General expressed strong criticisms of its operations. As a result of these reports I took a number of actions. I granted leave of absence to Mr R. Hammond, the Chairman of the Trust, whose actions had in particular attracted the attention of the Auditor-General. I established an enquiry conducted by Mr John Monaghan, a Commissioner of the Public Service Board and now Auditor-General designate, whose report was presented to me on 30 March 1984. This report has been tabled in the Parliament. A working party which included representatives of the trade unions has considered a range of matters and an enquiry has been completed into the possible need for disciplinary action. Both those reports have been made available to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, which has under reference matters relating to the Trust. When all the evidence is in, when all the reports have been considered, when I am confident that all views have been fully taken account of and mature judgment has been exercised, I will bring before this House a comprehensive plan to secure the future well-being of the moneys in the care of the Trust. For the moment I can inform the House that the Trust has assured me that the Trust's operations are proceeding normally, its investments continue to be profitable, and there is no substance to reports that its funds are at risk. Meanwhile, Mr Hammond has offered to resign as Chairman and I have indicated my agreement with that course of action. I have made it clear that I do not hold him guilty of any improper or reckless conduct in the conduct of the investment program of the Trust. On the contrary, I accept the conclusion of Mr Monaghan, which stated: . . . neither the (decision-making) processes as such, nor their application in the specific investment projects examined by the inquiry, indicate recklessness or incompetence in making investment decisions. I am reinforced in this conclusion by the written submission of the current Trust to the Senate Finance and Government Operations Committee. The Trust states unequivocally: . . . the current Trust agrees that there is nothing dishonest on a large scale . It also wishes to make clear that, equally, there is no evidence of dishonesty on a small scale. The Trust also points to this conclusion of Nobel Lowndes Australia: in the period from 1 July 1976 to 30 June 1983, the Trust's performance in the property, shares and short term investment sectors, was superior to the notional performance of two of the largest life office funds . . . In that sense, Mr Hammond has done the job he was appointed to do. The much quoted low earning rate of the Fund is due entirely to the huge losses suffered through the investments made before the Trust was established. Some specific allegations about Mr Hammond's actions have been made in evidence to the Senate Finance and Government Operations Committee by the former Chief Investment Manager of the Trust. The most damaging allegations related to the acceptance of gifts by Mr Hammond. I will table at the end of this statement a document prepared by my Department demonstrating that Mr Hammond in all cases followed the correct procedures. On the two other specific allegations, one relating to the minutes of Jen Pty Ltd, and the other to a letter sent to the Imperial Services Club, I am advised by both my Department and the current Trust that, although the wisdom of these actions may be questioned, no harm has been done and no further action is necessary or contemplated. Both Mr Brigden and Mr Monaghan have pointed to weaknesses in the internal administration of the Trust. There were undoubtedly mitigating circumstances arising from matters. such as staff ceilings, which were outside the control of the Trust. The final allocation of responsibility for these weaknesses is still to be resolved. In the meantime, Mr Hammond has acknowledged weaknesses in the system and in a spirit of co-operation has asked to be relieved of the Chairman's responsibilities so that the management structure of the Trust can be strengthened and upon the basis that it will enable him to devote more of this time to the supervision of some important projects. The current Trust has proposed that from the date of his resignation as Chairman Mr Hammond should be temporarily employed in a consultancy capacity to ensure continuity, in particular, in the management of the very large Grosvenor Place project. Mr Hammond's rights will be fully protected as if he had served his full term as Chairman of the Trust. I have indicated that I am quite happy with this arrangement as an effective way of utilising Mr Hammond's skills. As I indicated I would do earlier, I now table the document relating to gifts. Mr MOORE(Ryan) —by leave-The statement which has just been made by the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) is the second statement regarding the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust. I am no better informed than the rest of the people of Australia who have read the comments which have appeared in the financial newspapers from time to time as a result of the inquiry of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. I point to two matters relating to the operations of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust: Firstly, administration and, secondly, investment. In the area of administration, it is quite clear that the trust has not had a good record over a period of years. Whether one takes the comments of Mr Brigden or Mr Monaghan it is clear that the administration of the Trust has been sloppy. I hope that the working party to which the Minister referred will come to some conclusions on administration. An enormous amount of money is involved in this area. There is no doubt that the question of administration will have to be addressed in order to ensure that participants are satisfied that their money is being well cared for. These days the administration of superannuation trusts is complex and costly. Certainly, a vast improvement can be effected in that area by the effective use of computers and management techniques. The second area of concern is that of investment. The propositions which came forward in the Minister's previous statement about certain investments which took place would raise the interest of any person, either an investor or a person interested in the financial world. I was disturbed by some of the matters which were referred to by the Minister on that occasion. I note that the inquiry found there was no dishonesty. I think that finding has to be accepted but there is no doubt at all that an effort was made to make certain tax advantages that would, in my view, rightly fall to the Trust available to those outside the Trust. I go further down the trail on that issue. I have always held the view that investment knowledge is not to be found in Canberra. It is time that investment trusts in the superannuation area were put out to tender. This would allow the very considerable improvement in investment techniques and management that has occurred in Australia in the last 10 years to be effected on these superannuation funds. If the funds were run by the major companies I believe the participants would be far happier and an improved performance of the funds would take place. I understand that Mr Hammond, the former Chairman, went to the job with a reputation as a good investor and broker. I think that some of the investments he has made have been beneficial, but if he has been maintained to oversee the major investment in the Grosvenor Place project he will need to keep his eyes on it. I wish him well in that. It is a major operation in an area which certainly carries a substantial risk. The Grosvenor Place project could well make a substantial contribution to income, but it will not be without its risks. The Opposition welcomes the statement which has just been made by the Minister. I have made two points. The first concerned the need to put the funds to tender by professional management. The second concerned administration. I hope that the allegations that have been thrown around the Senate can be resolved and that everybody will know where they stand. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —The honourable member may proceed. Mr TUCKEY —In Question Time the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) inferred that my claim that low alcohol beer was taxed in this Budget for the first time was not true. The beer to which I referred is that containing an alcohol level of below one per cent, the beer about which, it is claimed publicly, 'you cannot drink enough in the necessary time period to exceed 0.05 per cent blood-alcohol or become a drunken driver'. Page 8 of the Budget Speech states that this beer will now be taxed so that the Government will collect $6m per annum compared with an expenditure of approximately $2.9m budgeted for road safety promotions. Of course, the low alcohol beer to which the Minister referred is a beer which will make people drunk. That beer has been reduced in value to make it more competitive with other beer. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —The honourable member may continue. Mr HOWARD —In Question Time, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) read correctly from an article in the Sydney Daily Telegraph which attributed some remarks to me allegedly made at a meeting of the Defence Committee of the New South Wales Liberal Party. Those remarks, as reported, were not made. The person who wrote the article did not pay me the courtesy of ringing me to check the accuracy of the report before he wrote the article. I also inform the House that the Chairman of the Committee telephoned me yesterday expressing concern, firstly, about the total inaccuracy of the story and, secondly, the fact that there should have been any reference to the meeting taking place. The Prime Minister will have to do a little better than that next time. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) — Mr Speaker has received a letter from the 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)(3.18) —The actions of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) over the last 15 or 16 months of the Government's period in office regarding foreign affairs have been characterised by a succession of efforts to put out fires created by unsound and unthinking statements by his Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). Sometimes the fire fighting can be done from the confines of Canberra using the modern paraphernalia of communications, such as the telephone, the cables and the media. But sometimes, as occurred with the Association of South East Asian Nations when the leaders of those countries could take no more gratuitous insults, the Prime Minister has had to jet in, smooth those ruffled feathers and try to restore our national pride and reputation by a succession of statements designed to smooth those troubled waters. This month has been an extraordinary month in Australian foreign policy. Anybody who has had any doubts about the capacity of the Foreign Minister to fly off at a tangent and light these fires will only have to recall events in this House yesterday when he precipitated this House into an immigration debate which this side of the House did not want nor seek. Mr Hayden's performance received an X rating, quite properly, in the newspapers this morning. This week has seen another product, and a dangerous product, of the Foreign Minister's playing with fire. Honourable members will have seen the press grapple with the fact that the governing party of the United States, at its convention this week, dropped specific references to Australia and New Zealand in its listing of friends in this region. The Government has had plenty of time to pull this situation around and we welcome the State Department announcement implying that the Republican Party was not the Republican Administration. Confirmation that ANZUS remained central to United States policy was valuable and helpful. But we must ask why Australia has come under unfavourable notice in high political circles in the United States. The reaction to New Zealand is understandable. But why Australia? Is the Republican Party important? Of course it is important. We know that the statement of the Republican Party is not binding on the Administration. But the fact remains that the Republican Party is the governing party, and looks likely to remain the governing party in the foreseeable future in the United States. The fact that it has taken this action should cause everyone in Australia very great concern. History repeated itself earlier this month, on 8 August. Banner headlines in the leading Australian dailies proclaimed that the Foreign Minister, in Geneva attending disarmament negotiations, announced that he was prepared to shut down United States facilities in Australia if the United States did not perform better in disarmament negotiations. The Melbourne Age, mentioned with approbation by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in the House today, reported the following remarks by the Foreign Minister: 'If we were to discover that these facilities were in fact part of a link in a first-strike capacity we would be morally required to review the way these facilities function and our commitment to them. 'Similarly, if we were to discover that in spite of our commitment concerning these facilities there was in important quarters a lack of general commitment and determination towards the comprehensive test ban treaty, then we would have to review in some important respects the outline of our thinking in respect of these matters. The Press interpreted these remarks-and any reasonable man would say correctly interpreted these remarks-to be directed at the United States and motivated by a desire of the Foreign Minister to respond to pressures within the Labor Party. The Prime Minister dismissed the remarks as hypothetical; but the gravamen of the situation is that the remarks remain on the public record. That is why the matter is of such importance and so serious. They have not been retracted by the Foreign Minister and therefore constitute a threat to the stability of Australia -United States relations. Indeed, party functionaries, such as Mr Schacht in Adelaide, a Centre Left colleague of the Foreign Minister, have been busy setting the scene within the Labor Party to rally to the cause being promoted by the Foreign Minister. Journalists, who pride themselves on being close to the counsels of the Labor Party, predicted in print that a struggle would ensue, and an effort would be made to build the Foreign Minister's threat into national Labor Party policy. We would like to think that the Foreign Minister has come to the conclusion that he has misjudged public opinion on this matter and is now prepared to resile from his foolish course. Nothing, however, has been said by him which reassures in any way this side of the House. Nor does the Prime Minister seem to be at all happy, having in mind the fact that the Foreign Minister has the numbers in Caucus in a matter such as this. The Australian people still have a genuine cause for concern about the direction of Foreign policy. We should keep in mind that the Foreign Minister, for the first time in Australia's history, enjoys a higher standing in the capitals of Vietnam and the totalitarian states of the world than with our traditional allies. There is something more important to any nation than its national security. The Australian people, faced with international uncertainties created by a growing Soviet presence in South East Asia and the western Pacific, are clearly of the view that our security is more effectively maintained by a close working relationship with the United States, for it is the United States alone that has the capability to offset growing Soviet strength. It is the United States which shares the values which undergird our way of life. It is the United States which has maintained stability in the western Pacific, and it is under the mantle of security that Japan and other nations, including ourselves, have built up successful economies. It is no light matter in an international forum on disarmament to impugn our ally and leave unstated the genuine problems which face our region. The Prime Minister unfortunately, against, I would hope, his better retrospective judgment , is in the middle of a mess of his own making. He has been pressuring the United States since he came into office to agree to a nuclear free zone in the Pacific. There were no hazards in this proposal, he argued. Why, the whole thing is a thoroughly painless idea with the particular value of appeasing the left wing in the Labor Party. The Prime Minister has been tempted to think he will be able to tell Australia that he has achieved a nuclear free zone in the Pacific. With that emblem of success, the Left will have to listen to his voice. But the catch is that the Prime Minister's nuclear free zone is not the one that David Lange wants. Prime Minister Lange is supported by Michael Somare and Walter Lini, and Walter Lini is supported by his Cuban embassy, Helen Caldicott, Bill Hartley, and a whole host of nuclear free collectives that have appended their aspirations to the Labor Party. It all came together in Port Moresby. Mr Lange was being stubborn and the little piece of public relations-a nuclear free zone in the south-west Pacific-was becoming an embarrassment. The Government was in the midst of toil's to invent an escape hatch. The Age gave some account of the basic approach on Friday last. I read from the report of the Age: Australia has made major concessions to the New Zealand Labor Government and to other Pacific Governments opposed to nuclear vessels in the Pacific in a draft proposal for a nuclear-free Pacific to be discussed by the South Pacific forum. The Australian proposal, being circulated by the forum's secretariat prior to meeting in Tuvalu on 27 and 28 August, recognises the rights of any member to ban ships or aircraft of another nation from its ports or airfields. The Australian proposal is likely to displease the United States, now engaged in negotiations with New Zealand over the Lange Government's policy banning nuclear vessels from its ports. The Australian draft sits uncomfortably with warnings from the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, and the Foreign Minister, Mr Hayden, about the consequences for New Zealand of implementing the ban on nuclear vessels. It appears to represent a compromise proposal between the Government's stand that a nuclear-free Pacific should not prevent the transit of the area by nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed vessels and the position of the New Zealand Government banning vessels from its ports. The New Zealand position has been supported by Papua New Guinea. The Australian proposal is that Forum countries 'reaffirm their sovereign rights to decide for themselves, consistent with . . . their security arrangements, and such questions as the access to their ports and airfields by vessels and aircraft of other countries.' . . . . . The new proposal toughens draft recommendations for declaring the Pacific a nuclear-free zone which the Australian Government presented to the last South Pacific Forum in Canberra last August. Those recommendations were strongly criticised in the forum's closed session by the Prime Ministers of Vanuatu and Western Samoa as being too accommodating of the U.S. desire to maintain unfettered transit rights of the Pacific for its nuclear-armed and nuclear- powered vessels. The 1983 forum deferred consideration of the nuclear-free zone proposal until this year, while officials tried to reconcile the differences between the tougher line favoured by some of the South Pacific Island States and the Australian Government's view of its responsibilities as a member of Anzus. On Tuesday last, in a front page report, the Age drew attention to United States concerns about the increasing Soviet military presence in South East Asia and the Pacific. It reported that officials of the Pacific command said that between 20 and 25 Soviet naval ships and submarines now operate from Vietnam and long range patrol planes and medium bombers range over South-East Asia. The Age reported that the American command was particularly concerned at the way support facilities were building up. In an editorial on the same day, the Age noted: It is not necessary to be an alarmist to understand that Washington's ability to establish and maintain a deterrent to expanding Soviet designs in the Pacific basin could be compromised by the precedent set in New Zealand last month. Whether we in the South Pacific like it or not, the issue in question is one of such fundamental and overriding importance to the defence policies of the Western powers that nothing anyone may say in the forum will change attitudes in Washington or Paris. Perhaps the key to understanding . . . such an apparently compromised position is to know that in effect it changes nothing. Recognising the right of a country to ban visits by nuclear power ships does not necessarily imply approval of such action. Australia, then, wants to have it both ways. As the Age editorial demonstrates, the Government is tinkering with matters of fundamental and overriding importance. The reason why the issue is fundamental should be clear to the Government. For years, Australia, like other Pacific countries, has prospered in a region where Soviet influence has been at a minimum. Soviet interests have escalated in the Middle East and the Horn of Africa. This influence has bought warfare and suffering. In Afghanistan, a whole nation is being destroyed and three million refugees have been added to the world's refugee population. In the Pacific the United States has used its power to restrain the Soviet Union in north-east Asia and this has provided Japan with the security needed for its economic miracle. What we have now, is a Government which has incapacitated itself to give leadership to the Pacific countries in its standing international requirement to assess and balance in a sensible way considerations of national and international security, involving as they do the creation of a security system which creates stability and diminishes potential for conflict, and a security system which relies decreasingly on weapons of mass destruction. It is important to shift an emphasis on to arms control negotiation, but in the process it is reckless to the Pacific to downgrade the benefits of the world-wide system of security sponsored by the United States. The Pacific basin is one of the fastest growing regions in the world. Critics of the United States such as the Foreign Minister, so quick to point out where the United States may go wrong, fail to bring before people of the Pacific the fact that the security system we have, has made a fundamental contribution to the stability of the region. It has left the region truly, apart from Vietnam's depredations in Kampuchea, one of a zone of peace, which has served the prosperity of us all. Australians will have to think hard about the future. The Soviet Union has greatly strengthened its influence, militarily in north-east Asia, and politically in South East Asia. There seems to be an unchallenged view that the dialogue between the Soviet and the United States has deteriorated to such an extent that the risk of nuclear war has sharply increased. I do not believe for a moment that that is true. As evidence of that, only a week or so ago the Soviet Ambassador to the United States signed an agreement to upgrade the hot- line between Moscow and Washington. There are some signs that a younger generation of Soviet leaders will come to recognise that the foolish ideological commitments of Stalin have not produced a serviceable society in Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, let alone one which should be exported under the threat of international conflict. We do have a duty to maintain a system of counsel and consultation with the United States. If the Foreign Minister has any concerns he should surely address them to the Prime Minister, so that he can sensibly bring them into a sensible framework for discussion with the United States President. If he takes himself out of the picture a bit, puts Australia, and this means his own leadership, more effectively into the centre of the action, he would be doing himself and this nation a service. Clearly these issues are of a gravity and importance that would justify a more co-ordinated approach by the Government. They are certainly not the issues which can be served by big-noting and the factional competition which is now a characteristic of this Government. This Government has tried its level best to condition Australian public opinion and the media to accept its bitter divisions as one of the foibles of the national political scene. But what we have in our foreign policy- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs)(3.33) —Let me say this: The United States-Australian leg of the ANZUS alliance is in very good shape and we have a strong sharing of common values. I say that with stress. It is in direct conflict with what the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) has just put to the House. Let me say it again, through the Chair, directly to the honourable member for Warringah. The United States-Australian leg of the alliance is in very good shape and we have a strong sharing of common values. I ask the honourable member what he has to say about that. It conflicts with what he has said. Mr MacKellar —Why threaten it by gratuitous insults? That is what I have to say. Mr HAYDEN —The range of alleged gratuitous insults which the honourable member raised today cover a fairly extended period. The comment which I made at the beginning of my speech was made by Secretary of State Shultz in Canberra on 15 July after he had spoken with me and discussed the United States-Australian relationship. The House ought to be clear about the tactic adopted by the honourable member for Warringah. This is the umpteeth time he has either raised in Parliament or declared in some concocted Press statement that the Australian-American alliance is in disarray because of some imagined slight on the part of Australia towards the United States. The first thing I want to say is this: It is clear what the intent of the honourable member is. It is simply to try to undermine the very strong foundation of confidence which successive governments have established between Australia and the United States in their formal alliance and through the spirit of their association which is merely reflected by that formal alliance, but valuably reflected. That is what the honourable member is about. He is incapable of producing any concrete evidence to substantiate his wild and feverish assertions. The fascinating thing is that the only comments which are made suggesting that the alliance is in a state of seige or extreme stress come from the honourable member and his colleagues. The only public comments being made by the United States Administration, and they are innumerable, attest to the strength of the relationship. In June 1983 President Reagan said: Australia is a great nation that plays a vital role in regional and world affairs. It's a key ally upon whom we can count. Secretary of State Shultz on 18 July, in a speech at Honolulu after the ANZUS Council meeting in Wellington which he and I, and the New Zealand representative attended said: In the South Pacific, the focus of our policy is our Anzus allies, Australia and New Zealand. These are countries that share with us proud traditions of democratic freedom and a willingness to bear the cost of preserving those values . The focus of the United States policy is its ANZUS allies in the South Pacific which share with the United States proud traditions. The honourable member for Warringah wants to undermine and destroy the confidence and mutual respect which has been built up in the relationship. It is a shame that he does not keep up with his reading and pay attention to what is presented in the media. He released a Press statement-he took the precaution of not dating it, but I believe it was the night before last-in which he said: Today's press report that Australia and New Zealand have been removed-- I stress that word 'removed'- from the Republican Party list of countries in our region enjoying a special relationship with the United States is significant. It reflects a growing concern in United States political circles about the anti -US trend-- The honourable member goes on to blame me. As the honourable member sought to catch up a little today it is more than a mere matter of trying to repair the nonsensical comment he made to say that that is in the Republican Party platform and acknowledge that it is not binding on the Administration. He tried then to concoct some justification for his silly statement. Let me tell him what we have on the cable traffic from Washington. We have an extract from a Press statement released by the State Department on the 23rd instant. It states: We wish to make clear, as we have done repeatedly, that the United States Government attaches the highest importance to Anzus and to our excellent relationship with the Government of Australia, including the personal relationship between President Reagan and Prime Minister Hawke. Let me go further. The honourable member asserts that there is still some dark significance about the fact that Australia has been dropped from the Republican Party platform which is, after all, the Party of the Administration. Let me tell him what other information we have. In 1980 the Republican platform referred to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation as the cornerstone of United States Defense policy. That is also omitted from the 1984 platform. We went down the drain with NATO. What feverish hysteria is manufactured by the honourable member for Warringah on occasions like this. What sort of service is he trying to do this country by seeking to undermine the confidence of our allies in the relationship which his Party in Government cemented as much as earlier Labor governments and as much as this Government is seeking to do? I think it is about time in the parliamentary forum that there was an effort to establish some bipartisanship on the key areas of foreign policy. I find as I travel around perplexity at the way in which the Government works hard to try to establish, develop and elaborate the productiveness of associations with various countries whose association with us is important. Then the Opposition seeks to undermine it. It cannot understand. There is a lack of patriotic commitment to the best interests of the nation. The honourable member sought to manufacture some sort of problem in the Association of South-East Asian nations region as a result of initiatives I have taken, very largely after consultation with and, in important respects, at the direction of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Let me tell the honourable member what is being said in the ASEAN countries as recently as 4 August. The Nation Review of Bangkok, reporting on a speech I made to the Foreign Correspondence Club, said this about me in its editorial: His analysis was clear and cogent and we do not have anything to subtract from it or add to it. It concluded, in respect of the declaration which I made in detail about the purposes of our policy concerning Indo-China, that our proposals-perhaps they may be productive at some stage, perhaps not but we are in there trying-are positive about getting parties together and talking. It stated: He- Hayden- is perfectly right. ASEAN leaders will be thankful to Australia if it could get Vietnam to the conference table. In an over-simplified form, what Hayden says is , ''Give Vietnam a chance.'' What we say is, ''Give peace a chance.'' That is the end of it. That is what we are about, trying to give peace a chance in the region. But the honourable member is determined to misrepresent, to misconstrue and to try to put the darkest and most destructive constructions that he can on what this Government is about. I repeat: Is it not about time that there was a little single-minded national purpose behind the main motives that go into our foreign policy and that they were presented as a united force in this country? Our foreign policy projects itself beyond the shores of this nation to the other countries of this region and to other parts of the world. If we cannot talk with one voice on important issues we will not be taken seriously elsewhere. People will be wondering what sort of parliamentary system we have. The most extraordinary thing I find about this is that when one pares away all of the brouhaha and the posturing which is veneered over the core of what the Opposition has to say, the essential principles between us are the same. I will mention one or two quotes from a speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) on 6 June 1984. Quite candidly, I believe it was a speech which was deserving of much more commendatory attention than it attracted on that occasion . It was thoughtful-politics were put to one side-and on the key points I endorse what was said. For instance, in relation to ANZUS the Leader of the Opposition said this: It has been said so often . . . that the Treaty does not guarantee that any party will do anything other than consult. That is the only actual guarantee within it. Nor is Australia committed under ANZUS to support any sort of American policy. What happens in any situation will therefore depend on a whole range of factors. There is nothing exceptional about that, except this: That is the point we were establishing last year when we participated with the United States in our review of the ANZUS alliance. We established it and the United States endorsed it, and the honourable member for Warringah condemned it. So we can make the system work with our allies but we cannot satisfy the honourable member for Warringah. All I can say is that he ought to listen a bit more closely on foreign policy, on principles, to what his leader has to say. Having said that I will move on, as the honourable member wishes, to my recent visit to Geneva. When I was in Geneva I made some points. I said essentially that deterrence and disarmament are complementary concepts, but that was said before I said it today. It was said by the Leader of the Opposition in his speech on 6 June 1984, and I think better said in many respects, because of its succinctness, than I said it. But that is essentially what I was saying and what I said in the rather vigorous debate which took place in this country in the lead up to Labor's national conference. There can be no doubting the commitment I have to the alliance and the patriotic discharge I displayed for this country and the alliance in that debate. So why try to blacken a clear commitment, a commitment of integrity, on those matters? I will paraphrase what the Leader of the Opposition said in his speech. He said that we need to continue to press for a comprehensive test ban treaty, a review of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and prohibition of all weapons for use in outer space. Then he said this: I wish time permitted us, even after this lengthy period, to go further through the importance of using our pressure in this area. I repeat: 'Our pressure in this area'. That is a very self-respecting, commendable and proper expression of view. He was saying that we are not some outlying dependent province in this alliance, that this is not a treaty of guarantee between a senior partner and a junior partner in which the senior partner makes all the commitment and the junior partner has no obligations. This is a treaty of mutual commitment between partners sharing equal respect for one another. In that regard, if we have a view, because of our involvement in the strategic nuclear deployment in the world, we have a right to be heard. Deterrence and disarmament are complementary. It was in that context that I made some comments in Geneva. I said that if a first strike capability were to be developed in respect of the facilities we would be required 'to review the way in which those facilities function and our commitment to them'. That is on the record. It is, exactly as the Prime Minister said, a hypothetical proposition. It is something that may happen. Like nuclear war, it may happen. When nuclear war ceases to be hypothetical, when it is present tense, it will be a terminal case and we will not be worrying much about it. That is why we address some of these things in a hypothetical way in certain circumstances. But let me also say that this should be read down in conjunction with what I said in the booklet which I table in July entitled 'Uranium, The Joint Facilities, Disarmament and Peace'. At page 81 I point out: The submarine-launched ballistic missiles on American vessels are not sufficiently accurate to be used for the purpose of a pre-emptive first strike . . . But even if the missiles did get a counter-force capability, a hard target capability, the Soviets also have a deployment of nuclear ballistic bearing submarines which act as a deterrent. So we are not talking sensibly in the near future, as far ahead as I can see, of a first strike capability being established. I also said that if there were no progress in respect of the matter of a comprehensive test ban treaty we would be concerned and we may want to review policy. But the fact is there has been progress. The Americans endorsed what we put forward. In a cable I received from Geneva this is what the Americans said: With regard to the United States delegation, the United States Ambassador ( Fields) has told me that he thought Mr Hayden's statement was a very significant one. . . . He said that Mr Hayden's statement was refreshingly direct and demonstrated the ''up-front'' approach of Western countries . . . The Deputy Director of the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, David Emery, . . . reiterated what he said on 7 August-- to our representatives there- namely that he thought the approach towards a comprehensive test ban and its verification put by Mr Hayden in his statement to the Committee on Disarmament was acceptable to the United States. But it is not acceptable to the Opposition. Frankly, I am not worried whether it is acceptable to the honourable member for Warringah or not. We are establishing our case where it counts. We are establishing our credentials for self-respect, independent judgment and a positive assertion of what we believe to be in the best interests of this country and the world, and we will continue to do it without apologies. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. The debate has concluded. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(3.50) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill gives effect to a resolution of the Hobart meeting of the Australian Constitutional Convention in 1976. The proposal was also embodied in a resolution of the Adelaide convention in 1983 on four-year terms. It has strong cross-party support from the Convention. When the Bill was last before the Parliament it was supported by the Opposition. The same proposal was in fact put forward by the Fraser Government in 1977 and was part of an election proposal put forward by the Fraser Government in February 1983. The Bill ensures that henceforth Senate elections will always be held in conjunction with House of Representatives elections. It does this by making senators' terms equal to two terms of the House of Representatives and by expressly providing that Senate and House elections will be held on the same day . The terms of existing senators are converted to terms equal to two terms of the House of Representatives in the case of long term senators and one term of the House in the case of short term senators. The cost savings by avoiding the possibility of separate half-Senate elections in future are staggering. On current costs a separate half-Senate election costs the taxpayer an extra $17.8m . Although Senate and House elections will be brought into place by an election for the House before June 1985, History shows that they are unlikely to remain in phase. When regard is had to the pattern of elections in the last 20 years this becomes obvious. In that time there have been 11 elections, only two of them being combined-three House, three half-Senate and three double dissolutions . If they were to remain out of phase no fewer than seven separate elections would be due in the next 10 years-three for the House of Representatives and four for half the Senate. Further details on the Bill are set out in the second reading speech of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) of 13 June 1984. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(3.52) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill gives effect to resolutions of the Australian Constitutional Convention passed at every session of the Convention from 1973 to 1983. One of the few significant achievements at the Adelaide Convention in April last year was that unanimity was reached on the details of the proposal. Now, unfortunately, the Opposition has changed its view but, nevertheless, the Government believes that it should put this important proposal to the people in conjunction with proposals for simultaneous elections, or 'terms of senators', as it is now formally called. The Bill does two things. It clarifies the basis upon which references of power may be made from the States to the Commonwealth. Such references may, of course, be made under section 51 (37) of the Constitution, and some have been made from time to time, not least from Queensland and Tasmania. It also, for the first time, enables the Commonwealth to refer its exclusive powers to the States. References either way will be able to be made subject to conditions or for a limited term and will be able to be revoked. The Bill will not itself affect the balance of power between the Commonwealth and the States. What it will do will be to introduce a much needed element of flexibility into the Constitution by setting up a framework within which Commonwealth-State negotiation over the transfer of powers may take place. The Bill was supported by the Opposition when last before the Parliament but is now opposed. No justification of principle for this opposition to the Bill has been given and it appears indefensible. The proposal has been strongly supported in the past by State Premiers from both sides of politics, with the exception of the Queensland Premier. It should continue to be supported by those who wish to see a better distribution of legislative powers worked out by agreement between the Commonwealth and the States. Further details concerning the Bill are explained in the second reading speech of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) of 13 June 1984. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —Mr Speaker, I wish to apologise for my actions previously . I assure you that they were not directed at you or at the House. Mr SPEAKER —I thank the honourable member for Franklin. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide) —Special Minister of State) (3.55)-by leave-I move: (1) That a Joint Select Committee be appointed to report on the operation of Regulation 4A of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983 in relation to videotapes and videodiscs and in particular- (a) the effectiveness of such legislation by comparison with previous legislation purporting to govern the importation, production, reproduction, sale and hire of violent, pornographic or otherwise obscene material; (b) whether the present classification system, as applied by the Film Censorship Board, is adequate as a basis for import and point of sale controls; (c) whether video retailers are observing the conditions of sale or hire attached to 'X' classified material, particularly in relation to children under 18 years; (d) whether Regulation 4A of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations is adequate in identifying categories of prohibited material, and operating effectively in preventing the importation of videotapes/discs falling within the prohibited categories; (e) whether children under the age of 18 years are gaining access to videotapes /discs containing violent, pornographic or otherwise obscene material; (f) whether the A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983 should be amended to make it an offence for persons purchasing or hiring 'X' classified videotapes/discs to allow, suffer or negligently permit children to view such material; (g) whether cinemas should be permitted to screen for public exhibition 'X' classified material, subject to prohibition from entry of persons under the age of 18 years; (h) whether films which would merit an 'X' classification are being produced in Australia and if so whether Australian men and women are adequately protected by existing law from pressure to act in such films, and (i) the likely effects upon people, especially children, of exposure to violent , pornographic or otherwise obscene material. (2) That the committee consist of 7 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip, 1 Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (3) That every nomination of a member of the Committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (4) That the Committee proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy. (5) That the Committee elect a Government Member as its Chairman. (6) That the Chairman of the Committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the Committee to be the Deputy-Chairman of the Committee, and that the member so appointed act as Chairman of the Committee at any time when there is no Chairman or the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee. (7) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the Chairman, or the Deputy- Chairman when acting as Chairman, have a casting vote. (8) That the quorum of the Committee be 3 members. (9) That the Committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources. (10) That the Committee have power to send for and examine persons, papers and records, to move from place to place, to sit in public or private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations it may deem fit. (11) That the Committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public. (12) That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. (13) A message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. The Government recognised, at the end of the last sitting of Parliament, a genuine concern on all sides of the House, and in the country, about censorship arrangements as they related to privately owned video cassette recorders. At that time, we indicated our sympathy with the proposal that a joint committee should examine the social dangers of videotapes and cassettes which depict a variety of perverse behaviour becoming widely available, and perhaps accessible to children. Over the recess the question has been carefully considered by the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans). He examined the present position in Australia and studied legislative responses to the same problems in Britain and Europe. As a result of these deliberations, we have identified a number of areas which could be valuably scrutinised by a joint committee, with the object of recommending legislative action should existing provisions for the protection of children and safeguards against the exploitation of women-and for that matter, men-appear inadequate. It is important to recognise, at the threshold of this inquiry, that we are dealing with deep questions of psychology, sociology and communal values. They cannot be answered by cheap political point scoring, or by over-hasty and slap- dash research. There is a philosophical dimension as well: The state must hold in a fine balance the right of its citizens to view what they wish, and the duty of Government to protect the most vulnerable members of society from harmful materials. We will look to the Joint Committee either for reassurance that we have the balance just about right, or else for guidance as to how the balance can be readjusted by legislative amendment. In weighing this difficult problem, we are anxious to avoid undue delay: That is why we have set terms of reference which focus on specific concerns. We are mindful of the fact that the United States of America's Presidential Commission on Obscentity and Pornography, and the United Kingdom's Williams Committee on the same subject, both took upwards of three years to deliver their findings on broad general issues. I do not think any honourable member would want us to wait that length of time. by focusing on specific targets, we hope that the Joint Committee will be able to reach useful conclusions within a time frame consistent with careful deliberation and receipt of both scientific research and properly argued submissions from various community groups. Let me give a brief overview of the problem, and explain how the terms of reference will enable the Joint Committee to tackle it. When the Government brought forward its censorship package at the end of last year, we were particularly concerned to end the vagueness and uncertainty which had bedevilled the subject previously. We also sought to establish for the first time effective point of sale controls which would prevent pornographic material being sold to minors and stop it from being merchandised in ways which would give offence to reasonable citizens. These goals have, we believe, substantially been achieved in relation to books, magazines and films. It is in relation to video cassettes that doubts have set in, on a number of fronts. The video cassette seemed to offer a means by which consenting adults could watch, in the privacy of their own home, material of a kind which would do them no harm, but of which the majority of people would disapprove. A special category-class X-was established for videos of this sort. There is another category of material, objectionable because it could harm adults by encouraging paedophilia, bestiality, sadistic violence, acts of terrorism or drug abuse, which is entirely prohibited. Now the wisdom of creating a class X has been challenged, on the ground that it can in practice become accessible to children, either because reckless or dishonest traders are prepared to breach the law by selling or hiring to minors, or because irresponsible or neglectful adults may allow children to view it. The Government shares this concern, and is most anxious for the Joint Committee to assess it and to recommend reforms if any are needed. Our main motive in establishing the Joint Committee is to ensure that there are adequate safeguards to protect children; but in making that judgment we invite the Committee to report on other matters which our own consultations suggest may also require attention. These further concerns are: (a) Previous Legislation This part of the terms of reference invites a comparison between the new arrangements and the old. The Mahoney report of the Review of Customs Administration and Procedures called for legislative reform to guide customs officers in relation to the importation of different classes of pornography: Have the definitions in the new legislation been capable of reasonable application? The Government was also concerned to produce a system which would end the involvement of organised crime in pornography trafficking. We believe that this has been substantially achieved, but would welcome the Joint Committee 's confirmation. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 4 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Young-I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr YOUNG —Mr Speaker, at the end of the last session we promised to set up this Committee as quickly as possible, and in this first week we are anxious to do so . That is the only reason we are taking up the additional time today. (b) Operation of Film Censorship Board A great deal of the anxiety about present censorship arrangements stems from a misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of the film classification guidelines which have emanated from the Film Censorship Board. These guidelines originally stemmed from an internal working document which was designed to ensure that a consistent and uniform approach to decision-making was maintained by both the members of the Film Censorship Board and the regional officers. The guidelines only describe, for the information of classifying officers, the material permissable in the upper limits of each classification and therefore do not state the obvious-namely that classifying officers must take account of such matters as theme, context, message, merit and intent. Nonetheless, it must be acknowledged that many members of the Government, as individuals, had serious reservations about aspects of those guidelines. The Attorney-General's Department has been considering the recent developments in Britain in relation to guidelines for censorship of video nasties adopted by the British Board of Film Censors and it may well be that the Committee recommends that the Board should be encouraged to eschew their current approach in favour of a method similar to the British model. We would expect the Joint Committee to consider this material, to receive evidence from the Board and in general to comment upon its approach to its task of classification. (c) Operation of X certificate conditions Let us look at the results of monitoring the present system, and see whether there is any cause for concern. Our present indications are that the system works well in the Australian Capital Territory-although there has been lively community debate about that system. Press reports indicate that controls in certain States are deficient. That may simply point up the advantages of a uniform system. Mr Cadman-They do not want a debate. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr Cadman-He will have his say and that will be the finish. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Mitchell. His conduct is disgraceful. Mr YOUNG —What we want to discover is whether, in the first place, video traders understand the classification system and are applying it honestly, and in the second place, the role of police in scrutinising the trade and taking prompt action against dishonest traders. There are substantial penalties in the Ordinance for contravention of its terms, and one would expect any dealer who knowingly sold X certificate video to a minor to be sent to prison for up the 12 months. (d) Exclusion of Proscribed Material Another important question we want the Joint Committee to address is whether the proscription in the Customs legislation is working to keep objectionable material out of the country altogether. The whole debate about lesser degrees of objectionable material is useless if in fact proscribed material is being smuggled into Australia and being sold on a clandestine market. That of course is a common feature of countries with blanket prohibitions: Their black markets in pornographic material feature all extremes. By allowing restricted circulation of lesser forms of pornography, the hope is that the truly dangerous material can be isolated and turned away at the Customs barrier. We would welcome the Joint Committee's examination of the current position to see whether the legislation is working to eradicate truly harmful material. (e) Access by minors to X certificate material This important term is taken directly from the draft tabled by the Opposition. It is an important factional issue, and calls for careful research which is scientifically sound and academically respectable. There is a particular lesson to be learnt from the British experience, when the Parliament was panicked by bogus research from a partisan group which purported to show that the majority of young children had watched video nasties with particular lurid titles. In a follow-up study by objective researchers, children were asked the same question, except this time in relation to lurid titles of films which did not exist. The titles had been made up by the researchers. Of course, the same proportion of kids took delight in pretending they had these fictitious videos. So great care must be taken with statistical surveys in this area, and one hopes that the Joint Committee will commission our best and most objective social scientists to come up with some reasonably accurate answers. (f) New Offence of permitting children to view X videos It is at present a serious offence under the Ordinance to expose children to such material, unless the exposer is a parent or guardian. It may be that the consequence of such exposure is sufficiently serious that the criminal law should now intrude into this area of family life. After all, if parents are punished for excessively beating or maltreating their children, there is an argument for punishing those who may psychologically damage their children by showing them this class of material. (g) An X Category for Adult Cinemas The creation of a more permissive-- Mr Donald Cameron-You didn't give a damn a few weeks ago. You didn't care about it. You rammed it through in the middle of the night. You know that is true. Mr YOUNG —I think the honourable member appears in such films; does he not? Mr Cadman-You know all about smuggling, Mick. Mr YOUNG —Did the honourable member bring something in? Mr Cadman-No, you did, illegally. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr YOUNG —The creation of a more permissive X category for videos was based on the theory that greater latitude should be given to citizens who wished to view such material in the privacy of their own home. It may be that evidence to be collected by the Joint Committee will demonstrate an unforeseen danger in this approach, namely that adults cannot be trusted to keep X cassettes away from their children who are old enough to work the video recorder. If an X category is to be preserved, it may be that it should apply not to video cassettes but to feature films screened in cinemas from which minors are strictly excluded. We have already received a number of submissions from the proprietors of such cinemas, arguing persuasively that they are well placed to screen such material in absolute confidence that it will never be seen by children. These submissions can now be considered by the Committee under this term of reference. (h) Australian X films, and adequate protection for women We would not unreasonably seek to inhibit the Australian film industry, but one gap in the law which our studies have identified is the possibility that if our controls do in fact work effectively, then criminal elements would seek to home- produce video pornography in the proscribed or X categories. We are unaware that this poses an immediate problem, but we do not want to be caught napping. We anticipate that it will be relatively easy for the Committee to discover in the course of its researches on other matters, whether this is likely to occur, and if so to review the existing law to ensure that sufficient protection exists against the exploitation and degradation of women and, I should add, the degradation of men, who might be drawn into this business. In framing its original censorship package, the Government took particular note of the concerns of women's groups, and we hope that they will take the opportunity provided by the establishment of the Joint Committee to address this issue. It has been suggested that the Sex Discrimination Act might be amended to include the exploitation of persons in the course of pornography production within the definition of unlawful discrimination. Without expressing a concluded view on that suggestion, I suspect that a more satisfactory alternative may be found in the criminal law of each State. (i) Research into the effect of obscenity This is the most difficult of all the questions we have set the Joint Committee. It must be approached with great care, and we expect the Committee to select researchers who are objective and dispassionate on the subject. There is a regrettable tendency in this area for conclusions to reflect the prejudices of those who arrive at them. In relation to the effects of obscenity on children, there are obviously ethical limits to the studies which can be commissioned. Under no circumstances should young people be used as guinea-pigs or be exposed, even in so-called laboratory conditions, to material which might harm them. Nonetheless, within the severe ethical constraints which must operate in this area, we hope the Committee will be able at the end of the day to offer some insight into the long term consequences of exposure to pornography at an early age, and of course its conclusions on this question will be a matter which the Government will want to bear very much in mind in deciding whether to frame additional protective legislation. Mr Donald Cameron-You did not care very much the last time. Mr YOUNG —I ask the honourable member why he does not serve on the Committee. Then he can take up all his prejudices. We believe that the terms of reference will permit the Committee to traverse all the controversial areas of video availability and censorship. It is not an easy task, however simple those on both sides of the argument may make it appear. The problem in a free society is who should be allowed to see obscene material, and under what conditions. There is no social problem which has generated such diverse solutions in the international community. Most communist countries ban it entirely. In Scandinavia anything goes. West Germany relies on point-of-sale controls. France has a special porn tax which would be the envy of our Treasury I suspect. Britain has moved towards a licensing system. In America the most desolating hard-core pornography is manufactured by the Mafia and protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. We look to the Joint Committee to find an acceptable solution for Australia to the problem of video pornography. We will not hesitate to legislate if it transpires that our present laws are inadequate to protect our children from clear and present dangers. The reason we have moved quickly to have this motion moved this week is so that both party rooms can elect the members to the Committee on their return to Parliament on Tuesday week. The Committee can thus be established as quickly as possible. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(4.10) —At the end of the last parliamentary session, a motion was brought on for debate for disallowance of certain regulations which the Government had proposed. Those regulations effectively changed the basis on which video material was treated in this country. That debate was brought on late at night so that, in effect, nobody would know anything about it. Shortly after that, around the same day, we proposed that a committee be established for the purposes of examining issues arising, in particular, out of the dissemination of hard pornography in videos and the effect that this may have on children. We have in this motion some terms of reference of which I got notice about an hour or so ago. There has been no attempt to permit any debate on the subject of our motion. When the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) comes back into the chamber I will remind him of an undertaking which he gave to this House and which is recorded in Hansard. But while he is absent I will go into some of the reasons for the terms of reference which are now before the House. First, those terms of reference were the initiative of the Opposition in the Senate. The Government had nothing to do with them, just as supporters of the Government had nothing to say in the debate which came before this House. The reason was that most of them were afraid to express their views in contravention of the Government's stated views. Secondly, the genuine need for an inquiry of the kind proposed here is accepted on all sides, but the impetus for that has come from our side of the House and not from the other side. Thirdly, let me remind the House of the lamentable history of this Government's attempt to give to Australia a new method of classification of material of a violent and obscene kind. I will read to the House part of a statement which was issued by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) on 25 January 1984. The Attorney-General, optimistic as ever and his judgment as clouded as we frequently find it to be, spoke of a model for the States which had been introduced by the Commonwealth, the Classification of Publications Ordinance for the Australian Capital Territory. There were also complementary amendments to the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations. The Attorney said: Legislation similar to the ACT model is already in force in South Australia, is imminent in Victoria, Western Australia and the Northern Territory, and is under active Government consideration in New South Wales and Queensland. That was over half a year ago. Let us see just how imminent the enactment of legislation was in the States referred to by the Attorney-General and how active the consideration given to legislation in other States has been. There has been no legislation in New South Wales, Victoria, and Queensland. In South Australia there is the Act which was in force at the time that the Ordinance for the Australian Capital Territory was brought in. In Tasmania and the Northern Territory also there has been no legislation. These Attorneys-General and this Government have been so active that half a year after we were told that action was imminent, we are still waiting for action to take place. We also know that when the Government originally proposed changes to the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations it did not really seriously consider the depth of the problem that it faced. So what happened? On 21 December 1983 changes were made to the nature of obscene material that can be brought into this country. But the Attorney-General conceded that that was not good enough and an amendment was made at the request of the Australian Democrats on 4 April 1984. The Attorney-General then realised that his original proposal was simply perfectly inadequate because there was a substituted regulation 4A in essential respects brought in on 31 May 1984. That regulation, evidencing the Government's profound concern for the kind of material which was being brought in, distinguished between depicting in pictorial form bestiality in a manner likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult person, which was not to be allowed in, and bestiality unlikely to occasion offence to a reasonable adult person. I asked a question two or three months ago, and I ask it again: What is the distinction? The Government has not come to grips with this question. The fact of the matter is that over the last months there has indeed been a flood of pornography into this country. Even the Government of New South Wales, according to the newspapers, is becoming concerned. There have been police raids. Premier Wran has expressed concern, but still we have no legislation. These terms of reference are being rushed through this Parliament for precisely the same reason that debate on the motion for disallowance was rushed through Parliament in the dead of night on the last occasion: So as to stifle debate. But that will not happen. It will not happen because, although the Minister has the numbers, as he is wont from time to time to remind us, he has given to this House an undertaking. He gave the undertaking on 7 June 1984. It was on that date, Mr Speaker, that you advised the House that you had received a message from the Senate. That message proposed setting up a committee. It also proposed certain terms of reference. The Special Minister of State spoke briefly on that message. I said: We welcome what has been said by the Leader of the House. As I understand him, he indicated that not only will this be given urgent and sympathetic consideration but also we can expect that this motion will be brought on early in the business of the next Budget sittings. That has not been done. Mr Donald Cameron —He is a double-faced hypocrite on this subject. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will withdraw. Mr Donald Cameron —I withdraw. Mr SPENDER —The Leader of the House on that occasion said: I give that undertaking. That is all he said in perfectly unequivocal terms. He gave the undertaking that the motion would be brought on for debate in this House. That motion has not been brought on. It may be asked what we are concerned about as it is proposed to set up an inquiry. The fact is that this House is the House in which issues of great national importance should be debated. There was no proper debate last time because we did not have the opportunity to do so. We were then debating not the general issues of great importance but the more limited question of disallowance. It was being debated late at night, as I then said and as the Special Minister knows, for the purpose of giving the absolute minimum of attention to this subject. I have put to the Minister certain amendments which he has looked at and ask him to consider them. I understand that they are not going to be accepted, but the Minister has said that they will be considered if I propose them to this House. I want to place them very briefly on the record. I will have to do it orally for the reason that we have been very short of time on this matter. I will seek to add in paragraph (a) after 'legislation' on the first line the words 'including the effectiveness'; to delete in paragraph (c) the letter 'N'; to add a new clause DD which would read 'the extent to which videotapes and discs containing pornography, pornographic and violent material are available to the community in general'; and in paragraph (f) to add in the third line after ' X' the words 'and R'. A Committee is to be set up and will be asked to report. I agree that certainly it should be established as quickly as possible, but I would like to have from the Special Minister of State an undertaking that this Committee will report in the life of this Parliament and that it will be directed to do so. The Government has control over when an election shall be held. This Committee could be set up by the Government so that it could meet its perceived electoral obligations. I have been handed a message from the Minister. It stated that he intends to adjourn the matter now and bring it back on for debate later. I think that is an excellent proposal. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I just wish to make a general point because it appears appropriate at this stage. From time to time amendments are placed before the House that arise suddenly and I appeal to honourable members with amendments, wherever possible-and in most cases it is possible-at least to have them in the hands of the Clerk about an hour before they are to be moved. My remarks are not particularly directed to this matter. Mr Spender —It was just not possible because- Mr SPEAKER —Yes, but I want to make the point because this has occurred previously and I think it is best for me to put these remarks on the record. I have explained the reasons; first, to ensure that the amendments are in order, secondly, to ensure that there are sufficient copies to be distributed to members of the House; and thirdly, and I am sure honourable members would have some sympathy with me on this, to prepare the appropriate announcement for the way in which the questions on the amendments would be put. I ask that honourable members take note of that. Mr Young —With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I apologise to the honourable member for Sydney for the lateness of bringing the matter on, but I did talk to the Manager of Opposition Business this morning. I showed him the terms of reference and had the Government agree to increase the number to serve on that committee, this morning because be wanted a member of the National Party-- Mr SPEAKER —I am not trying to rebuke either the Leader of the House or the honourable member for North Sydney. I just thought this was an appropriate occasion to raise that point. Debate adjourned. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction) —by leave-I move: That in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to the Parliament-Construction of Commonwealth Government Centre, Currie Street, Adelaide, S.A. The proposal is for the construction of a major office building in the city of Adelaide to be known as the Commonwealth Government Centre, which will provide a single, readily identifiable point of contact for the public for parliamentary offices and for a range of Commonwealth services. The proposed building will provide some 26,000 square metres net of office space in a building with considerable aesthetic merit and good functional efficiency. The building can best be described as a double wing design with a nine-storey front section and a 12-storey rear wing. These two sections will be joined by an atrium which will increase the amount of natural light, allow more public access and community space and reduce air-conditioning costs. The building site is at the corner of Currie and Topham Streets in the Adelaide central business district. The Public Works Committee has reported favourably on the proposed work and has recommended its construction. As the Federal member for Adelaide, may I express my thanks to the Public Works Committee for having examined and reported on this project so expeditiously. Honourable members are probably aware that Adelaide is the only State capital which does not have a dedicated Commonwealth Centre. Mr Barry Jones —Is it a marginal seat? Mr HURFORD —The need for such a facility is long overdue from both the public and our Government's viewpoint. I will acknowledge the interjection of the Minister for Science and Technology and say that the people of Adelaide are so wise that they have had me as their member for almost 15 years. Therefore, the seat cannot be described as marginal. Yet it is a fact that this Government does not make decisions on such bases. We make decisions on needs for the people, regardless of who is being elected to parliament. Mr SPEAKER —I can always find more needs. Mr HURFORD —In this case, Mr Speaker, the needs are great. I know that the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife) who will respond for the Opposition knows of this need because he is a valuable member of the Public Works Committee. He has been able to examine the need for this particular building in my home city. I have followed the development of this project since its inception and am excited by the quality and cost effectiveness of the design that was presented to the Public Works Committee. I am pleased to see that the Committee shares my view and its endorsement of the design as commendable. I am now looking forward to actual construction commencing. Consistent with our joint objectives of stimulating the construction industry and at the same time increasing our Government's level of ownership of the buildings we occupy, I am very pleased that this project was approved in the context of the Budget for commencement in the first half of 1985. The estimated cost of the proposal at April 1984 prices is $38m. This amount includes $4m for internal fit-out of the building. I have brought this motion forward at this time to assist the Adelaide City Council in the planning of its adjacent car parking station as it needs to make immediate contractual decisions. In fact, it would have liked such a decision by mid-day today. I hope officers at the Adelaide City Council are listening so they will know they are able to get their decision in half an hour. The Opposition is kindly allowing this to happen. This action will also be of financial benefit to the Commonwealth because by allowing the Adelaide City Council to enter into certain arrangements now we are able to help them with costs. It is something that would have cost a lot more had we done it separately . If the House agrees to support the motion, planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee. I commend the motion to the House. Mr FIFE(Farrer)(4.29) —I speak on behalf of the Opposition and also as Vice- Chairman of the Public Works Committee. It is true, as the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) has pointed out, that there is a real need in Adelaide for this project and that it will provide a single, readily identifiable point of contact for the public, for parliamentary offices and for a very wide range of Commonwealth services. I was very pleased to have been part of the Public Works Committee inspection and also the hearing on this project which is warmly supported by the Public Works Committee as well as by the Opposition. I also wish to signal my support for the action taken by the Minister today to bring this matter forward so as to assist the Adelaide City Council, particularly as it hopes to have men on the site next Monday. If the proposal proceeds in this way it will enable some substantial cost savings both to the Commonwealth and the Adelaide City Council. As I indicated, both on behalf of the Opposition and the Public Works Committee, I fully support the measure. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Barry Jones) agreed to: That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 4 September 1984, unless Mr Speaker fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting. House adjourned at 4.31 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 24 August 1984: First Home Owners Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 197. Home Deposit Assistance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 196. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Determinations, dated 22 August 1984 listing fees for purposes of- Fishing Ordinance. Hawkers Ordinance. Motor Traffic Ordinance. Nature Conservation Ordinance. Plumbers, Drainers and Gasfitters Board Ordinance. Pounds Ordinance. Scaffolding and Lifts Ordinance. Weights and Measures Ordinance. Ordinances-1984- No. 43-Traffic (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 44-Motor Traffic (Amendment) (No. 3). No. 45-Motor Traffic (Amendment) (No. 4). No. 46-Plumbers, Drainers and Gasfitters Board (Amendment). No. 47-Fishing (Amendment). Regulations-1984- No. 19-(Plumbers, Drainers and Gasfitters Board Ordinance). No. 20-(Motor Traffic Ordinance). No. 21-(Motor Traffic Ordinance).