Friday, 7 September 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: Plant Variety Rights To The Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth government. 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds, and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognize that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection , storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognize that any system giving ' property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: i. a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, ii. subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programs, iii. farmer unrest at seed prices, iv. monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, v. increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent,Ms McHugh,Mr Milton,Mr Allan Morris and Mr Scott. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia , namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation' s historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on a 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 the millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable house will: Propose and pass a motion that ''the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change.'' And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt,Mr Groom 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: 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,Mr Milton and Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Mr Drummond and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned Citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That the overwhelming majority of Australians are completely satisfied with the existing Australian National Flag. 2. That we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as provided in Section (3) of the Flags Act, unless such proposed change is first voted on by the people of Australia and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will propose and pass a motion that ''the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fisher and Mr Lloyd. 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 practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the high cost of health care in Australia. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Mr Groom 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/discos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled: should disallow the new Regulations and Ordinance and ensure That the Attorney-General enforce existing laws: That Censors more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes; That further measures be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; and That, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Charlesworth,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/discos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board; Censors more appropriately reflect responsible attitudes; Further measures be taken in association with States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; and That, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives 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 per cent 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 O'Neil and Mr Rocher. 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 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 inquiry 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 inquiry 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 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 Australia industries, and to expand TAFE's capital works program so that sufficient quality accommodation is available for TAFE teachers and students. 4. We ask that the Commonwealth Government greatly increase TAFE's recurrent expenditure, so that TAFE can respond quickly and flexibly to industry, Government and community demands. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag reflects Australia's membership of the Commonwealth of Nations, her position in the southern hemisphere, and her federation of original colonies, Recognises that the flag as a symbol of pride for most Australians, such that several organisations, including the ALP, incorporated the flag in their motifs. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will resist moves to change the Australian flag, or if changes is contemplated that the question be put to the Australian people by referendum to seek their views. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that WHEREAS the Government of Australia has signed the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states that 'The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the States'. And WHEREAS the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women would violate the above Article 23 (1). We humbly pray the Government to refrain from ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; Believing that its implementation would result in- (1) Undue cost to the Nation at this time. (2) 'The elimination of any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women at all levels' as described in Part 3 Article 10 (c), being a disruption of traditional parental roles, is likely to result in emotional disturbances of childhood. (3) The strong encouragements to mothers to join the workforce, with the provision of networks of creches and child care centres as outlined in Article 11 of the convention is likely to result in maternal deprivation and psychological disturbances among children with an increase in childhood psychiatric illnesses. (4) The sexual role changing as recommended in Part 3 Article 10 (c) is likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our Nation and your petitioners in duty bound will every pray. by Mr Cadman. 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 right to insist that the school 'community' provide an environment conducive to the development, including moral development of their children. Deny to parents their right to have their children enjoy single-sex sporting activities e.g., boys cricket team, boys football team, et cetera. 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 Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That an airport in the north-western region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. An airport would destroy 2,000 households and impose upheaval, noise and pollution on one million people presently unaffected. 3. The cost of an airport in the north-western region is greater than the alternatives, whilst fog and close proximity to RAAF Base Richmond would make operations impractical. 4. It would destroy the historic village of Pitt Town, environmentally important wetlands, and their unique adherent wildlife. 5. Your petitioners reject these proposals and call for endorsement of the MANS Committee findings. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we, the loyal citizens of Australia firmly express our strong opposition to any proposals to remove or undermine the importance of the place of God and/ or the Queen in our national life, and democratic institutions. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Parliament assembled reaffirm our nation's total dependence on God the Creator in accordance with our Australian Constitution, which commences with the words 'Humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God', and the Standing Orders of both the Senate and the House of Representatives which prescribe that Parliament each day shall open with a special prayer to Almighty God and the Lord's Prayer. We also call on the Parliament assembled to re-affirm our genuine loyalty to our Head of State, the Queen of Australia, Elizabeth II-'God save the Queen'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Connolly. 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 hail as a victory for the not-so-silent majority the decision of the Federal Government to now conduct an inquiry into the effects of hard core pornography and violence upon people and especially children. We view with grave concern and deplore the decision of the Hawke Government to allow the sale of this objectionable material to continue and become more widespread during the period of the inquiry. Request the Federal Government to immediately re-enact the previous laws which banned the entry into Australia and the sale of hard-core pornography and violence in video and publication form. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fisher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That governments have a responsibility to maintain standards acceptable to society's wishes. 2. It cannot be guaranteed that X rated video material will not be viewed by children. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives should: Not adopt the X Classification for Films and Video Tapes, nor Category 2 for Printed Material. Further, that tighter restrictions be applied to R rated Films and Video Tapes and Category 1 Printed Material. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Groom. 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 most disturbed by the new Commonwealth Censorship Procedures for Publications and pray that they may not become the norm for either the A.C.T. or any other Australian State. We ask you not to change Commonwealth legislation in any way that would make it easier for any of the material listed in Categories ''1'' and ''2'' to enter Australia or to be available to young people. 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 Humphreys. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. Omega by sending low frequency signals, penetrating sea water enables hunter -killer submarines to establish their position and to launch a ''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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. 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 Mr McArthur. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows: That the recent failure of the Federal Government to disallow the Australian Capital Territory Classification of Publications Ordinance will contribute further to the erosion of moral standards in Australia. In particular, the Legislation increases the danger of the moral well-being of our children, by removing controls, at the point of production and importation of pornographic material. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Capital Territory Classification of Publications Ordinance of 1983 be repealed. 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 undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth- that the railway line and train-passenger service remain in service. (here state circumstances of case). 1. That the railway line remain maintained; 2. that the passenger service include return trips; and 3. that the services become more frequent. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Railway Line between Victor Harbor and Adelaide remains (here state terms of action petitioned) open. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we are patients, colleagues and friends of Dr. J. Martinick. That she is apparently being victimised by the Department of Health and the Federal Police regarding itemisation in 1983. That at no time in the last year the Department of Health Liaison officer or investigator had approached Dr. Martinick to discuss any apparent problems. That the Federal Police who are not a representative of the Department of Health made the first contact with her. That we are perturbed that the normal procedure of investigating an irregularity was not adhered to in this case and we request that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should clarify this situation and amend the Health Insurance Act if necessary to ensure that the Medical Practitioners in future receive a fair and just hearing. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the phasing out of the recurrent grant to residential colleges will be detrimental to the ability of disadvantaged and country students to receive a tertiary education. That alternative arrangements to fund needy students will be of no net benefit to those students, owing to the higher costs of administering such arrangements. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the recurrent grant to residential colleges be maintained as the most efficient and equitable means of ensuring that all citizens, irrespective of background, have equal opportunity to receive a tertiary education. 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 we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That the introduction of Medicare has not resulted in a cheaper, fairer system of health care as promised by the Federal Government. Rather, it is an expensive, bureaucratic scheme, depersonalising medical services and conducive to medical mediocrity. While recognising the responsibility which exists to assist those in need, we humbly request the Government to review this system which moves towards the nationalisation of Australian medicine. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully request that the Australian Government negotiate with the Australian Council of Trade Unions significant taxation relief for lower and middle income earners together with improvements in the social wage with particular emphasis on improving the position of those reliant on social security payments. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Scott. 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: We, the undersigned, are horrified at the prospect that the Personal Care Workers Study in Northcote, Victoria may cease for lack of funding. Such an action would cause severe disruption to the lives of disabled people using the scheme, would prematurely sack the workers involved and waste the research being undertaken. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives will ensure that funding for the Personal Care Workers Study is continued without interruption. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Willis. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia respectfully show: We are concerned that- (a) the report of the Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission fails to recognize the important role and contribution of Workers' Health Centres in providing occupational health and safety services and information and (b) fails to include those organisations in its proposed national strategy. Your petitioners therefore pray that in considering the recommendations of the Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission the Commonwealth Government commit itself to a strategy which includes the continuation of, and support for, existing Workers' Health Centres in recognition of their critical role in occupational health and safety. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Willis. The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of this district of Pioneer Valley, near Mackay, Queensland, view with great concern the matter recently before the House, wherein your Government passed legislation which will facilitate the procuring of pornographic material of various kinds, including videos and literature. Most people seem to be convinced that pornography and bad videos are doing great harm to our young people, and we feel that we would be remiss in our duty to them if we did not voice our protest. Parents have already enough difficulty in protecting their children. Your new law will make their task impossible. We hope and pray that your Government will see fit to reverse its decision in this matter. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the citizens of New South Wales respectfully show: last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; alcohol is a factor in 50% of road deaths; alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; alcohol advertisements are glamourous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ban the advertising of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. Petitions received. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that- (a) the Roxby Downs uranium mine will generate up to 18,000 permanent jobs; and (b) the Community Employment program under the administration of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided over $400,000 to organisations engaged in the Roxby blockade; and (2) condemns the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations for using job creation funds to finance organisations committed to destroying 18,000 jobs. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) deplores the attacks made by the National Party on the provision of Commonwealth transport services to Tasmania; (2) condemns the attacks by the honourable member for Dawson on- (a) the Commonwealth grant of $26 million to Tasmania to purchase the MV Nils Holgersson as a replacement Bass Strait passenger ferry, and (b) the Tasmania Freight Equalisation Scheme; (3) condemns the honourable member for Hume for wanting to expel Tasmania from the Australian Federation; (4) deplores the tacit endorsement given to the National Party attacks by the Tasmanian federal Liberal Party representatives; and (5) congratulates the Government for its continued high level of support for the Tasmanian economy and people. Mr O'KEEFE(Paterson) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House urges the Government- (1) to make substantial increases of funds for improvements to road systems direct to local government bodies; and (2) to by-pass State governments so that full benefit of these funds will be gained by local government councils who best know their own roads needs. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House notes that- (1) the Commissioner for Housing loans scheme for the Australian Capital Territory has exhausted all available funds for 1984-85 and that no more loans shall be approved after 22 August 1984 for needy applicants, and (2) these events have occurred notwithstanding the personal and intense interest of the Minister for Territories and Local Government in housing matters and demonstrate either incompetence or inattention to his duties on the Minister 's part. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for Riverina will second: That this House deplores the fact that the ABC TV network is to stop transmitting regional news to viewers in the Electoral Division of Maranoa and many other areas of Australia. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —by leave-I now inform the House of the progress of the migration program report on my recent visit to the United States of America Central and South America, and explain the Government's detailed approach to skilled and business migration. I will also briefly report on my attendance at the United Nations World Population Conference held recently in Mexico City. The Migration Program In my statement of 30 May, I informed the House of the Government's decisions on the 1984-85 migration program, and indicated likely outcomes for last year's program. I will now detail the final outcome for 1983-84. A total of 62,350 migrants and refugees were visaed in 1983-84. This was within the expected range of 62,100 to 64,100 which I announced on 30 May. Settler arrivals for the year totalled 69,805, in line with the 70,000 predicted. For the information of honourable members I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard tables which detail the year's activity. Mr SPEAKER —I indicate to the House that the Minister informed me that he would be seeking leave to incorporate substantial tables. They are of such substance that I had to accept that this is one of those important statements where the incorporation of such tables should be allowed. I indicate that to the House in case honourable members feel there has been any abnormal relaxation of the rules . Mr Hodgman —Mr Speaker, the Minister has shown me the tables and I agree that it is essential that they be incorporated for the purpose of his ministerial statement. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- Document I-Table A 1983-84 MIGRATION PROGRAM RESULTS AND 1984-85 PROGRAM (Persons visaed) 1983-84 Expected Final 1984-85 outcome* result program Family Migration Sub-categories A & B 23,000-24,000 22,673 28,000 Family Migration Sub-category C 13,000-14,000 14,066 14,000 Sub-total 36,000-38,000 36,739 42,000 Skilled Labour and Business Migration: Skilled labour 4,500 4,189 7,500 Employer nominees 3,000 3,067 4,000 Business migrants 1,500 1,453 4,000 Independent Migration * 136 * Special Eligibility * 500 443 * 500 Sub-total 9,500 9,288 16,000 Refugees and Special Humanitarian Programs 16,600 15,485 14,000 Contingency reserve 2,000 Old Policy(1) . . 838 TOTAL 62,100-64,100 62,350 74,000 * As announced in 30 May Statement. (1) Persons visaed in 1983-84 who were approved under policy in force prior to 19 April 1982. Document I-Table B 1983-84 PERSONS VISAED-CATEGORY X REGION EXCLUDING REFUGEE AND SHP (NEW POLICY ONLY) Skilled labour and Independent and Family migration business migration special migration (Sub- Skilled Employer Business Indepen- (Sub- A & B C total) labour nominees migrants dent Special total) Total U.K. & Ireland 5,274 3,338 8,612 1,151 1,145 114 19 127 2,556 11,168 23.3 23.7 23.4 27.5 37.3 7.8 14.0 28.7 27.5 24.3 N. Europe 1,850 1,012 2.862 418 397 316 8 34 1,173 4,035 8.2 7.2 7.8 10.0 12.9 21.7 5.9 7.7 12.6 8.8 S. Europe 2,001 1,355 3.356 352 41 31 11 10 445 3,801 8.8 9.6 9.1 8.4 1.3 2.1 8.1 2.3 4.8 8.3 Middle East 1,663 1,126 2,789 94 42 29 1 2 168 2,957 7.3 8.0 7.6 2.2 1.4 2.0 0.7 0.5 1.8 6.4 N. America 1,411 625 2,036 264 401 66 10 63 804 2,840 6.2 4.4 5.5 6.3 13.1 4.5 7.4 14.2 8.7 6.2 C & S America 454 518 972 116 16 5 13 4 154 1,126 2.0 3.7 2.6 2.8 0.5 0.3 10.0 0.9 1.7 2.4 Africa 796 1,116 1,912 462 199 79 . . 20 760 2,672 3.5 7.9 5.2 11.0 6.5 5.4 . . 4.5 8.2 5.8 Asia 8,457 4,736 13,193 1,261 709 807 66 52 2,895 16,088 37.3 33.7 35.9 30.1 23.1 55.5 48.5 11.7 31.2 35.0 Oceania 767 240 1,007 71 117 6 8 131 333 1,340 3.4 1.7 2.7 1.7 3.8 0.4 5.9 29.6 3.6 2.9 Total 22,673 14,066 36,739 4,189 3,067 1,453 136 443 9,288 46,027 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Table C SETTLER ARRIVAL DATA (Region of last Residence) 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-83 1982-83 1983-84 % % % % % % TOTAL SETTLERS UK and Ireland 13,107 19.0 16,397 20.2 31,590 28.4 38,863 32.7 27,249 29.2 13, 624 19.5 Europe 9,538 13.9 13,918 17.1 20,424 18.4 24,981 21.0 19,731 21.2 10. 846 15.5 Asia 20.214 29.4 23,183 28.5 24,914 22.4 26,528 22.4 24,486 26.3 25, 324 36.3 Other 25,890 37.7 27,773 34.2 34,262 30.8 28,328 23.9 21,711 23.3 20. 011 28.7 Total 68,749 100.0 81,271 100.0 111,190 100.0 118,700 100.0 93,177 100.0 69, 805 100.0 FAMILY MIGRATION UK and Ireland 4,442 25.8 4,999 27.2 5,657 28.9 6,126 28.2 9,411 34.9 8,901 26. 2 Europe 3,884 22.5 4,162 22.7 4,130 21.1 3,883 17.8 4,951 18.4 5,869 17.3 Asia 4,171 24.2 4,451 24.2 5,276 27.0 6,752 31.0 6,928 25.7 11,116 32.7 Other 4,728 27.5 4,747 25.9 4,507 23.0 5,008 23.0 5,662 21.0 8,071 23.8 Total 17,225 100.0 18,359 100.0 19,570 100.0 21,769 100.0 26,952 100.0 33,957 100.0 REFUGEES UK and Ireland 6 0.0 7 0.0 195 0.9 56 0.3 17 0.1 16 0.1 Europe 1,302 9.7 4,605 23.1 5,774 26.4 7,176 32.7 4,155 24.4 2,398 16.2 Asia 12,064 89.7 15,254 76.5 15,767 72.2 14,557 66.4 12,758 74.8 10.906 73.8 Other 78 0.6 88 0.4 111 0.5 128 0.6 124 0.7 1,449 9.8 Total 13,450 100.0 19,954 100.0 21,847 100.0 21,917 100.0 17,054 100.0 14,769 100.0 OTHER (Including Labour Shortage, Business and other Categories applicable at that time) UK and Ireland 8,659 22.7 11,391 26.5 25.738 36.9 32,681 43.6 17,821 36.2 4,707 22.3 Europe 4,352 11.4 5,151 12.0 10.520 15.1 13,922 18.6 10.625 21.6 2,579 12. 2 Asia 3,979 10.5 3,478 8.1 3,871 5.5 5,219 6.9 4,800 9.8 3,302 15.7 Other 21, 084 55.4 22,938 53.4 29.644 42.5 23,192 30.9 15,925 32.4 10.491 49.8 Total 38,074 100.0 42,958 100.0 69,773 100.0 75,014 100.0 49,171 100.0 21,079 100.0 Source: DIEA Incoming Passenger Card Statistics. Table D SETTLER ARRIVALS 1974-75-1983-84 Year (a) Actual arrivals 1974-75 89,147 1975-76 52,748 1976-77 (b)70,916 1977-78 73,171 1978-79 (c)68 ,749 1979-80 81,271 1980-81 111,190 1981-82 118,700 1982-83 (d)93,177 1983- 84 69,805 (a) ABS statistics to 1977-78. DIEA arrival statistics from 1978-79 to 1982-83. (b) Until 1976-77 a settler program figure was announced for coming year. Thereafter estimated intakes were announced. (c) In 1978-79 a triennial figure of 70,000 per year was announced. The figure of 70,000 was increased to 95,000 in 1980-81. (d) 1982 was the first year in which the program was based on visaed migrants rather than expected arrivals. Table E ALL MIGRATION APPLICATIONS (a) AND PERSONS VISAED BY REGION (EXCLUDING REFUGEES) Region 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 No. % No. % No. % No. % U.K. and Ireland- Applications 137,112 (39.6) 105,011 (31.6) 53,057 (18.1) 17,876 (11.2) Visas 35,602 (43.6) 39,711 (41.9) 25,822 (38.1) 11,168 (23.8) Europe- Applications 93,500 (27.0) 104,597 (31.5) 77,087 (26.3) 41,242 (25.9) Visas 21,826 (26.7) 26,584 (28.1) 15,763 (23.2) 8,397 (17.9) Asia- Applications 54,242 (15.7) 47,963 (14.4) 67,827 (23.1) 46,724 (29.4) Visas 10 ,970 (13.4) 13,155 (13.9) 12,882 (19.0) 16,254 (34.7) Other- Applications 61,124 (17.7) 74,524 (22.4) 95,580 (32.6) 53,188 (33.4) Visas 13 ,225 (16.2) 15,319 (16.2) 13,366 (19.7) 11,046 (23.6) Total- Applications 345,978 (100.0) 332,095 (100.0) 293,551 (100.0) 159,030 (100.0) Visas 81,623 (100.0) 94,769 (100.0) 67,833 (100.0) 46,865 (100.0) Note-(a) Applications-numbers shown are for persons covered by applications but do not necessarily represent formal applications. In order to avoid use of departmental resources on applications which have no chance of succeeding, and to give people an early answer as to whether they are likely to satisfy migration policy requirements, enquirers are asked to complete a simple enquiry form. This form is generally made available to the inquirer in order to make a preliminary assessment of eligibility. At present, however, there is no requirement for posts to use this form in a uniform manner. The Department is endeavouring to achieve a standard practice at all posts with regard to this procedure. On the basis of information from the preliminary enquiry form, people are then advised whether formal application is warranted. The figures reported by some posts include preliminary enquiry forms as well as formal applications relating to the same applicants. These figures are collected as a means of providing general information on the workload of individual posts; they have not been collected or used as an objective measurement of interest in migration. Because of varying and sometimes considerable time delays between the different processing stages, it is not possible to calculate valid success or failure rates by comparing application and visa rates within any given period. Document I-Table F FAMILY MIGRATION (a)-APPLICATIONS PRESELECTED IN (b) AND VISAS ISSUED BY REGION (PERSONS) 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 Region Number Per cent Number Per cent Number Per cent Number Per cent U.K. and Ireland- Applications n.a. . . n.a . . 13,534 24.9 9,998 19.0 Visaed 6,046 30.7 6,917 30.6 6,178 34.1 8,612 23.4 Europe- Applications n.a. . . n.a . . 8,627 15.9 7,916 15.0 Visaed 4,115 20.9 3,817 16.9 2,628 14.5 6,218 16.9 Asia- Applications n.a. . . n.a . . 17,220 31.7 21,041 40.0 Visaed 5,071 25.7 6, 425 28.5 5,039 27.8 13,193 35.9 Other- Applications n.a. . . n.a . . 14,909 27.5 13,648 25.9 Visaed 4,480 22.7 5, 411 24.0 4,276 23.6 8,716 23.7 Total- Applications n.a. . . n.a . . 54,290 100.0 52,603 100.0 Visaed 19,712 100.0 22,570 100.0 18,121 100.0 36,739 100.0 (a) The definition of Family Migration changed during the period 1980-81 to 1983-84. (b) Preselected in = formal applications accepted from those prima facie eligible to apply within existing policy categories. n.a. not available. Source: DIEA manual statistics for 1980-81 and 1981-82 and MPMS data from 1982- 83 onwards. MPMS data are preliminary and subject to revision, and cover only cases under the policy introduced 19 April 1982. They exclude a number of old policy cases lodged in 1981-82, but visaed in 1982-83 (6,486 persons) and 1983- 84 (255 persons). Document I-Table G REFUGEE AND HUMANITARIAN INTAKE: GLOBAL ALLOCATION 1984-85 Program (1983-84 visas Refugees SHP Total issued) Indochinese 8,000 200 8,200 (10,047) East European 1,000 200 1,200 (1,997) Latin America 750 750 1,500 (1,016) Middle Eastern 750 750 1,500 (703) African 350 100 450 (116) Others 150 1,000 1,150 (1,127) *11,000 **3,000 14,000 (15,006) Contingency Reserve 2,000 ****479 ***16,000 15,485 * All 11,000 funded. ** Only 1,000 funded. *** The proposed 1984-85 program capacity will accommodate any necessary responses to humanitarian emergencies. **** Lebanon. Document I-Table H INTERNATIONAL RESETTLEMENT OF INDOCHINESE REFUGEES 1975-30 June 1984 Source: Office of United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees PRINCIPLE RESETTLEMENT COUNTRIES Australia(a) 88,969 Canada 92,323 France 96,204 Germany 22,439 Japan 3,298 United Kingdom 16,450 U.S.A.(b) 547,655 Others(c) 60,292 Total 927,630 (a) DIEA preliminary figure for the resettlement of Indochinese refugees for period April 1975 to 30 June 1984 is 88,112. The UNHCR figure of 88,969 includes persons who departed for Australia under arrangements other than refugee entry but in the event have been statistically included as refugee entry by UNHCR. (b) Does not include some 130,000 persons who arrived in the United States in 1975. (c) Does not include some 260,000 Vietnamese who arrived in China in the period from 1978. Document I Table I INDOCHINESE REFUGEE AND O.D.P. ARRIVALS Source: Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Family migration Indochinese (ODP) from Program year refugees Vietnam Total 1974-75 691 . . 691 1975-76 1,049 . . 1,049 1976-77 1,135 . . 1,135 1977-78 7 ,077 . . 7,077 1978-79 11,872 . . 11,872 1979-80 14,952 . . 14,952 1980-81 15, 004 . . 15,004 1981-82 13,805 . . 13,805 1982-83 12,435 573 13,008 1983-84 10 ,092 1,761 11,853 Total 88,112 2,334 90,446 (i) The memorandum of understanding between Australia and Socialist Republic of Vietnam in relation to ODP was signed on 8 March 1982. The first ODP arrivals came to Australia in November 1982. (ii) Between 1974-75 and November 1982 it is estimated that some 500 persons arrived in Australia from Vietnam under ad hoc family reunion arrangements. ( This figure also includes some Kampucheans from Vietnam). Mr WEST —Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Opposition. Throughout the year I progressively informed the House of difficulties the Government faced in achieving its original program of 80,000 to 90,000 visa issues. These difficulties included a reduced level of interest amongst eligible migrants in traditional source countries. The tight employment situation inherited by this Government also contributed by making Australia less attractive to migrants. Given these facts, I regard the 1983-84 outcome as satisfactory. I point out that total settler arrivals have reduced from 119,000 in 1981-82 to 93,000 in 1982-83, and now to 70,000 in 1983-84. The Government has announced a responsible and realistic program for 1984-85, of 72,000 visaed migrants and refugees with a 2,000 contingency reserve for unforeseen refugee and special humanitarian situations. The program represents an increase of approximately 15 per cent over that of 1983-84. Our policy continues to give priority to meeting social and humanitarian objectives, with family migrants and refugees making up nearly 80 per cent of this year's intake. This Government's policy on family migration clearly shows our humanitarian priorities. In 1982-83, something over 18,000 migrants were visaed under the new family categories. In 1983-84 under this Government, 36,739 were visaed in the family reunion category. This represents a very substantial increase over the family reunion program for 1982-83. The 1984-85 family migration program will be 42,000, a further increase of approximately 17 per cent on 1983-84. I draw the attention of members to the figures I have just incorporated in Hansard. A careful reading will show quite clearly that this Government does not discriminate against migrants from Britain and Europe. Although it is difficult to draw precise conclusions from such data, it is interesting to observe that migrants from the United Kingdom and Ireland, excluding refugees, received in 1983-84 23.8 per cent of total visas issued from only 11.2 per cent of total applications. Migrants from Asia, excluding refugees, received 34.7 per cent of visas from 29.4 per cent of applications. In the family migration category, migrants from the United Kingdom and Ireland received 23.4 per cent of visas issued from 19 per cent of the applications; migrants from Europe received 16.9 per cent of visas from 15 per cent of the applications, and migrants from Asia received 35.9 per cent of visas from 40 per cent of the applications. In fact, both in numerical and percentage terms settlers from the United Kingdom and Europe in 1983-84, totalling 24,470 or 35 per cent, slightly exceed arrivals in 1978-79, which totalled 22,645 or 33 per cent. There was no problem with the so-called balance in that year, so why should there be a problem now? It can be demonstrated that this Government does not discriminate in favour of Asians. Settler arrivals from Asia have remained relatively steady over the past five years, and in fact 1984-85, with 25,324 arrivals, represented a decrease over the 26,528 arrivals in 1981-82. During this five-year period, refugees have accounted for about half of the total settler arrivals from Asia, under refugee policies initiated by the former Government. Critics of the immigration program have pointed to a 'dramatic drop' since 1981 -82 in numbers of migrants from the United Kingdom and Europe and a sharp increase in arrivals from Asia. I quote relevant settler arrival figures as tabled for the years 1978-79, 1981-82 and 1983-84 for the United Kingdom and Ireland, and Asia. From the United Kingdom and Ireland the figures were: In 1978 -79, 13,107; 1981-82, 38,863; and 1983-84, 13,624. From Asia, the figures were: In 1978-79, 20,214; 1981-82, 26,528; and 1983-84, 25,324 arrivals. From 1980-81-this is the important point I would like honourable members to understand-there was a surge of British migration peaking in 1981-82. In that year, immigration totalled 118,700, of which 75,000 were from skilled labour, business and other categories. The majority of the 1981-82 settler arrival intake from the United Kingdom and Ireland was in the former independent and general eligibility categories. In that year only 6,100 were admitted under United Kingdom family migration from a total of 38,863 settler arrivals. By 1983 -84 total arrivals under the skilled categories, as I will later explain in detail, were reduced to 21,000 for economic and employment reasons. Hence reductions in total settler arrivals from the United Kingdom and Ireland occurred between 1981-82 and 1983-84. It was the inevitable result of reductions under the skilled labour categories and removal of independent and general eligibility categories initiated by the former Government and supported by this Government. The fact is that in 1983-84 there were slightly more arrivals from the United Kingdom and Ireland than there were in 1978-79. Family migration from the United Kingdom and Ireland has increased from only 4,442 in 1978-79 to 8,901 in 1983-84 , our first full year in office. Asian migration moderately increased between 1978-79 and 1983-84, largely as a result of the Indo-Chinese refugee program commenced by the former Government and continued by this Government. These former refugees, as permanent residents and citizens of Australia, are now entitled to exercise sponsorships under the family migration program, as are all other residents. Our policies apply global criteria. The trend apparent in the composition of our intake is a direct result of past long term policies. Why then do we have continuing claims that this Government has developed policies that are anti- British, pro-Asian or in any way discriminatory? The figures do not support these claims; neither does a study of the policies. Refugees The 1984-85 program has places for 14,000 refugees and special humanitarian program entrants, plus a contingency reserve of 2,000 places for unforseen circumstances. The diversification initiatives introduced by the Government in 1983 will continue. The 1983-84 refugee and special humanitarian program result of 15,485 represents a shortfall from the expected arrival of 16,600. The shortfall arises from declining need and demand in Europe, processing delays in the Middle East, and slight shortfalls from Latin America and Africa. Figures on a regional basis are included in the document already tabled. Our 1984-85 program proposals should not be regarded as targets, nor should they be regarded as inflexible. Best judgments are made in setting ceilings for the various categories within the total program. We will therefore monitor the program closely as the year progresses and should need for adjustments emerge, they will be made. The purpose of my recent visit to Washington, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Argentina and Chile was to hold discussions on Indo-Chinese refugee policy, and observe our Latin American refugee selection and checking processes. These discussions, particularly those in Washington, covered a wide range of international concerns which are of relevance to Australia and the other Governments involved in the search for solutions to world refugee problems. Australia is now influential at the international decision-making level on refugee policies; we are no longer seen just as a country of mass resettlement, implementing policies decided by others. I met the United States Attorney General, Assistant Secretary of State for South East Asian and Pacific Affairs, the United States Ambassador at Large for Refugees, the Vice-President of El Salvador and the Foreign Ministers of Costa Rica and Argentina. I talked with representatives of the United Nations High Commissioner for Regugees and the Intergovernmental Committee for Migration, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and non-governmental agencies such as the Catholic Human Rights Commission in El Salvador and the Vicqaria de la Solidaridad in Chile. Australia has a long standing partnership with the United States on refugee issues, so my visit to Washington provided an opportunity to exchange views on shared concerns and objectives. Our mutual concerns relate to the growing number of refugees around the world, and our objectives are to seek lasting solutions to the plight of those affected and to work to ease situations which create refugees. In these matters, Australia and the United States enjoy a close relationship. Views on refugee problems are exchanged freely and constructively. I made it clear to the United States Government that this Government would not concede to minority pressures to abruptly terminate Australia's Indo-Chinese refugee program. I emphasised that while Australia's commitment to accept Indo- Chinese refugees remains, the commitment is not open-ended. Our program strategy is to turn the emphasis gradually from refugee resettlement to family reunion; thus,, our 1984-85 program is for 8,000 refugees, and 5,000 migrants under the family reunion program from Vietnam. Australia believes progress on non-resettlement solutions is long overdue. Past policy placed too much emphasis on resettlement, and little attention was given to the basic problem. Resettlement in Australia should be conditional on progressing, lasting solutions. I informed the United States Administration that other options such as voluntary repatriation should be seriously addressed for those displaced Indo-Chinese for whom resettlement outside the region was not really appropriate, for example, the Lao Hill Tribe people and some long term camp stayers. This Government's refugee program will only accommodate genuine refugees. We believe refugee resettlement programs should not perpetuate outflows or displacements which could seriously destabilise particular regions, and add to political tensions. For these reasons, while we will continue to accept refugees from the camps in Thailand, we will not encourage the 260,000 Cambodians currently gathering along the Thai-Cambodian border to believe that they will be resettled. The Australian Labor Government is sympathetic to the situation of these people: We provide ongoing and substantial assistance. But they are not refugees in terms of the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Their resettlement will not help efforts to secure a safe and peaceful future for the Cambodian nation. Similarly, our position, as put to United States officials, is that orderly departure under the Australian migration agreement with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam is firmly based on family reunion principles. This reflects our concern that those Vietnamese refugees who have come to Australia and who have relatives in Vietnam have the same opportunity as other Australian migrants for family reunification. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and I have said, this Government will not treat any Australian citizen or permanent resident as second class. The United States understands that we will take people only from re- education camps in Vietnam with close family in Australia. We certainly share its concern on human rights issues in Vietnam. My colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) has made this concern clearly known to the SRV Government. We have a large number of family reunion applications from Vietnam. We have set the number at 5,000 in 1984-85, with priority to spouses, children and parents. So, our family priority is clear. These are the guidelines for our Indo-Chinese program. I repeat that this Government will not capitulate to any minority pressures abruptly to terminate commitments on racial grounds. I appreciated the warmth and frankness with which American colleagues approached our discussions. I am confident that there is now a greater understanding of our respective policies, which will work to our mutual benefit. Central America I visited Mexico, El Salvador and Costa Rica to examine the operations of the Government's refugee and humanitarian policies and programs. I was determined to ensure that our programs were only accepting people meeting both our humanitarian criteria and our standards for admission to Australia. As the House would be aware, the Government operates two programs in this region: The refugee program under UN criteria, and the special humanitarian program which helps victims of human rights abuses, some of whom are at risk within their own country. Accordingly, detailed discussions were held with relevant Government Ministers, United Nations and other international officials and human rights agency representatives. Madam Deputy Speaker, we have diversified our refugee and humanitarian programs to provide humanitarian relief to refugees and those suffering human rights abuses world wide. We would be failing our humanitarian obligations if we were to deny persons in Latin America, including Central America, access to our programs. Indeed we have a Latin American community now in Australia of about 50 ,000 who press the plight of their compatriots. The former Government decided in 1981 to expand the Latin American refugee and special humanitarian program both numerically and geographically, although it had not implemented this decision by early 1983. The volatile situation in Central America has resulted in the displacement of vast numbers of persons fleeing their homelands to escape repression, to seek a livelihood or to search for food. In many circumstances it is difficult to differentiate refugees from displaced persons. While there are signs of improvements in El Salvador, the situation remains fragile. President Duarte has indicated the intention to redress longstanding human rights abuses in his country. To what extent he will succeed is difficult to judge. Death squad murders are said to have decreased significantly from 800 per month several years ago, but people reported to be still gravely at risk include trade unionists and people working on land and other social reformers. Those who refuse to join the guerillas can also be in danger. Costa Rica provides generous first refuge to many Central Americans; it is estimated that Costa Rica presently hosts some 200,000 refugees and displaced persons. Predictably, caring for these people places strains on a developing country, and I believe there is scope for Australia to pass on some of its considerable settlement expertise to Costa Rica. My visit did not include Nicaragua or Honduras, but regionally-based international representatives pointed to the particular problem of Salvadorean refugees in Honduras near the El Salvador border. Proposals to relocate these people away from the border should in my view have regard to the wishes of the people, the risks inherent in their continued presence on the border and the capacity of international agencies to provide the necessities of life. Overall, I am satisfied that our Central American programs are valuable, are carefully managed, and are correctly targetted. If it were not for the special humanitarian programs of Canada, Australia and the United States, the 1983 amnesty for political detainees in El Salvador would not have been successful. Many released detainees would have been immediate targets for para-military death squads. I remind the House of the Government's position on Central America, as previously stated by my colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs: Australia considers that military action will not solve the problems of Central America and that it creates an environment which is not conducive to reform and reconciliation. There are dangers that the fighting could widen. Australia affirms the position adopted by the UN Security Council earlier in 1983 that all Central American countries have the right to live in peace and security, free from outside interference. South America In Argentina the Alfonsin Government is making a heroic and historic attempt to make democracy and the rule of law work. It is to be commended and supported for its endeavours to redress the human rights abuses which were perpetrated by the former regime. It is pleasing to see that many Argentines who fled their country to escape that regime are now returning. To assist these people's return, the Australian Government has contributed a modest but significant amount to the fund set up by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, for housing, jobs, and schooling for the returnees. My discussions also enabled me to increase Argentine awareness of Australia's immigration programs, and to understand the many difficulties faced by the new Argentine administration. The human rights situation in Chile remains of concern to Australia. There is widespread harassment of individuals engaged in political and politically- related industrial activity; there are instances of interrogation with force and discriminatory denials of the right to work. Australia's program in Central and South America will remain of modest scale, approxi- mately 1,500, for 1984-85. That program will be selective according to need and claim upon Australia and each case will be considered carefully on its merits. Our broad policies for the region will continue to recognise that local solutions, including local resettlement of displaced persons, remain the preferred solution. While in this region I was made very conscious of the importance of Australia's expressions, and concrete demonstrations, of concern. Several governments applauded our efforts and said such initiatives conveyed a message of protest to those abusing human rights, thus having some effect in reducing such abuses. Our Latin American refugee and special humanitarian program is seen as a significant Australian initiative in that region. I am satisfied that our processing and checking arrangements are as effective as it is possible to be without endangering the safety of the applicants. The United States, Canada, Sweden and other western European countries are operating similar programs. We are co-ordinating our efforts and sharing our experience with these countries and with international and national humanitarian and human rights non-government agencies. In all of these circumstances, the scale and composition of our Latin American program is an appropriate Australian response. Skilled Labour and Business Migration I will now outline the application of Government policies in the skilled labour , employer nomination and business migration categories. Under these categories, we will take 16,000 in 1984-85. The skilled migrant intake must be sensitive to both the short term and long term needs of the economy. It is worth recalling here the response of the previous Government to the needs of the economy from 1980 to 1983. There was a large increase in skilled and independent migrants in response to the so-called resource development boom. Settler arrivals in the labour shortage, business and independent categories increased from 43,000 in 1979-80 to 70,000 in 1980-81, and peaked at 75,000 in 1981-82. Then the bubble burst. The labour market ran down very quickly. The response was to reduce the number of skilled occupations in 1982 so that settler arrivals in labour shortage, business and other categories reduced to 49,000 in 1982-83. Maintaining similar selection criteria, this Government further reduced numbers in these categories, and settler arrivals in the skilled labour categories reduced to 21,000 in 1983-84. A significant number of those who arrived in 1983-84 were visaed during 1982. This highlights the inadequacy of previous labour market planning. The system for selecting skilled migrants which we inherited was based on the occupational demand schedule-ODS. Migrants were approved if their skill was on a list of occupations assessed as being in shortage. The way the number of occupations in shortage changed in 1982 and 1983 on the Schedule indicates the mistaken, tragically mistaken, nature of this approach. From 77 occupations on the schedule in December 1982, the previous Government reduced this number to 21 , and this Government cut the number back further to 13 in 1983. The previous system had major flaws. It was backward looking. By the time migrants had been processed and arrived, the need for their skills was often long gone. We had the sorry spectacle of migrants giving up secure jobs in their home countries, and coming here in good faith, only to find that their skills were no longer required. The other major flaw was that the system had no upper limit. Consequently, more workers arrived in some occupations and regions than were needed. This Government has placed the skilled worker intake on a planned basis, recognising that skilled migration must be an integral part of a total manpower planning approach. We immediately set up a review of our reliance on migration for skilled worker needs. Members will recall that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and I reported on the review in March this year. The main outcome of the review was that in future there would be less reliance on meeting our skilled worker needs from overseas: Migration would be used only where domestic training, retraining and education programs clearly could not meet all needs. Over time, I anticipate that the need for the skilled worker intake will reduce . In the short term, we will continue to need some skilled migrants. But as our training institutions improve their planning, the only need for skilled migrants should be in the highly specialised areas currently catered for by the employer nomination scheme -ENS. This is a fundamentally different policy from that of past years. I want honourable members to understand that and I hope that they will agree with it. Previous policies made us continually reliant on skilled workers from overseas for a significant part of our skilled needs. There was little incentive for employers to plan and train for their own future labour requirements. It was certainly not in the interests of Australian workers, especially the young unemployed. Manpower planning requires a forward looking approach. The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations has the responsibility of preparing assessments of both detailed supply and demand for skilled labour. As part of this process, they now produce an occupational share system-OSS-which is the basis for selecting skilled migrants. OSS has 50 occupations assessed by DEIR as likely to have a continued reliance on skilled migration, out of a total of 220 skilled occupations examined. Because of the notable absence of shortages, currently only 24 of the 50 designated occupations have been allocated a share for the recruitment of migrants to meet future medium term needs. The schedule for 1984-85 is set out in a detailed statement, and I now table that statement for the information of honourable members. Numbers in this category will total 7,500, of which 2,700 will be principal applicants in 1984-85. This is a responsible figure. It takes into account surplus labour capacity, and growth in demand in response to continuing improvements in economic and industry conditions. The main principles underlying the selection of skilled migrants are non-discrimination, selection in terms of skills and experience, and administrative simplicity. The mechanism to operate OSS at overseas posts and in Australia is detailed in the document I have just tabled. We reject any proposal to manipulate the administration of skilled and independent categories in order to achieve some balance on the basis of race or national origin. The intake of skilled workers should be on the basis of superior skills, regardless of origin. To be realistic, structural changes in the labour market suggest that our future needs will be in the areas of high technology and the professions. While there are obviously applicants with these skills from Europe, Asians are also likely to figure prominently. This highlights the futility of trying to manipulate the category mix to engineer balance. Employer Nomination Scheme The occupational shares system is based on a broad assessment of skilled needs, but inevitably there will be need for the unexpected, peak load or highly specialised skills. This requires a very selective program. Thus the employer nomination scheme complements the occupational shares system, and does not cut across its operation. In this category, we expect 4,000 migrants in 1984-85, of which 1,400 will be principal applicants. We are currently reviewing the detailed operation of both ENS and temporary employment. We will introduce some policy adjustments to the employer nomination scheme and to temporary employment arrangements to ensure better co-ordination between them. Employer nominations will only be approved after rigorous checking . Prospective employers must demonstrate that they are attempting to train local workers, and that they have thoroughly tested the Australian labour market. Business Migration I announced on 18 July 1984 that the Government is committed to the continued development of the business migration program. The 1984-85 program has been expanded to an intake of 4,000 persons, of which 1,400 will be principal applicants. This is a significant increase over 1983-84, when 1,500 persons were visaed. It is also a more positive commitment than Australia has had in the past . The objectives of business migration are strongly supported by all State governments and by the Opposition. The program has the potential to create jobs, stimulate investment, and open up export opportunities. Business migrants bring with them new technologies, fresh management skills, and valuable contacts for overseas markets. I recognise that to achieve such an increase represents a considerable challenge. Business migration is competitive and volatile. A number of other countries are actively and aggressively working to attract business migrants. Some countries have lower standards and requirements. We are only interested, however, in the genuine business person, who intends to settle permanently in Australia, and who will clearly benefit the nation. We will not allow migrants simply to buy their way into Australia. The priority will be to apply our criteria, even if this means that we do not achieve our target. I am realistic about business migration. I recognise that Australia is not always first choice to the prospective migrant. We offer a smaller domestic market, far from North America and Europe. Against this, we can offer political and economic stability, an attractive and tolerant lifestyle, proximity to growing South East Asian markets, and perhaps most importantly, tremendous long term economic potential. In maintaining our standards, the emphasis will increasingly be on testing to ensure that the migrant has already demonstrated success as a business person, and to allow greater flexibility in the way the migrant's business proposal is developed. We are not prepared to take people with funds but no business credentials. Nor are we prepared to accept those who simply wish to establish a right to permanent residence in Australia as insurance against future disruption in their own country. We require a genuine intention to settle and to contribute to economic activity in Australia. The Government has raised the minimum capital requirement for business migrants from $250,000 to $500,000. This is defined in terms of net worth, and takes into account investments already made. Flexibility will be allowed in the timing of funds transfer. The new requirement is a reasonable test that the migrant has already been successful in business. It is also a realistic assessment of the capital required to establish a business and establish accommodation in Australia. The Government has broadened the program objectives to encourage export activities and joint ventures. Administrative procedures will be tightened. The skills and professionalism of officers working in the Business Migration Program Section will be improved. Closer links will be developed with State governments and other Federal agencies. Although I recognise the value of consultants, I have asked for closer monitoring and control of their activities. In this way, the program will operate in a more positive and professional manner , but with tight controls directed towards eliminating any scope for abuse. A feature of the program has been the high level of interest from Asia, an interest which is likely to continue. I now table a document which sets out the operation of the business migration program. My Department is also responsible for analysis of population trends in Australia and internationally. A national population statement was prepared for the recent United Nations World Population Conference in Mexico City, which I attended and addressed. The statement prepared for the conference describes Australian Government policies related to population issues. I table that statement for the information of honourable members. In my statement to the conference, I emphasised that discussion of population issues must also address broader questions of economic development. The international community should seek to strengthen the rights and freedoms of all people to pursue a healthy, long and satisfying life. Our objective should be to meet human needs while promoting protection of the environment, as well as economic growth. Australia respects the right of sovereign states to determine population policies having regard to their national cultural, social and economic objectives. Australia will not seek to impose such values upon sovereign states by attaching conditions to aid programs. A special plea was made by Australia for consideration of the individual in determining population policies. Individuals should have the opportunity, we said, to develop their full potential as human beings and as members of families and communities. Australia also emphasised the rights of indigenous minorities in the determination of national population and migration policies. Australia gave particular emphasis to issues concerning the status of women. Australia was co- sponsor of a move to strengthen the emphasis on the status of women in population programs. A link has been established by a working party between this conference and one which will be held in 1985 to mark the end of the Decade of Women. This Government has put forward and implemented a non-discriminatory, responsible program which effectively answers any views that the immigration intake is too high and is deliberately biased for or against any particular source of origin. This Government's policies will continue to emphasise family reunion, refugees, and to a lesser extent skilled labour and business migration. The family reunion program has been expanded concurrently with an overall reduction in total migrant levels. Australia now has a positive refugee policy which seeks lasting solutions to refugee problems, continues to diversify the program to situations of real need, but which regards resettlement as a least desirable but at times necessary option. Australia is now influential in the formulation of refugee policy internationally in co-operation with other nations such as the United States, and in the refugee councils of the world, such as the Executive Committee of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Australia will not use the skilled labour intake as a means of 'balance' against people from Asia. We reject the idea of attempting to manipulate the racial mix of the program by engineering the category balance. Such a policy is untenable, unnecessary and, as I have already pointed out, it would be counter- productive anyway. The skilled labour intake is now an integral part of planned manpower policy. No longer are massive numbers coming to Australia to join a tight labour market. The business migration program is being developed as a contribution to the economic development of Australia by taking full advantage of the entrepreneurial skills of those migrants who will settle in Australia as the important human element of the program. I believe that the account I have given provides a firm and clear basis on which the Opposition can, as it has indicated it would like to, rejoin a bipartisan consensus on immigration policy. It is my impression that the Opposition as a whole is sincere about this, and I welcome recent statements by Opposition members, such as those of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the consistently honourable influence of the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee). Without seeking to stifle discussion on this important issue, the Government would welcome a return to a bipartisan approach to immigration policy. But in doing so, we should take care to ensure that such discussion, which should still eventuate, is rational and informed, based upon understanding of past and present policies, and their results. I am sure no one in this House would want social divisions created and maintained which denigrate the contributions migrants have already made, and will continue to make, to Australia's future. I present the following paper: Migration, Ministerial Statement, 7 September 1984. Motion (by Mr John Brown) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Motion (by Mr John Brown)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Denison speaking for a period not exceeding 42 minutes. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.51) —The statement today of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) is further proof that the immigration policies of the Hawke socialist Government are an absolute disaster for Australia. This Minister should now be sacked before further damage is done. Despite his obfuscation, despite his attempts to cover up, the people of Australia are awake to the dangerous and radical turn to the left which has occurred in immigration policy since the Hawke socialist Government came to power. It was this Government and this Minister which deliberately broke away from the bipartisan approach to immigration which had served Australia so well for so many years. This Minister's statement today will fool nobody. Under his maladministration, immigration policy has become a disaster for Australia-both in the short term and, more importantly, in the long term. We now have a migration intake which is hopelessly out of kilter; we now have policies being implemented which do not have the support of the overwhelming majority of Australians; we now have reached the edge of the precipice; we are poised on the brink of disaster. There is no area of Government policy and administration which will have a greater long term impact on the future of this nation than the area of immigration policy. Treasury policies will come and go. They will impact for two, three or four years at the most. What we do in immigration policy today will impact on Australia not just for five or ten years , but for decades, for generations. What we do today will shape the face of Australia into the twenty-first century and beyond. Under this Minister we now have an immigration program in disarray. Business and skilled migration categories were slashed last year; the refugee program has been blatantly politicised; overseas tourism to Australia has been adversely affected; deportation has been virtually abolished, and injustice and inequity abound in the administration of authoritarian policy which knows no discretion and very little compassion. The Minister's statement and the statistics upon which he relies in an attempt to bolster his indefensible position will not fool the people of Australia. They know what has been going on. They know beyond any doubt that the claims repeated month after month by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke ) and this Minister that there has been 'no change in immigration policy' are simply not true. This Minister relies in this House on statistics which are the successors of the very same statistics peddled in this House in May, when the distinguished permanent head of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs saw fit to describe them in a document incorporated in the Hansard of the Parliament as ' wrong', 'incomplete' and, listen to this, 'notoriously unreliable'. Because full records of rejected applications are not kept at overseas posts and because the migration program management system, MPMS, was, on the Government's own admission, 'still being developed' during the entire year ended 30 June 1984, the official Bureau of Statistics figures are to be preferred as representing more accurately what has occurred in immigration policy under the Hawke socialist Government. Mr Braithwaite —The only basis. Mr HODGMAN —The only basis, as my colleague the honourable member for Dawson says. The figures which the Minister seeks to use to bolster his case simply do not stand up. As I mentioned earlier, month after month both inside and outside this Parliament, the Prime Minister and this Minister misled this Parliament and the Australian nation by wrongfully claiming over and over again that there had been 'no change in immigration policy'. What do the official Australian Bureau of Statistics' figures do to that claim? They shatter it absolutely, as we now see publicly exposed the fact that there has been a massive 61 per cent drop in European migration to Australia in January 1984 as against January 1983 and a massive 49 per cent drop in European migration to Australia in February 1984 as against February 1983. These are the latest ABS figures available. Regrettably, it seems most likely that the pattern already revealed will be shown to have continued from March through to the end of June this year. Will the Prime Minister and his Minister now come clean and stand up and tell the people of Australia what they have against European migration to this country? They resort, having already been found out, to the lame and pathetic excuse that there has been a 'drop-off in interest in European migration to Australia'. I respond by saying that interest certainly 'drops-off' when the door is slammed in one's face. I have just visited a number of our European posts and what did I find? In Athens there has been a drop-off in the number of staff employed in the migration section at our Australian embassy. Why has this happened? The number of staff in the migration section in Athens has been reduced by this Minister and this Government. What have they got against Greek migration to Australia? The number of visas for settlers coming to Australia from Greece has dropped dramatically. I actually met prospective Greek migrants to Australia who have given up. They are now going to Canada instead. It is not just Greeks who wish to migrate to Australia as new settlers who are suffering. Something very odd is going on in the case of Greek tourists who want to visit Australia, to see this great country of ours and to be with their friends and relatives in Australia for a short term, but very enjoyable holiday. As my colleague and friend the shadow Minister for tourism and small business, the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) and I pointed out forcefully on Wednesday of this week, the number of Greek tourists visiting Australia in January 1984 dropped by a massive 25 per cent as against January 1983. When we turned to Italy, my colleague, the shadow Minister for tourism, and I found the situation was even worse. In February 1984, as proved by the official Bureau of Statistics figures, the number of Italian tourists visiting Australia dropped by a staggering 31 per cent as against February 1983. What more did we find out? We found out that the Italia Australia Association-Associazione Italia Australia-which has been working magnificently for many years to promote Australian tourism in Italy and to encourage Italians to visit Australia has now become so frustrated and annoyed at what is going on that it lodged an official protest with the Italian Government and that protest has now been conveyed to Australia. Will the Prime Minister and the Minister now come clean and tell the people of Australia what they have against Italian and Greek tourists coming to Australia, particularly when the Australian Tourist Commission has been doing such a tremendous job in trying to promote Australia as one of the great tourist attractions of the world. I have not only read the letter of protest, I have also met with a senior administrator of the Italia Australia Association whose headquarters are in Rome. This was not a case of Michael Hodgman drumming up an issue, as the Minister shamefully tried to claim earlier this week. He should listen to some of the words from the letter of protest: It stated: It is with great regret that the Italia Australia Association is obliged to request . . . . . . to cease to perform acts damaging the moral and material interests of Italian citizens applying for entry visa to Australia . . . . . . unlawfully harmed in one of their most elementary rights such as that of the free movement between the two countries . . . . . . refusal without motivation of the tourist visa We see a 31 per cent drop in the number of Italian tourists visiting Australia in February 1984 compared with February 1983. Mr West —You don't even know what year it is. Mr John Brown —You're a fraud. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —I ask the honourable gentlemen on my right to restrain themselves. The honourable member for Denison has the call. Mr HODGMAN —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I can understand why they are doing it . This is how serious the situation has become. This is further proof of the relentless and unremitting anti-European bias of the Hawke socialist Government. The figures coming to light now prove beyond any doubt that the figures upon which I relied when I accused the Hawke socialist Government of being the most anti-European, anti-British government in Australia's history were in fact very much on the conservative side. When I spoke about a 41 per cent drop in European migration, the figure should have been 61 per cent. The Minister's figures tabled today, criticise them though I do, demonstrate a 50 per cent drop in the past 12 months. Mr Cadman —What are the right figures? Mr HODGMAN —Exactly! The honourable member for Mitchell is the man who made the great mistake of using the Government's own immigration figures in a debate in this Parliament. He was then unjustly castigated by the Prime Minister for having dared to use the official departmental figures. I repeat the words of Mr McKinnon, the distinguished permanent head of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, in the document tabled in the Parliament in May this year. He said that the figures were 'totally unreliable'. I repeat that in the light of what is now coming out, my figures used in recent months are very conservative. What particularly annoys me and every member of the Opposition is the way in which our stand on immigration issues has been misrepresented by the Prime Minister, this Minister and other members of the Hawke socialist Government in recent months. Employing the tactic of the new McCarthyism-this ugly new authoritarianism of 1984-any person who dares to ask a question, let alone utter one word of criticism of the immigration policies of the Hawke socialist Government, runs the risk of being abused and smeared with the tag of 'racist'. When we have tried to contain the debate on a rational and intellectual basis we have been rewarded by abuse and denigration. When the Leader of the Opposition, the next Prime Minister of Australia, calmly and rationally asked a question in the House he was, for his trouble, called an 'orang-outang' by this Minister. Mr West —Ha, ha! Mr John Brown —Ha, ha! Mr HODGMAN —Honourable members opposite think that is funny. I hope the people of Australia listening to the debate realise that those honourable members think it funny that when the Leader of the Opposition asks a serious question on immigration in this House he is called an orang-outang for his trouble. Mr Deputy Speaker, we are not racists. We love Australia. We will not be intimidated into silence by this Government and by those who support it through the use of the tactics of McCarthyism which have become the stock-in-trade of the facists of the Left. The record speaks for itself. It is the Hawke socialist Government which has sought to gain crude political advantage by distorting the coalition's stance on immigration. Every time the heat goes down as a result of our assurance that we do not intend to make this an election issue we have a prominent member of the Government, and most recently the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), kicking the issue along by unjustifiably accusing us and anyone else who dares to ask a question of being racist. This tactic, employed by this shameful Government, in both immigration and Aboriginal land rights, is now starting to backfire because the people of Australia are now starting to see through it. The record of the coalition parties in immigration policy since World War II is indeed a proud one on social, economic and humanitarian grounds. We have maintained a true and constant course. It is the Hawke socialist Government which has veered dangerously and radically to the Left. In this most crucial area of immigration, in the shaping of the future of Australia, there has been no consultation, no consensus; only abuse and acrimony. The Government's tactic has failed and the overwhelming majority of Australians support the views which we are expressing in this sensitive and critical area of policy and administration. I say to honourable members not just to take my word for it. They should look at the facts, look at the figures and look at what has been done with the slashing of business migration, skilled migration, the reduction of the number of occupational demand categories, the changes to the family reunion criteria and the incredible statement by this ideologically motivated Minister that under our Government there was 'an in-built bias in favour of highly skilled English speaking and financially well-off migrants'. It appears that according to this Minister Australia does not want highly skilled migrants. According to this Minister it is of no help at all that one can speak English. According to this Minister one is not wanted if one is financially self- sufficient and therefore no drain on the taxpayers of Australia. In many ways it is this Government and this Minister which have quite deliberately contributed to severe migrant unemployment which in turn has fuelled community concern in gross contradiction of the national interest. The Minister's attempts to justify the policy changes on economic grounds simply do not stand up to analysis and have been debunked by the Committee for Economic Development of Australia, in its report on the economic and social aspects of international migration undertaken by the distinguished Dr Neville Norman. The Minister's flimsy economic arguments were absolutely destroyed by Professor Warren Hogan, Professor of Economics at the University of Sydney, in his historic and great address to the Institute of Public Affairs on 3 July 1984. At just about that time in a stroke of absolute madness the Hawke Government decided that one cannot come into Australia to start a business, to employ Australians, unless one is 'half a millionaire'. This Government raised the former $250,000 investment qualification to a massive $500,000 qualification, thereby slamming the door on thousands who wanted to be part of the economy of Australia, to be partners in the development of our national prosperity, to start businesses in this country and to employ Australians. This Minister, relentlessly pursuing his ideological commitment to the socialist Left of which he is the titular leader, has acted in an authoritarian manner against organisations such as the Big Brother Movement Ltd, an Australian organisation-I repeat, an Australian organisation-which has had the support of every Prime Minister of Australia since 1930 until the present Prime Minister came to power. Men like the great Ben Chifley served on the Board of the Big Brother Movement; Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam supported it. This Prime Minister and this Minister have treated the Big Brother Movement in a most unjust and disgraceful manner. The previous bi-partisan approach on refugees has been shattered as we now see this Minister politicising this area of humanitarian concern. He is pouring petrol on the fire by recruiting large numbers of refugees from El Salvador and from Chile. He has gone personally through Central and South America recruiting refugees whose political indications are obvious to all. If they are genuine refugees then there will be no problem. If they are something else Australia will be importing into this country a potential time bomb. A member of the recent Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Central America was told quite categorically that some of the people who are being recruited to Australia are people whose presence will not be in the national interests of this nation. I will just say in passing that I have been provided with a memorandum by a member of that delegation which pointed out that a number of those being recruited were well known leftist terrorists in their own countries, that the degree of screening is a scandal in that there is simply one officer screening these people on behalf of Australia and that officer is based in Mexico City. It was put to the member of the delegation, who conveyed the information to me, that the screening is so scandalously superficial that only a few inquiries are made about the applicants' backgrounds and personal characteristics. The door is wide open-- Mr West —What about Indo-China? Mr HODGMAN —The door is wide open, and I say to the Minister that he opened it. Where did the Minister get the mandate for this radical change of direction? Why has this Minister meddled politically in this area of humanitarian relief if not just to satisfy the twisted ideologies of the socialists and, dare I say the pro -communist Left? This Government should now return to a properly administered immigration policy worthy of bipartisan support and the support of the Australian community. As I have said on many occasions in the past, no other area of Government policy needs so fundamentally and so critically to be successfully implemented than that of immigration. If a government has public support it has a policy which will work well. If it loses public support it is inviting disaster. I have said before and I will say again that I do not want to see Brixton-type situations in Australia in my lifetime or beyond it. We call upon the Government to return to a bipartisan approach. We call upon the Government to implement proper immigration policies which will truly benefit the short term and the long term future of the Australian nation. We call upon the Hawke socialist Government to abandon forever its unjust condemnation of those who have with proper justification questioned what has transpired in the area of immigration policy in the past 18 months since honourable members opposite came to power. In the name of Australia we call upon this Prime Minister and the Minister to get back on the right track, not just for the sake of Australians today but for the sake of generations of Australians to come. The editorial in today's Australian is a timely reminder that the immigration debate is not over, that 60 per cent of Australians disapprove of the Hawke Government's stated policies, that decreasing the number of immigrants from Europe and the United Kingdom is not approved and that these matters should be the subject of rational debate. This editorial today follows an editorial entitled 'The New McCarthyism' which was published on 1 August and, in my opinion, should be nominated as editorial of the year. That editorial defended the fundamental right of all Australians to express their views on immigration policy without being subjected to the smear or racism. What is particularly significant about the debate of recent months is that, for the first time in living memory, we have seen a disturbing trend of double standards as to who should be entitled to comment on this important national issue. Certain sections of the media appear to have accepted the right of distinguished academics-and, might I add, distinguished Australians-such as Professor Geoffrey Blainey, to comment on the issue. But, after urging in their editorials 'proper debate' in the Parliament they appear to have denied the Opposition its fundamental right in this debate to question and, if necessary, criticise. We have seen a situation develop where one leading newspaper has unjustly attacked the Opposition and then, would you believe, declined to publish the Opposition's response to its baseless criticisms. Surely parliamentary democracy itself will suffer most if the Fourth Estate fails to accept its responsibilities to put both sides of the case before the Australian public, particularly when on every recent public opinion poll it is clear that there is substantial support-I suggest overwhelming support-within the Australian community for the point of view being calmly and rationally expressed by the Opposition in the Federal Parliament and outside. It is a matter of profound regret that, notwithstanding the calls by the Opposition for the Government to return to a bipartisan approach and to engage in proper consultation before announcing major changes, this Government and this Minister have failed abysmally to respond to our call for further increases in business and skilled migration to ensure that the damage done by this Government -at the instance and the direction of the Australian Council of Trade Unions last year-will be redressed. On this point, our advisers and I believe that as many as 50,000 potential jobs have been lost to Australians in the year 1983-84 as the direct result of the Hawke socialist Government's decision to keep out of Australia men and women who wish to establish businesses in Australia which will provide jobs for Australians. It is to be profoundly hoped that between now and the Federal election the Hawke socialist Government will see the error of its ways and move to repair and redress the grave damage which it has undoubtedly done to this great country of ours by the application of its dangerous immigration policies over the past 18 months. We call upon the Hawke Government to go back to the drawing board, to review and reverse the wrong decisions which it has made in the area of immigration policy and to return to proper immigration policies which will have the support of both sides of this Parliament and of the overwhelming majority of Australians. Time is running out. Great damage has already been done. This Government must respond, rationally and effectively to the call of the Opposition, on behalf of the Australia of today and on behalf of the Australia of tomorrow. If the Hawke Government fails to respond effectively and promptly, it will be letting down this nation and countless generations of Australians still to come. We are, Mr Deputy Speaker, but trustees for the future destiny of this nation, and the the responsibility which rests on the shoulders of trustees is a profound one indeed. Debate (on motion by Mr West) adjourned. (Budget Debate) Debate resumed from 6 September, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(11.19) —When debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) was interrupted last night I was describing how the growing power of the union movement in Australia had become a cancer, the biggest single obstacle to this country's economic progress. That is simply because the union movement will not recognise the reality that we have to compete to survive. It has positioned itself now as part of the Government, which is not consulting with the trade union movement as the union movement is demanding from the Government what it wants. We have what might be described as the Cliff and Bob Show, with the Australian Council of Trade Unions saying publicly and privately what it will and will not accept from this Government. We had the Cliff Dolan Budget No. 1, and now we have this Budget. No doubt the Cliff Dolan new Government tax scheme is yet to be produced. One has only to pick up any paper in this country to see the growing effect of unions on economic progress. Today's Australian and Canberra Times indicate exactly what is happening. The Canberra Times says that, from figures released yesterday, 634,300 people are out of work and there are 23,000 fewer people in jobs than there were a month ago. Most of that figure is a direct result of the intransigence, the shortsightedness and the stupidity in many cases of the union approach to industrial problems in this country. In looking at some of the absolute stupidity propagated by some of these unions , let us take as an example the case of youth wages. The present level of youth wages is a major cause of junior unemployment. It is interesting to note when this great push for an increase in junior wages in Australia began-a campaign that, I might say, has been very successful, except that now 26 per cent of those seeking work in the 15 to 19-year-old bracket are now unemployed. The campaign was begun in earnest by the ACTU in 1972. The current Prime Minister ( Mr Hawke) was the President of the ACTU at that time and the present Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis)-I am glad to see he is in the chamber-was the industrial advocate. They both go around the country now talking piously about the tragedy of unemployed youth. At least they recognise it, but I hope they have the honesty to accept some of the responsibility for causing that unemployment amongst the youth of Australia by the push started by the ACTU in 1972. What, may I ask, is now being done about this tragic problem? Is the solution a proliferation of even more largely useless schemes to put people back to work for a few weeks or a few months? That does not seem to me, or to most people I know, to be the answer. The answer lies in putting some realistic levels on the wages of youth in this country. On the subject of junior wages I quote from a very interesting article in the Australian of Tuesday, 4 September. The article was written by Mr Peter Ritchie, Managing Director of the McDonalds fast food outlets. He said: Far from exploiting young people, junior rates of pay actually protect jobs for juniors, and give them an advantage in the market-place to help compensate for their lack of maturity and experience. All our statistics indicate that the young people of Australia are being priced out of work. One must ask: When will the Government take to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission a bid to lower junior wages? The answer, of course, is that it never will, because it will upset the unions and that is more than the Government is willing to take on. Let us look quickly at job termination provisions and the effect they are having. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations says that they are a great step for job security. I hope he realises just what they are doing for the employment prospects of people, because as a result of the decision to implement them, supported by the ACTU and the Government, permanent employees all over the country are being put off day by day as employers will not take the chance of having to pay job termination compensation if they are forced to put people off. Everywhere I go businesses are putting off their permanent staff and taking on temporaries and casuals. I hope that the Government will recognise that that is a fact because it is happening. Government members talk about job security and that job security case, but it should more aptly be named the job insecurity case because that is what is happening around the country. On that subject let me quickly quote from a letter which is typical of the sort of thing that is happening. A company wrote to me and, I presume, to a lot of other parliamentarians as well. This company is Australia's largest manufacturer of a particular product and it employs a staff of 19 people. The letter said: Fluctuations in the economy make it impossible for the company to carry on a steady flow of business, which makes it necessary to occasionally trim staff. This company went on to say that if it could not escape the provisions of that Conciliation and Arbitration Commission decision and if pressure were brought to bear on it, it would close down, leaving 19 families without a breadwinner and putting 19 people out of work. I could go on with other examples of exactly the same thing happening around the country. This is the direct result of the action of unions and government in this wretched accord that they are talking about non -stop. It is a cancer that will destroy the economic prospects of this country. Time does not permit me to go through some other aspects of the Budget. As I said at the outset, this is an election Budget. It will do nothing to improve the economic prospects of this country and what it is doing is storing up massive problems for the future which we, when we are returned to government, will have to sort out. The sooner that happens the better because the sooner we return the fewer problems will be stored up for the future. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(11.27) —The honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), who has just resumed his seat, is recorded in Hansard as once having said: 'The taxpayer be damned'. That is not how I think about the taxpayer and I am about to tell the House just how much the taxpayer will get out of the Budget on education. One way of judging the standard reached by any country is the importance it attaches to education. In Australia we have a proud history in this area, with over 100 years now of free, high standard education for all children. This Budget ensures that that can only improve. It continues the two basic commitments made as a result of the Karmel report, the report of the Interim Committee on the Australian Schools Commission, of the early 1970s, namely, more money for all schools and freedom of choice between the public and the private sectors. Everyone remembers the dramatic effect of the changes of that time, first of course on government schools, which were the greatest immediate beneficiaries of the Karmel arrangements. Money was suddenly there for necessary basics and for innovative programs. Independent schools also benefited because Karmel established a new administrative framework which reduced the differences between the public and private sectors to economic ones. In other words, it put an end, in theory at least, to the state aid debate because the concept of a needs basis for funding had been established. That concept was great. Equality of education was the goal but unfortunately it was not the result. In the years following Karmel shameful inequalities remained in both the public and private sectors. Something had gone badly wrong. I want now to describe what went wrong and explain how, with this Budget, it will not go wrong again. The real problem was probably the incompatibility between the concept of achieving equality and the concept of equal treatment for all sectors. The Karmel report itself recognised that 'more equal outcomes from schooling required unequal treatment of children'. The program was simply unable to address the broader social determinants of educational inequality-the resources provided to each child and each school by the cultural and financial assets of the parents and the social forces supporting the private school sector. This allowed for the collapse of the whole concept during the Fraser years. The decline of public school support began with the outrageous exploitation of the potential under the formula to push to the limit the funding of the private sector, including the elite and very wealthy schools. The Fraser Government also was not very keen to insist on responsible accounting procedures. Along with that, the decrease in growth of overall funding during the recession and the reduced flow of funds to public schools as a result of new tax sharing arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States had hastened the decline of the relative position of the public sector. Because of the increasing imbalance caused by these years of abuse of the needs concept, controversy has continued and in the fight for funds groundless fears have been whipped up, encouraged and exploited by those who benefit by dividing the community on the issue of education. This Budget lays those fears to rest for good. First, there was the fear that an Australian Labor Party government does not help private schools. How could people ever claim that after Karmel made clear Labor's commitment to funding the private sector? More obviously than the elite schools, the Catholic education system was materially strengthened and politically legitimised at that time. At one stroke it was rescued by a Labor government from a severe material crisis and provided with the prospect of certain future growth. The innovation of this Budget is to legislate for the contractual nature of that commitment. The total amount for recurrent grants to non-government schools in 1985 will increase by $10.6m or 1.8 per cent in real terms. There will be no more cuts. There has been no freeze. Let us hope there will be no more fear. The second fear was that the needs base was not genuine. No wonder that fear gained ground in past years. Under Fraser the rate of increase to the wealthiest schools was more than double that to the poorest. In the electorate of Phillip I have seen poor parish schools with classrooms under the stage in the church hall . Parents at some state schools have held fetes to buy basic requirements such as pens and paper. The Government has now created for the first time long term stability with an eight-year target for bringing all schools up to a satisfactory standard. The community standard, applying to private and public sectors alike, represents a level of recurrent expenditure required to meet a set of educational resource standards. It is designed for the specific purpose of putting a stop to the unacceptable inequalities within both systems. The third fear, by far the one with least foundation and the one which has had the most tragic consequences, is that public education is not good enough and that private education is better. That fear has gained ground over recent years. The expansion of the proportion of Commonwealth funding going to private schools at the expense of public schools during the Fraser years added to the fears of parents whose natural concern was to do the best for their children. They could see the decline in the relative material position of the public sector. This Commonwealth Government will now be the first to make a long term, legislated, per capita commitment to state schools. Under seven years of Fraser, government schools suffered a cut in real terms of 1.9 per cent. Over the next eight years they will get from this Government a real increase of 50 per cent. For 1985 this means an increase in general recurrent funds to government schools of $18.2m or nearly 6 per cent in real terms. Similar increases will flow in following years. The application of these funds to national education objectives, such as improved quality and relevance, will be negotiated on a State by State basis with State governments. I hope now that the public's confidence in the state school system, which was rattled by obvious lack of concern for it by the previous Government, will at last be fully restored. The government school system should be the pride of all the nation. It accepts all children. It educates three-quarters of the nation's children. Historically, it has been responsible for setting the standard for high quality education and it is, in my view, a tragedy for the nation that parents have ever been led to believe that that standard could be attained only by a minority of schools in the private sector. If it is important for some parents to send their children to a private school because that school will provide a special religious or ethnic quality and background to their education, those schools must be supported. I respect the need of parents to make that choice for their children. I have joined parents, teachers and pupils at Catholic schools, Jewish schools and a Greek school in my electorate, where the involvement of their respective communities is a delight and a joy and sufficient justification for the existence of those schools. But if other parents, without those special needs, succumb to the myth that 'private is better', they are in my view ignoring the major benefits offered by the public education system. Even during the years of declining funding, material disadvantage was well offset by the quality of the teaching. Anyone who has taught in a state school understands the extent of the commitment necessary to overcome the very obvious difficulties faced in a teaching situation that copes with all comers and all problems. These teachers do it so effectively because they are doing it for their pupils and not for themselves. If they take industrial action, it is for their schools and their pupils. In my electorate there are twice as many private schools as public because it is an area of increasing affluence and declining school age population. The state schools are magnificent. Last year the Randwick Boys High School had 10 students in the top 100 of the Higher School Certificate, proving how the government system can compete with the private system. That is a school which did not select its students and the students did not select the school. It is the school to which they went under the system-the best system in the country . My electorate also has many state schools which have a multicultural flavour, especially the Coogee South Public School, which is near the Endeavour Migrant Hostel, and Bondi Public School, which boasts the French school catering for the pupils of the French community in Australia. In music, sport, debating, and academic achievement these schools are the equal of all the private schools in their areas; but most of all the pupils at these schools are not cossetted and not taught that they are privileged and better than the others. They are just great Australians. As parents have made their choice in the past and perhaps judged that the public school system was not good enough for their kids, it has been a matter of amazement to me that they have thought that those schools were good enough for anyone else's kids. What those schools probably needed was just their support and confidence. The fact is that once a person is in the state school system he or she understands how good it is . This Budget will prove, over the eight-year package for education, that this Government endorses the choice of those who send their children to public schools. Mr FISHER(Mallee)(11.37) —This Budget is clearly an election Budget with the Labor Government attempting to trick the Australian people by a cynical, but admittedly clever political exercise. But this Government is going to need to run hard during the election campaign, probably even having to instigate publicly funded advertising campaigns, selling the small personal income tax cuts and the small increases in social welfare benefits that it has provided. I believe this is so because a closer analysis indicates factors that must be considered highly dangerous to the future of the Australian economy. The Australia Labor Party has budgeted for a deficit in 1984-85 of $6,745m which is obviously far too high and must place upward pressure on interest rates and the exchange rate. The business editor of the Age, Terry McCrann, in relation to the second Budget of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has said: . . . is a deeply disturbing document which is tied to a very high risk strategy for sustained economic recovery . . . the budget structure remains the antithesis of what is needed to cure Australia's more entrenched ills. This Hawke Budget makes the Whitlam Government, which destroyed the Australian economy in three years, look like a miser. In just two Federal Budgets the Hawke Government has increased government spending in real terms by more than the former coalition Government totalled in seven years. Government spending as a percentage of gross domestic product has been lifted from 29.9 per cent when the ALP came to office to a record 31.1 per cent, higher as I said even than the Whitlam years. Commonwealth interest payments are up by a massive 29 per cent to $5,601 million. Mr O'Keefe —And they will increase, too. Mr FISHER —As the honourable member for Paterson says, they will increase. This is almost identical to the expenditure on the defence budget and more than the education budget. Sadly, this will have to be paid for not only by today's taxpayers, but also by the taxpayers of the future-young Australians who are not yet even in the work force. This national debt will cost every taxpayer $17 per week, twice as much as the tax cut provided on personal income in this Budget. The Budget reinforces the Labor Party as a high taxing, big spending Government . It will severely penalise the productive sector-our exporting industries and small business-the very sectors where jobs can be created and so alleviate the tragic situation facing unemployed youth in the country. I hold the strong view, as does the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), that the young people of Australia today are being priced out of work. The unemployment figures show how bad youth unemployment is in Australia at present. In 1981-82 the number of young people between the ages of 15 and 19 years looking for full time work was 17.5 per cent. In 1982-83 it reached 23.6 per cent, and in 1983-84-the last figures I have available-it has reached 25.9 per cent. These figures show that youth unemployment is three times greater than adult unemployment. Yet junior wage rates have been eliminated in most awards while in other cases the adult wage now begins at 18 years of age. Proportion clauses in some awards limit the numbers of young people who can be employed by a particular employer to a minimal proportion of the work force. The New South Wales Government has recently announced its intention to do away with junior rates of pay in the retail industry as from 1 January 1986. Of course we all know that the retail industry is a major employer of young people. What this all means is that young people will not be helped. They will have no voice in the unions and little voice anywhere else, and are being forced to compete directly with adults despite their lack of experience, maturity and on the job training. In other cases they are being excluded altogether. The answer therefore is not in more Government schemes to provide jobs, or subsidise jobs, or in shorter working hours or in raising the school leaving age, but, I believe , in freeing up the labour market. The various Government schemes act largely to reduce the costs to employers of young people at the taxpayers expense. But how unnecessary this is when the same thing could be done by at least reducing the minimum award real wages. This would save taxpayers money, reduce the deficit and increase the supply of jobs by reducing costs to employers. While some young people would have their incomes reduced-we should recognise that most do not have the commitments of older people with families-many would at least get jobs where none existed before. The job skills of many young people are low in relation to the price that must be paid for them. As Paddy McGuinness in the Australian Financial Review said in September of this year: The impact of excessively high levels of beginning wages increases the size of the investment employers make in young workers, and naturally leads to some economising on the use of young workers. What we have now is so-called consensus government which is really government by the big unions. Geoffrey Barker in the Age on the same day, 3 September 1984, said: Significantly, the consensus excludes the small and the powerless, the poor and the unemployed. The prices and incomes accord, while purporting to keep the lid on wages, is really a sell out to the unions with no benefit at all for the young unemployed. It does nothing to halt the unions' pressures for greater on-cost benefits and at best it merely postpones the next round of wage claims. This Government has failed to recognise the fundamental place of the law of supply and demand in the labour market. Until it sees that the price of labour- wages-affects the demand for it-employment-unemployment, particularly that of young people who are bearing an unequal share of the burden, will stay with us. When so many young people have little or no chance of getting a job the risk is very great that Australia will have a poorly motivated work force in the years to come. Moreover, wage levels which are too high continue to place otherwise efficient and competitive Australian firms at a trading disadvantage both on local and world markets. This Budget has provided in 1984-85 personal income tax cuts totalling $1,300m and yet the same document estimates personal income tax receipts to increase by a staggering $4,753m. This is a massive increase in personal income tax and means now that personal income tax represents a record 53.1 per cent of total government receipts. Of course, this is only part of the taxing story. My colleagues in this Parliament, who are agreeing with me, believe that this is so. Those of us from Victoria in particular know what the Victorian Cain Government is doing. The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) is indicating that he knows that the Cain Government in Victoria has increased taxes in just two years by some 42 per cent. Indirect taxes are also heavily hitting Australians. The decision taken last year to index excises every six months on a whole range of commodities-beer, petrol and cigarettes for example-means that the price of these goods rises automatically with the consumer price index. This happens without any further direct reference to the people of Australia or to the Parliament. There is no doubt that this has been a skilfully managed exercise to hide from the electorate unpopular tax increases and, hopefully, avoid public reaction. Given that the Australian taxpayers are today $22 a week worse off because of tax increases under Labor than they were before it came to office, the $7.60 a week tax cut that has been granted is meaningless. I simply say that when taxpayers find out next year that the new five-tier tax system has pushed most taxpayers into the 46c bracket this Budget will be seen for what it is-a cynical political ploy and massive tax grab to implement highly interventionist socialist big spending public sector programs. I refer now to specific issues affecting the electorate of Mallee, particularly those relating to primary industry. The primary industry sector has been savagely hit again by Labor as it was in the May 1983 mini-Budget and in its first August Budget of 1983. It has again been hit in the August 1984 Budget, in a number of areas. As a percentage of total Budget outlays, the primary industry sector receives only half of one per cent, which is less than any other major industry portfolio and yet this is the sector which the Government itself has admitted has contributed so much to our national economic recovery. Farmers paid an estimated $25m extra in 1983-84 because the Government failed to index the rebate for diesel fuel used for on-farm purposes, after it had increased and indexed the excise tax on diesel. The rebate is now to be indexed, but not until 1 February 1985. Even then, farmers will still be paying about the same, because the indexing of the rebate will be based on the existing rebate of 7.155c per litre, whereas diesel fuel prices will have increased over the 18- month period that the rebate has been frozen. Mr O'Keefe —Nearly as dear as petrol. Mr FISHER —That is right. As we all know, diesel, of course, is the major petroleum product used in the production of our great primary industries. In recent debates in this House I have spoken on the effect of this Budget on the Australian wine industry which I believe has been crucified. Not only must it now pay a 10 per cent sales tax on wine and alcoholic cider, but also will it face increased opposition from imported wines with a reduction in import duty from 20 per cent to 10 per cent. Labor made a clear and unequivocal election promise not to impose a sales tax or excise tax on wine. Yet in the August 1983 Budget, it broke that promise with an excise tax on fortified wine, a tax which finally had to be scrapped in June this year. Now the Government has compounded its stupidity by breaking its election promise with a further sales tax on all wine. I am fearful that the impact of this upon the economic and social life of so many of our truly decentralised and regional horticultural areas will be disastrous. Of course, we know that Labor is also continuing to short change the wool industry over promotion funding. In the election campaign it promised $28m a year over three years. In the August 1983 Budget, it provided only $20m. For 1984-85, Labor has now announced that it will provide an estimated $26m. All up, over the two years, the shortfall is $10m on what was promised to the primary industry electorate. We should compare this with the contribution growers themselves are making in 1984-85 to wool promotion by providing $54m to their industry. The desperate economic circumstances of the sugar, dairy and dried fruit industries have not only been ignored in this Budget, but also the rural adjustment scheme funding has been slashed by $18.7m, or 42 per cent on last year, despite Labor's categoric pre-election commitment to increase rural adjustment funding. Of course, we have spoken in this House before about the cost of the Commonwealth Export Inspection Service which will increase by a further $7.4m to $77.7m. Part of this cost is borne by the Australian meat producers. Of course, the Government is continuing to press producers to pay 50 per cent of the costs of export inspection, seriously jeopardising international competitiveness, especially in the export meat industry. I acknowledge that the 1984-85 Budget provides $4m for national soil conservation. However, this promise which was made during the 1983 election campaign has not been carried out until now. So clearly, while Labor has met a 1983 promise, the program is clearly well behind what had been originally promised. The increase in the depreciation allowance from 2.5 per cent to 4 per cent for non-residential income producing buildings will unfortunately not act as a stimulus to on-farm investment and improvement. However, I acknowledge the importance of this benefit in the non-farm sector and particularly in the tourist community. Of course, the increases in prescribed values for natural increases in livestock will again increase a producer's tax liability on each year's natural increase. The values, which have not been changed since 1936, have now been increased quite substantially-from 40c a head to $1 head for sheep; $2 a head to $5 a head for cattle and horses, and, of course, 50c to $4 a head for pigs. This sneaky method of making livestock owners pay more taxation has been cleverly concealed in these Budget Papers. There has, of course, been yet another increase in the excise tax on aviation fuel. This Budget has increased the excise by 0.25 per cent a litre, which comes on top of the 2c a litre increase in the May 1983 mini-Budget, and an additional 0.5c a litre increases in the August 1983 Budget. The means that Labor has increased the excise on aviation fuel by 2.75c a litre in less than two years. Mr Lloyd —It shows what they think of country aviation. Mr FISHER —That is right. When these adverse impacts for primary industry are all added to those of the May 1983 mini-Budget and the August 1983 Budget, it can be seen that the primary industry sector, compared with other industry sectors, is still being disadvantaged and discriminated against by the Labor Government. I would also like to mention the water resources program which has been almost totally emasculated as far as rural Australia is concerned. Most of the $64.3m allocated to the water resources program goes into urban water situations and my State of Victoria receives only $5.8m. We all know that the coalition's former program was designed to complete and construct a new Wimmera- Mallee pipeline scheme for the purpose of saving water and raising water quality in that area. It appears from the Budget Papers that this program has now been totally discarded. There is no project in Australia that could be more important to the future conservation of our water supplies and the endeavours that governments have been making over the years to improve water quality and to do away with both river and dry land salinity. I am extremely disappointed that this program has been discarded. I am also extremely disappointed that the Government seems to have announced that if the States wish to develop water projects they will have to do so not through grants but through the provision of loans. I see this as a very serious setback to the whole program of water conservation and extension in this country. Finally, I simply mention an action of the present Government over recent months which relates to this Budget in a philosophical sense. I am extremely concerned at the continual erosion of Australia's standards, morals and traditions which is taking place as a result of decisions made by this Government. It seems to me that governments are bringing in change for change's sake and giving greater attention to human weaknesses than to our society's strengths. As an example we see Government changes to the oath of allegiance and to the national anthem and a clear indication that the Government intends to change the Australian flag before the bicentenary in 1988. These traditions are not the property of the Government. They are the inheritance of the people. To change them without a referendum or without any appeal is quite wrong. Similarly, it is not the Government's role to force social or moral change on our community. Examples of this include the legalising of pornographic videos, the decriminalisation of homosexual acts and the giving of credence to de facto relationships of members of parliament and members of the Public Service. What is happening in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and what has happened within the Public Service, unbeknown to the public, is a denial of the right of a majority of Australians to have a voice in determining the moral standards of this country. Fortunately, the public outcry about the sale of pornography has forced the Federal Government to establish an inquiry into this important area. Civil liberty supporters may argue that adults should be able to choose for themselves their own path to hell. But surely we do not have the right to take our children with us. Hopefully this inquiry will ensure that the Government's decision to legalise the sale of pornographic videos and publications in the Australian Capital Territory, which would set a precedent for State governments, will be halted. We should ask why governments are seeking to force social change on the community rather than simply providing a framework in which change can develop over time and in line with community opinion. All of us should seek to protect and preserve the political and economic freedom of the individual. But surely all of us believe that the family is a natural and fundamental unit of society. While we may recognise that a variety of domestic arrangements makes a contribution to Australian society, the law and Government action should raise the status of marriage and not degrade it. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(11.57) —On Thursday 23 August we sat here before the bright lights and television cameras expecting to hear from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) constructive criticism and perhaps some analysis of the Budget. What we got was a list of predictions of doom and failure, carping criticism and no hope. Perhaps many of us thought he had confused his own horoscope or his election prospects. But the next day the majority of commentators used adjectives such as balanced, reasonable, competent and prudent . Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition could find nothing of sense in this year's Budget. I thought at the time that it might be salutary to look at this man's record as a predictor of the economic outcome and a forecaster of the economy. So I took the opportunity to look at last year's reply to the Budget Speech. On 25 August 1983 what sort of things did the Leader of the Opposition say? Again, it was all doom and gloom and disaster around the corner. What did he say and what were the facts? What was the accuracy of this man's ability to predict the future when it came to economic outcomes? On 25 August 1983 the Leader of the Opposition said: Unemployment will continue to rise. What were the facts? For the year from June 1982 to June 1983 the figure was 10. 3 per cent. For the year ended June 1984 the figure was 9.2 per cent. This Government created 230,000 jobs. In the previous year, under the Fraser Government, 240,000 jobs were lost. The Leader of the Opposition also said: The underlying inflation rate will remain high, especially by comparison with rates of our overseas trading partners. Again, the facts are that inflation fell 6.5 per cent. It declined in the course of the year and over the last six months was running at 5 per cent. The Leader of the Opposition also said this about the Budget last year: . . . interest rates will rise, and business fixed investment will fall sharply . Again, we have seen that rates have fallen and business investment has begun to pick up. He also said of the Budget: It does nothing to get the vital engines of growth into any gear let alone top gear. We look at the result for last year and we find that in the year between June 1983 and June 1984 economic growth was greater than 10 per cent-the best performance for the 25 years in which quarterly national figures have been compiled. Australia had the fastest growing economy in the Western world. The Leader of the Opposition continued: Through the accord, the Government claimed that it could engage in expansionary fiscal policy to reduce, simultaneously, unemployment and inflation. We on this side of the House have never believed that this strategy could work . . . Again, the Leader of the Opposition was wrong. Clearly this man has no credibility as a predictor of economic outcomes. The general strategy of this Government and the Budget was to ensure that economic recovery continued while inflationary pressures were further reduced and job prospects grew. There were three aspects which reflect the ethos of the Budget. The first was a confirmation and strengthening of the prices and incomes accord. In recognition of the moderation of wage claims, and on the basis of its continuation, significant tax cuts were provided for the majority of low and middle income earners. As the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) outlined yesterday-I believe these figures deserve repetition-for a worker earning between $250 and $374 a week that represents a wage increase of $10.86 a week. For a worker earning between $375 and $540 a week that represents a wage increase of $14.06 a week. In the past recoveries have been gobbled up in the wages and price inflation cycle, a cycle which has been so destructive. This Government has a clear policy on wages which at the moment is working and which in the future looks to be an effective policy. The second predication of the Budget strategy was a reduction of the deficit. All of us on this side of the House are aware of the pressures of public sector borrowing debt. We are aware of the effect it can have on interest rates, business investment and business confidence. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) was at great pains to point out that his last Budget deficit was $4. 3 billion. He neatly omitted the fact that, on taking office, this Government inherited from the previous Government a legacy of $9.6 billion. Indeed, during the Budget process late in the financial year 1982-83 outlays were proving to be estimated at another $800m higher than that figure. This Government was looking down the barrel at a Budget deficit, if the programs of the Fraser Government were continued, of $10.4 billion. Fortunately, because of several factors, including higher growth, and in part as a result of events put in place by this Government, in the last quarter of 1983 this financial estimate came down to between $9 billion and $9.6 billion. That was the last deficit of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The Labor Government effectively pruned that to less than $8 billion. With an estimate of $6.7 billion this year, that represents a reduction of $3 billion in the deficit in two years as a result of balanced economic management and prudent management. Last night we heard various reckless calls from the Opposition for increased expenditure on family allowances, increased child care, increased expenditure on pensions, increased expenditure on home assistance, the abolition of the assets test, the abolition of tax on lump sum superannuation payments, the abolition of the wine tax, higher tax cuts and, on top of all that, a reduction in the deficit at the same time. Not even the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the darkest days of the failed Fraser Administration would have tried that one on; yet that is the sort of suggestion we have had from members of the Opposition. The third ethos of this Budget is assistance to those in our community who are most needy and the funding of programs which will sustain growth and which are seen as being as essential. The areas of social welfare, housing and education- areas which were most lamentably left behind by the Opposition-have been given important consideration in this Budget. Other speakers, especially those on this side of the House, have covered the area of social welfare. It is an area that is of great concern to us. A substantial amount of $683m in a full year has been allocated in that regard. The major priority of the Budget is assistance to the most needy disadvantaged families. As has already been pointed out by the Treasurer (Mr Keating), a single parent family with three children and living in rented accommodation is now $15.50 a week better off under this Budget. Another important priority which was covered by my colleague the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh) was the essential area of education. It is very important to equip our young people for the dynamic changes which we can expect to occur. In the area of education there has been a real increase of 4.5 per cent, which is the largest increase in eight years. In the tertiary education sector, it is expected that we will create 15,000 additional places in universities and colleges of advanced education by 1987. The same number of additional places should be created in the technical and further education sector. Our plan to offer assistance to all schools over an eight-year period represents a new era in the Commonwealth's approach to schools. In my electorate of Perth this initiative has already been warmly applauded. The Government's commitment to housing has been one of the cornerstones of its economic performance. The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) and my colleague the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) have been outstanding advocates of the housing boom. Certainly, the results so far have been quite outstanding. In the last year of the Fraser Government there were 105 ,000 housing commencements. Last year, 1983-84, there were 135,000 commencements , which represents an increase of nearly 30 per cent. It is estimated that there will be a further 10,000, or 145,000, commencements next year. The important factors in this area were the easing of interest rates, perhaps the renegotiation of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement and, more importantly, the first home owners scheme. This scheme has been especially popular in Western Australia. Since 1 October the scheme has assisted 55,000 first home owners throughout Australia. The first home owners scheme has been a remarkable success . The Budget allocation of an 85 per cent increase in that area will assist an additional 80,000 first home owners this year. Indeed, it is likely that the first home owners scheme will be one of the great successes of the Government. I wish to touch briefly on two more matters which affect Perth and my electorate in particular. The appropriation for the upgrading of the Perth Airport is welcomed by all Western Australians. At present the facilities are inadequate. The upgrading of the facilities will play an important part in Western Australia's development. The second matter concerns the fact that my electorate of Perth has the highest percentage of migrants of any electorate within Western Australia. Again, in many ways this Government has indicated its support for the migrant community. Migrant resource centres have received a 72 per cent increase since this Government came to office. The grant-in-aid scheme has received a 54 per cent increase since this Government came to office. This Budget further supports those schemes. Those who work in the migrant community in my electorate will be delighted with those increases. This Budget is a responsible and well planned Budget. It balances the hopes and aspirations of ordinary Australians with those of the business and finance communities. It will, in contrast to the Leader of the Opposition's gloomy predictions, continue to build upon and strengthen our emerging recovery and growth. I am delighted to commend the Budget to the House. Motion (by Mr Keating) put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 39 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M McHugh, J.Campbell, G. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Mildren, J. B.Child, J. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Morrison, W. L.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Everingham, D. N. Scholes, G. G. D.Fatin, W. F. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Free, R. V. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Steedman, A. P.Gorman, R. N. J. Tickner, R. E.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Lloyd, B.Blunt, C. W. Lusher, S. A.Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S.Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J.Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Donald McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. O'Keefe, F. L.Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R.Cowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Drummond, P. H. Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, P. S. Spender, J. M.Groom, R. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele White, P. N. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Jacobi, R. Katter, R. C.Hayden, W. G. Newman, K. E. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The CHAIRMAN —In accordance with standing order 226, the Committee will first consider Schedule 2 of the Bill. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —Madam Chair, I suggest that it might suit the convenience of the Committee to consider the items of proposed expenditure in the order and groupings shown in the following schedule: Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Department of the Special Minister of State together Department of Foreign Affairs Department of Defence Department of Defence Support together Department of Trade Department of Resources and Energy together Department of Transport Department of Aviation together Department of Employment and Industrial Relations Department of Education and Youth Affairs Department of the Treasury Department of Finance together Advance to the Minister for Finance Department of Home Affairs and Environment Department of Territories and Local Government together Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism Department of Communications Department of Administrative Services Department of Housing and Construction together Department of Primary Industry Department of Industry and Commerce Department of Science and Technology together Department of Social Security Department of Health together Department of Veterans' Affairs Attorney-General's Department Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Department of Aboriginal Affairs together The consideration of the items in groups of departments has met the convenience of the Committee in past years. I also take the opportunity to indicate to the Committee that the proposed order for consideration of departments' estimates has been discussed with the Opposition, which has raised no objection to what has been proposed. The CHAIRMAN —Is it the wish of the Committee to consider the items of proposed expenditure in the order suggested by the Treasurer? I shall allow that course to be followed. Schedule 2. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Proposed expenditure, $83,056,000. Department of the Special Minister of State Proposed expenditure, $269,763,000. Progress reported. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(12.21) -I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Income Tax (Rates) Act 1982, which declares the rates of tax payable by individuals and trustees generally, to implement the Budget proposal to alter the personal income tax rate scale. Honourable members will recall that in my Budget Speech I announced that there would be a significant cut in personal income tax, particularly for those on low and middle incomes. At a cost of $1,300m in 1984-85, and over $2,100m in a full year, virtually all taxpayers are to receive a reduction in tax, with the biggest percentage reduction going to lower income earners. With effect from 1 November 1984, there is to be a new five-step tax scale, replacing the old three -step scale, in order to make the tax system more progressive and fairer. At the lower end of this scale, the tax rate for resident taxpayers on taxable income in the range $4,596 to $12,500 is to be reduced from 30 per cent to 25 per cent. A rate of 48 per cent is to apply to taxable incomes in the range $28,001 to $35 ,000 and the threshold at which the maximum marginal rate of 60 per cent commences is to be reduced from $35,789 to $35,001. These changes to the rate scale will be reflected in reduced pay as you earn instalments from 1 November 1984. Reflecting the commencement date of 1 November 1984, I indicate that the rate scale for 1984-85 is to be an average of the 1983-84 rate scale and the scale to apply from 1 November 1984-made up of four-twelfths of the 1983-84 scale and eight-twelfths of the new scale. The average rate scale will mean that for 1984- 85 the rate of tax payable by residents on income in the range $4,596 to $12,500 will be reduced from 30 per cent to 26.67 per cent, while for that part of taxable income in the range $28,001 to $35,000 and $35,001 to $35,788 the rates of tax payable will be 47.33 and 55.33 per cent respectively. The benefit of the reduced 25 per cent rate of tax will not be extended to non- residents, other than those in receipt of taxable Australian social security and repatriation pensions. The reasons for extending such concessions to residents are seldom relevant to non-residents, and particularly in this case as the reduction in personal income tax is in recognition of the wage restraint exercised by Australian workers. This means that the standard rate of 30 per cent will continue to apply to the taxable income of non-residents up to $19,500 , and the general rates announced in the Budget will apply to the income above $ 19,500. The income tax law currently provides for tax at the rate of 46 per cent or higher to apply to certain types of income derived by some unmarried minors. The $417 income threshold at which those rates become payable, the associated shading-in arrangements, and the minimum rate applicable of 46 per cent are to remain unchanged. The new rates applicable to income above $28,000 will, however , also apply to such income of unmarried minors. The present Bill will also provide that the Income Tax (Rates) Act 1982 will not apply to a trustee of an ineligible approved deposit fund. The rate of tax payable by such a trustee is to be the general company rate of 46 per cent and will be declared and imposed by the Income Tax (Companies, Corporate Unit Trusts and Superannuation Funds) Bill 1984, which I will introduce shortly. Provisions of the Bill are explained in detail in a memorandum that is being made available to honourable members and should easily be understood by honourable members sitting opposite. I commend this Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Hodgman) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(12.25) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This is an annual measure which formally imposes personal income tax rates for the current financial year. The rates imposed by this Bill are those declared in the Income Tax (Rates) Act 1982 as proposed to be amended by the Income Tax ( Rates) Amendment Bill 1984 which I have just introduced. As I explained in my second reading speech on that Bill, the rates for 1984-85 reflect the Budget decision to provide a significant cut in personal income tax, particularly for those on low and middle incomes, by changing the personal income tax rate scale with effect from 1 November 1984. The resulting tax reductions will benefit virtually all taxpayers, and are to be reflected in lower pay as you earn deductions from 1 November 1984. New tax instalment schedules to reflect the changes to be made to the income tax rate scale are being prepared and will be released as soon as possible to enable employers to incorporate the new instalments in their payroll procedures before 1 November. The reductions in tax will be reflected in provisional tax payable for 1984-85, which is also formally imposed by this Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Hodgman) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(12.27) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will formally impose income tax for 1984-85 on the 1983-84 taxable income of companies, registered organisations and unit trusts treated as companies for tax purposes, as well as on the current year taxable income of superannuation funds, ineligible approved deposit funds and trust income of non- resident company beneficiaries. The rates of tax are also declared by the Bill and, except for some changes relating to certain superannuation funds and the imposition of income tax upon the taxable income of registered organisations, they are the same as for 1983-84 . The provisions of the Bill follow the same lines as in other years and details of the various rates are set out in the explanatory memorandum that is being made available to honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Hodgman) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(12.29) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Medicare Levy Bill 1984 declares the basic rate of Medicare levy for 1984-85 and, until the Parliament otherwise provides, for 1985-86. The basic rate will be 1 per cent of taxable income. The Bill also contains rules for fixing the maximum amount of levy payable and the income points below which people with low incomes will not be called on to pay any levy. In addition, it contains rules for reducing the levy otherwise payable by veterans, war widows, defence force personnel, and certain other prescribed persons who are exempt from the levy for part of a year, or who are required to pay levy because they have dependants eligible for Medicare benefits. From 1 November 1984, the maximum amount of levy payable by an individual or a married couple is to be increased from $700 to $750. This will mean that in 1984 -85, a levy ceiling of $733.32-a pro-rating of the existing ceiling of $700 and the proposed $750 ceiling-will apply. In order to continue to shelter low income earners from the levy, the income thresholds at which levy becomes payable are to be increased from 1 July 1984. For 1984-85, individuals with taxable incomes of $7,110 or less, and married couples and sole parents with family incomes or $11,803 or less, will be exempt from the levy. The income threshold for married couples and sole parents will increase by a further $1,330 for each dependent child or student involved. For example, married couples with two dependent children will pay no levy until their combined taxable incomes exceed $14,463. The estimated cost of these changes is $8m in 1984-85 and $12m in a full year. Explanations of each clause of the Bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum which is being made available to honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Hodgman) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Keating, for Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(12.32) -I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of this Bill is to authorise payments in 1984-85 arising out of two decisions, taken at the recent Loan Council meeting, which fall outside the provisions of the Financial Agreement Act 1928. Specifically, the Bill seeks to authorise the continued payment of general purpose capital grants to the States, and such amounts as the States and the Northern Territory nominate from their approved 1984-85 borrowing programs as being for the purposes of public housing on concessional terms and conditions. To provide scope for continuity of payments, the Bill also provides for the payment of capital grants and concessional housing loans in the first six months of 1985-86. The amounts to be advanced under these provisions are limited to an amount equal to one-half of the grants to be paid in 1984-85 in the case of the grants, and an amount equal to one-half of the approved borrowings in 1984-85 in the case of funds nominated for public housing. Grants amounting to $521.5m, equal to one-third of the approved Loan Council programs for the States in 1984- 85, were agreed to at the 21 June, 1984 Loan Council meeting. These grants are made in accordance with arrangements originally adopted at the June 1970 Premiers Conference, whereby the Commonwealth Government provides a portion of the States' Loan Council programs as interest-free non-repayable grants, instead of what would otherwise be interest-bearing borrowings by the States. The effect of the grants is to relieve the States of debt charges-that is, interest payments and sinking fund contributions-which they would otherwise have to pay, and the grants accordingly have a substantial beneficial effect on the States' financial positions. The States are free to apply these grants as they choose. The arrangements whereby the States and the Northern Territory are able to nominate part of their approved borrowing programs for public housing were introduced in 1982-83. As a condition of the payment of these funds, the Bill contains a provision that a State or the Northern Territory must be able to meet its matching requirements for the purposes of the Commonwealth-State housing agreement. Subject to that, the nominated funds will be provided to the States and the Northern Territory at the loan terms and conditions set out in the Commonwealth- State Housing Agreement, and hence will bear interest at the highly favourable rate of 4.5 per cent per annum and will be repayable over 53 years, a very generous rate indeed. The object of providing concessional loans for public housing is to provide an incentive to the States to increase the amounts that they would otherwise direct to public housing. This is in addition to the various direct forms of Commonwealth assistance to the States for housing purposes which in 1984-85 are being provided under a new Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement currently being concluded with the States by my colleague the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford). Payments under the new agreement will amount to $623m in 1984-85, an increase of 19 per cent over expenditure on similar programs in 1983-84 and an increase on 77 per cent on the amount provided in the last year of the previous Government. The assistance being provided under this Bill forms part of the State governments' new money programs for 1984-85 as approved by the Australian Loan Council and the analogous general purpose capital payments to the Northern Territory. In 1984-85, these general purpose capital funds amount to $1,702m, an increase of 6.5 per cent over the amounts for 1983-84. This Bill forms an important part of the Commonwealth's overall financial assistance to the States and the Northern Territory. I therefore commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Hodgman) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr West, and read a first time. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(12.37) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to amend section 6 of the principal Act to set the upper ceiling for the new levels of charge to be fixed by regulations. The new levels, representing approximately a 15 per cent increase on the existing charges, were considered necessary in order to keep pace with the increase of costs in providing higher education. It is also equitable from the Australian taxpayers' viewpoint that overseas students make a fairer contribution towards the cost of their education in Australia. As from 1 January 1985, the new levels of student charge, subject to regulations, will be as follows: The sum of $3,350 for masters and doctorate degrees; $3,100 for courses in medicine, veterinary science for dentistry; and $2,500 for all other courses. As honourable members will recall, two reports, the Goldring Report of the Committee of Review of Private Overseas Student Policy and the report of the Jackson Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program, were tabled in both Houses on 6 and 7 June respectively. The Goldring report advocates a planned approach making overseas students an integral part of education planning and funding, fees covering only part of education costs, as is the case at present, and a modest increase in scholarships. The Jackson report on the other hand advocates a market approach to the promotion of education, fees covering the full economic cost of students' education, an increase in numbers and types of scholarships to meet development assistance aims. Both reports raise important and complex issues which will require very close examination before the Government draws any definite conclusions with regard to future policy directions. For this purpose, an interdepartmental task force was set up to examine the issues involved and report to the Government in the near future during these sittings, the aim being for any new policies to be implemented in time for the 1986 intake. The proposed amendment to the legislation is not intended to pre-empt any future government decisions on overseas student policy following its consideration of the task force report. The overseas students charge raised $25.5m in 1983-84 and it expected to raise $ 32.3m in 1984-85. This is due to increases in the charge rate which amount to $3 .8m and an increase in the number of students liable for the charge which amounts to $3m. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Hodgman) adjourned. Debate resumed from 23 August, on motion by Mr Holding: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(12.40) —I rise on behalf of the Opposition to speak on the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill. Firstly, let me tell the House that the Opposition supports the Bill. All too frequently we hear suggestions from our constituents and other people outside the Parliament that, when they listen to debates or read material about Parliament and parliamentary proceedings, there are too few occasions on which the Opposition and the Government are seen to agree on important legislation. I have often said that that is not always the case. This is one of those situations where the Opposition, after very careful and detailed consideration of the proposals before it, has come to the view that this legislation is appropriate for its complete support. It is very important legislation because it is concerned with the welfare of those people who have served Australia, people who have given very much of their youth and experience and have forgone opportunities in order to serve and protect this country. I believe that all members of Parliament, no matter from what generation or background, very much appreciate the willingness with which so many of our forebears and the more senior citizens of our community were prepared to serve and give up so much to ensure that we in this country would have the freedom which we now enjoy and in which we live. I refer to the freedom to make choices. For that reason this legislation is very important. It is worthy of the long deliberation that has been involved in its preparation. I understand that it has resulted from very extensive deliberations over time and from co-operation between the Government and the Opposition even when roles were reversed. It also involved extensive discussions with ex-service organisations and their representatives. The material which we are considering is a result of two reports that were initiated to cover arrangements for veterans and the way in which their applications for support might be dealt with. Those two important reports were initiated by the Fraser Government and provided the basis upon which this legislation was developed. The first report was that of the Administrative Review Council. That report and the proposals developed from it were considered by the Advisory Committee on Repatriation Legislation and Review. The Committee comprised ex-service organisation heads from throughout Australia, and it was established by the former Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Messner. The legislation in draft form was pursued very vigorously by the present Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt), who carried on the work of his predecessors and has brought this legislation to finality. The Opposition recognises the role that he has played and recognises that he has pursued the outline established by his predecessors. That is evidence of the co-operation we are experiencing now and of the co-operation that has occurred in relation to this matter between the spokesman for the Opposition, Senator Scott, and Senator Gietzelt in ensuring a speedy passage for this legislation. This is important legislation because it is designed to overcome great delays in the procedures for determining entitlements for veterans. It is partly because of the complex procedures involved and the increasing number of veterans reaching an age where they may seek entitlements that there is a need to have streamlined and more appropriately efficient procedures to determine entitlements and to overcome the very extensive delays being experienced at present. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 101A. The honourable member for Dundas will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr SPENDER —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. I remind the Minister that yesterday he was asked a question concerning the assets test and, in reference to self-assessment, he said: . . . unless there is strong evidence of over-valuation or under-valuation. In those situations, if the issue is significant it will be resolved in discussions between officers and the pensioner concerned. I ask the Minister these questions: Is it not a fact that in the Social Security and Repatriation (Budget Measures and Assets Test) Bill, piloted by the Minister , coercive powers are given which will enable officers of the Department of Social Security to compel pensioners to appear before them and to be examined on oath concerning their assets? Is it not a fact that non-compliance with these powers may subject pensioners to a fine of $1,000 or six months imprisonment or both? Is it not a fact that these coercive powers are in all essential respects the same as those which may be found in the National Crime Authority Act which are designed to compel evidence being given in relation to organised crime? Dr BLEWETT —The powers under the assets test provisions of the Act are very similar to the social security provisions and, as I pointed out quite clearly yesterday, those provisions do not give an officer of the Department of Social Security any right to enter the home of a pensioner. In relation to the specific point raised by the honourable member, it is true that there are the usual requirements about honesty in reporting assets and that there are financial consequences if people deliberately misinform the Department about the value of their assets, as there are in relation to most of our social security legislation. Mr CROSS —I ask the Prime Minister: What action has the Government taken on the annual report of Special Prosecutor Redlich? Will the Government make available to the Australian Federal Police adequate resources to enable it to combat organised crime? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the honourable member for Brisbane for his question. The annual report of Special Prosecutor Redlich was received by the Attorney- General on Friday, 31 August and the Attorney, in his preparation for the intended tabling of that document, has been preparing a statement in consultation with several Ministers and with the Director of Public Prosecutions . However, as several copies of that Redlich report appear to have been leaked and selectively quoted from, the report will be tabled today. I remind honourable members that there is a reference in the report to a review carried out by Mr Vincent in regard to certain matters concerning Telecom Australia. That Vincent report will also be tabled today. Mr Redlich recommends in his report amendments to the Director of Public Prosecutions Act. A copy of the report has been referred to Mr Temby and the Government will consider the question of possible amendments to the Act in the light of Mr Temby's comments. I think all honourable members on both sides of the House will realise that these are important matters, and the Government will act with due expedition in regard to them. I now come to the more interesting aspects of this matter, which I am sure will be of great interest to all members of the House and of very great concern to those opposite. In relation to the Australian Federal Police, Mr Redlich referred to the incapacity of the Federal Police to deal with organised crime because of a lack of resources. He said that the AFP needs a 'sustained and substantial injection of funds and personnel'. This Government had already recognised that need and I want to put some statistics before the House, statistics that are relevant not only to our term of government but also, as will be clear from what I have to say later, to five years of the previous Government. Let us look at what we have done in the last two years. We have increased expenditure on the AFP by 19.5 per cent, from $109.1m in 1982-83 to $ 130.3m in 1984-85. In that same period we have increased staffing levels in the AFP from 3,073 in 1982-83 to 3,493 in 1984-85. That is an increase of 13.7 per cent in the two years for which we have had budgetary responsibility. This Government is happy to stand on its record of combating organised crime. Indeed, as honourable members who read Mr Redlich's report will find out, he refers to the range of our initiatives in this area. I note that the Leader of the Opposition is alleged to have said yesterday that the Hawke Government was not serious about fighting organised crime. Let us just take a little time to look at the record of honourable members opposite. One can best sum it up by quoting from one of the reports already received from Mr Commissioner Costigan. When I read briefly from that report of the Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union in regard to the most damning indictment of any government in the history of this country, it will be seen why we are looking forward to the next and final Costigan report and why those opposite should be quaking in their boots. I refer to a passage in interim report No. 3 which should be inscribed forever on the hearts of those opposite. I can assure them that it will be well in the minds of the Australian electorate from here on in. In paragraph 2.01 of interim report No. 3 of the Royal Commission, Mr Costigan had this to say: The Commission's investigations into the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers' Union has led it, to the surprise of many, to the tax avoidance industry. I emphasise particularly the next sentence and remind the House of the date of this report-18 December 1981. That gives poignant significance to the next sentence, in which the Commissioner says: This industry has developed in Australia, particularly over the last five years . . . As those on the other side of the House are not particularly adept at matters economic or arithmetic, I remind them that, if someone has reported in December of 1981 and refers to the events of the last five years, he is referring to the period 1976 to 1981. Mr West —The Fraser Government period. Mr HAWKE —Yes, the Fraser Government period. I repeat what Mr Commissioner Costigan said: This industry has developed in Australia, particularly over the last five years , at a rate far in excess of any other industry and has brought with it profits comparable only to the heady days of the Victorian gold rush. Unfortunately this industry carried with it a serious detriment to the interests of government and the Australian community. Commissioner Costigan continued: The detriment was twofold: In the first place it diverted from the Treasury tax which would prima facie be payable in income of taxpayers; in the second place it diverted the tax payable by those engaged in that industry. The amounts involved are very large indeed, amounting to many hundreds of millions of dollars per year or more. Mr Commissioner Costigan completed his damning indictment of the conservative government in this paragraph by saying: The impact on the community has been very serious. It has introduced into the community a class of people, almost invariably the highest earners, who pay little or no tax and make no contribution in that way as citizens to their fair share of community costs. He concluded by saying this: In addition it has made more difficult for government the task of providing for the community as a whole a more equitable and reduced taxation burden. What was the response of those people in government at the time? Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —If you want to talk about organised crime, we will stuff it down your throats until you choke on it. Mr Cadman —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. The Prime Minister continues to address the House with his back to you. The volume is so high; he is screaming and ranting and raving. You would think he was at Wentworth Park. Mr SPEAKER —Order! That is not a point of order and the honourable member for Mitchell knows that. The Chair becomes very familiar with the backs of members and Ministers, I can assure him of that. Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, by way of contrast I will give you full frontal. It is very interesting that that report was 18 December 1981. What was the response of that indicted government? What did that government do to improve the resources of the Australian Federal Police? One would have expected, according to the dicta that Opposition members now adopt, that when they were in government they would have provided a massive increase in the resources of the Australian Federal Police. What did they do? They increased the staff of the Federal Police by a massive 1.7 per cent-from 3,022 in 1981-82 to 3,073 in 1982-83. In the Opposition's last two years in office when the evidence was emerging about this massive criminal industry, its contribution to the increase in the resources of the Australian Federal Police in two years was 2.9 per cent. In our two years we have increased it by 13.7 per cent. Mr Speaker, I make no apology for the length of this reply. Those hypocrites opposite seek to talk about organised crime. Under the Commissioner appointed by their Government, they had the worst indictment of any government in the history of this country. They perpetrated the worst crime in the history of this country . They made the innocent taxpayers of Australia pay hundreds of millions of dollars more in tax because they protected the tax avoiders. Would they provide any more resources? No. They provided a miserable less than 3 per cent in two years against our 14 per cent in two years. Mr SINCLAIR —In the light of the Prime Minister's 13 minutes of professed concern about fighting organised crime and the uncertainty about the National Crime Authority at the time, may I ask whether Commissioner Costigan wrote to the Prime Minister on 12 December last pleading for his Royal Commission to be extended to the end of 1984 so as to maintain the thrust of his then investigations? Can the Prime Minister assure the House that it was not to terminate any particular investigation or investigations that only four days later he replied telling Commissioner Costigan to terminate his inquiry by 30 April 1984? Mr HAWKE —This matter is perfectly open and straightforward and has already been addressed by the Special Minister of State. The correspondence between Commissioner Costigan and myself has been tabled, as has correspondence involving the National Crime Authority. The Special Minister of State had a full discussion with Royal Commissioner Costigan and, on the basis of a fully agreed arrangement between the Special Minister of State and Commissioner Costigan, his timetable was agreed upon. Honourable members will see from the latest letter that has been put by Commissioner Costigan that there is a hint or a suggestion that he may need a little more time to finish the writing of his report. He has not made any such request. If he does make it, it will be received. In the discussions with the Special Minister of State no suggestion has been made by Commissioner Costigan that he is dissatisfied with any of the arrangements made by the Government or that he has been inhibited in the arrangement agreed upon between the Special Minister of State and himself as to the proper conduct of his inquiries. Mr GAYLER —I direct my question to the Minister for Primary Industry, a Minister highly respected throughout the length and breadth of this nation. Might I add that he is known in the bush as 'the Bob Hawke of the bush'. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the honourable member get on with his question or he will be known as the member who did not finish it. Mr GAYLER —Can the Minister inform the House of the situation of the Babinda sugar mill in the north Queensland sugar industry and what action, if any, the Commonwealth Government has taken in that respect? Mr KERIN —At the outset I would like to say that no two people have fought harder for the sugar industry than the honourable member for Leichhardt and the honourable member for Herbert. We are talking about a very serious matter. The Babinda mill has accumulated losses and long term borrowings and it is in a very serious situation. The Co-operative Sugar Millers Association has examined the plight of this mill and has identified the causes of its problems as poor management and, of course, low world prices and environmental limitations in the Babinda mill area, basically low c.c.s, as it is part of the super wet belt of Queensland. The Commonwealth understands the difficult situation of the Babinda mill. When I met with the new board of the mill some weeks ago now in the office of the honourable member for Leichhardt, I tried to see what the Commonwealth could do to help with a range of measures by trying to find some way to give it bridging finance. The Commonwealth investigated all ways in which we could help and we are very hopeful that the new board will be able to find ways and means of keeping the mill going. The trouble is that sugar industry mill problems, whether they are at Babinda or elsewhere, are unlikely to be resolved by ad hoc financial assistance, whether provided by the Commonwealth or the State. We are trying to get a review of the industry's production, marketing and regulatory practices in order to get together a package of measures which might help the industry. This mill is very high in my thinking because it is the one in most trouble and has been identified as such. The biggest problem with it has been poor management. The mill was led to the brink of disaster by the National Party member for Mulgrave, Mr Menzel. He was Chairman of Directors of Babinda Mill from 1974 to 1983. Under his rule staff were not allowed to make decisions. He publicly stated at a shareholders meeting: 'The staff are on tap and I'm on top, and that's the way it's going to be'. He has writs for damages for defamation out against five people, including a National Party member. I quote from a letter from a sugar producer in the Babinda area, who said: He kept his position on the board by having control of 43 permanent voting proxies, 7 personal, 12 dual and the rest in his supporters' names. Some of the farmers were hiding in the cane and in drains to avoid giving him their proxies. He and his supporters would come around in a car before voting time (even the mill supplier's voting time) to collect the proxies that were not permanent. This all sounds unbelievable, but the truth has to be told if the farmers, the workers and Babinda township is to survive. You wouldn't think this could happen in our country. It is a bit more serious than that. Part of the reason for the mill being in trouble relates to the payment of taxation in some earlier years. Under Mr Menzel, the Chairman's annual report, delivered on 30 April 1982, stated: For years the Board have had Greenwood, Challenor and Co. to advise them on matters of finance and taxation. The 1980 Balance Sheet was drawn up by Greenwood, Challenor and Co. and it was on their advice how our taxation was handled. Greenwood, Challenor and Co. are a reputable company widely known and respected throughout Australia. But when the co-operative members put this to Greenwood, Challenor and Co., they received the following: The 1980 balance sheet referred to in the Chairman's annual report was certainly not drawn up by us nor was our advice sought on how the company's taxation was handled. Mr McVeigh —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Mr KERIN —Mr Speaker, the-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister knows that when a point of order is raised he should cease and allow the point of order to be brought forward. I call the honourable member for Darling Downs. Mr McVeigh —Mr Speaker, my point of order relates to standing order No.75 which states: No Member may use offensive words against either House of the Parliament . . . I suspect that implicit in that is that honourable members should not use offensive words against a member of another parliament, and it should be done by substantive motion so that those of us who know the facts can defeat it. Mr SPEAKER —The suspicions of the honourable member for Darling Downs are unfounded. There is no point of order. I call the Minister for Primary Industry, I trust in conclusion. Mr KERIN —Yes, Mr Speaker. The management of this mill is very germane to the problems it is in. This was run in a very improper manner by the Board. The Board has now changed and it is trying to get on with the job of fixing the mill up. But it is this sort of example of National Party thuggery and paternalism that has the sugar industry in so much trouble. If the National Party can spend $60m on racecourses it can spend a bit more on the sugar industry. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Prime Minister, and it follows from his answer to the Leader of the National Party of Australia. The Leader of the National Party referred to two letters, one from Mr Costigan and one from the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister indicated that the correspondence had been tabled. In fact those letters referred to by the Leader of the National Party were not tabled by the Prime Minister. In addition, as I understand it, a significant number of other letters flowing between the Prime Minister and Mr Costigan-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition should get to his question. I understand this is a preamble. He is allowed some tolerance in his preamble but he should get down to the question. Mr PEACOCK —You ought to reflect on tolerance. Those letters were not tabled. In addition, letters dated 15 March 1983, 10 August 1983, October 1983, 2 November 1983, 24 November 1983, 3 February 1984 and 27 February 1984 were not tabled and they all dealt with transition and handover. The fact is that the Prime Minister had indicated that full correspondence would be tabled. It was not. I ask him: For whom is he covering up, what else has he got to hide and why did he mislead the House? Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, may I suggest that it would be better if the coach, the Leader of the National Party who writes out the questions, asked them rather than left the dolt to do it. At least then we would have the organ grinder and not the monkey. I have asked that the correspondence concerned with the transition and which has passed between the Commissioner and me and, in respect of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking, the National Crime Authority under Mr Justice Stewart and me, should be tabled. I will look at the dates of the letters that the Leader of the Opposition refers to and, if it does indeed appear that they refer to matters concerning the transition, they will be tabled . Mr MAHER —Can the Prime Minister inform the House of any Government actions aimed at resolving the unfortunate plight of Mr Jordan Georgiev in his efforts to be reunited in Australia with his family from Bulgaria? Mr HAWKE —I believe that all honourable members will be interested in the matter that has been raised by the honourable member for Lowe. He raised the important and frequently humanitarian issue of family reunion, to which this Government attaches very great priority. This Government firmly believes that families from all parts of the world, including the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, have an inalienable right to maintain their integrity as a family unit and to choose freely their country of residence. These rights, as all honourable members will appreciate, are of course enshrined in international agreements such as the 1975 Helsinki Final Act. In my message to the parliamentary group of Amnesty International in March of this year I referred to the forced and tragic separation of families as a result of the actions of government authorities which have refused to permit exit arrangements for their citizens to join relatives who have taken up residence in our country. I also indicated in that message that this Government does all it can to keep these cases before the authorities of the governments concerned and to achieve a humanitarian resolution of those tragic problems which are involved . I think all honourable members will appreciate that there are practical limits to what the Australian Government, and any Australian government, can achieve in this area since the power to achieve the resolution of the problem ultimately resides with other authorities under other governments. Nevertheless, having said that, through quiet diplomacy and the avoidance of posturing we are quietly achieving some useful results in the area of family reunion. For example, recently the Romanian Government has improved the rate at which it approves the emigration of families to join their relatives in Australia. I am pleased to say that during the recent visit of the Foreign Minister, Mr Hayden, to the Soviet Union in May representations were made on behalf of over 100 families. Since then two families have been given approval to leave the Soviet Union for Australia. We are hopeful-and I am sure it is a hope shared by all honourable members-that more will follow. We are also making representations to other eastern European governments on behalf of people in similar circumstances and we have grounds for some cautious optimism in a number of those cases. As part of our overall policy the Australian Government has made it clear to all those governments concerned, to which I have referred, that we cannot divorce our approach and attitude from their approach to the question of family reunion. We shall continue, quietly but firmly, to press for progress in this area. I acknowledge, and I think they will be acknowledged by all honourable members, the great and the persistent efforts which have been made by the honourable member for Lowe on behalf of his constituent, Jordan Georgiev, for whose plight this Government has indeed very great sympathy. In that case, we have made and will continue to make frequent and strong representations on his behalf both to the Bulgarian Government, through our representatives there, and through the Bulgarian representatives in Australia. I conclude by saying that we have been assured that the matter is being considered at a high level in Bulgaria. We certainly hope very much that that is the case. I think at least this is a matter on which I would be speaking on behalf of all members on both sides of the House. I say, therefore, on behalf of the Australian Government and this Parliament that I strongly urge the Bulgarian authorities to reach a speedy and humane resolution of this matter and to permit Mr Georgiev's wife and family to join him here in Australia, which is their basic human right. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce to the three-page submission by the Comptroller-General of Customs, Mr Hayes, to Mr Black, QC, dated 13 August 1984 in which it was stated that the wife of the Special Minister of State and her sister 'provided advice as to the purchase prices of the items' to a Customs officer which 'were accepted by him as accurate'. Is the Minister aware that the documents tabled on Wednesday in this Parliament by the Prime Minister reveal that Mrs Young did not give any purchase prices and, on the contrary: Firstly, told the inquiry 'I cannot remember what I paid for anything'; secondly, responded to Mr Black's question whether a lot of what she was saying was guesswork by saying 'Yes . . . it just did not occur to me to try to remember prices'; and, thirdly, said that she had kept no receipts? As the valuation of the imported items was central to the decision to exempt the Special Minister of State from prosecution under section 209 of the Customs Act, will the Minister explain why the Comptroller-General of Customs incorrectly advised the Black inquiry and whether or not the Minister for Industry and Commerce knew of, gave his approval to, or participated in any way in the preparation of the Comptroller-General's submission? Mr McVeigh —Tell the truth, too. Mr JOHN BROWN —I have a bad habit of telling the truth-it embarrasses some of you blokes sometimes. As I mentioned in the House yesterday, I cannot for the life of me see why-- Mr Howard —Ha, ha! Mr JOHN BROWN —I am quite serious about this. I cannot see why someone for whom the House has incredible respect-I say that with all sincerity-namely the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, keeps wanting to rake over old coals and produce nothing of any substance. He asked a very similar question in the House yesterday. As a matter of fact I have in front of me some information from the Minister which pertains to-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I am sure the Deputy Leader of the Opposition wishes to hear the answer to the question. His colleagues are not helping him by their interjections. Mr JOHN BROWN —Mr Speaker, in answering this question perhaps I can allude to the question which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked yesterday when he brought up the same subject-the compilation of the valuation list of the goods. I refer him to the Report of an Inquiry into the Circumstances Surrounding the Making of a Customs Declaration in which Mr Black particularly and expressly dealt with the matter of the compilation of the list of goods, its delivery to Mr Young and the processes of valuation and classification of the goods. Particularly he rejected any notion of any attempt at a pre-arranged scheme to arrive at values designed to produce a figure for duty of less than $500. The Customs Service does not provide any specialised treatment for people like the Special Minister of State or any other VIP entering Australia. I think that Mr Black's report has shown that every Customs officer involved dealt with the matter in a way that was thoroughly impartial and thoroughly proper. I think that the honourable member is doing very little for his reputation by digging up this ridiculous series of questions about an extraordinarily minor matter that was put to rest once and for all in the eyes of the 15 million people of Australia by Mr Black. Mr PUNCH —Is the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment aware of recent incidents involving a film agency operating on behalf of the Northern Territory Tourist Commission which ignored the accepted conditions for filming at Uluru and at the Olgas, and through its behaviour caused complaints from senior staff of the Northern Territory Conservation Commission stationed at Uluru, the Aboriginal people and tourists? Were these incidents in breach of Federal regulations? Were they isolated occurrences or were they consistent with a more general pattern of behaviour by the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory? Mr COHEN —On 31 August and 1 September this year a film crew operating on behalf of the Northern Territory Tourist Commission ignored accepted conditions for filming and chose to ignore permit requirements agreed to prior to filming. It has been reported by Uluru rangers that the helicopter that was being operated on behalf of the Northern Territory Government landed on the Rock, the sunset viewing area and also the Olgas. I regard the actions of the film crew as most serious and I have asked the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service fully to investigate the matter and take any necessary action. It is ironical at a time when tourism is being promoted in the Northern Territory that the Chief Minister seems unable to prevent agents of the Northern Territory Tourist Commission from upsetting tourists who, at considerable expense, have travelled to Uluru. A number of American tourists have expressed their shock at the activities of the film crew which spoilt their visit, violated written agreements and was insensitive to Aboriginal feelings. Such activities do little to encourage tourism. Indeed, the American tourists were told in no uncertain terms where they could go when they queried why the chopper had landed at a non-authorised landing area and discomfited them by spraying sand all over their food and their cameras. When they complained about it, they were told by representatives of the Northern Territory Tourist Commission to ' piss off'. Will you excuse my language, Mr Speaker? That is certainly no way for Australia to gain a good reputation. Mr Groom —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. There must be some limit to the words that one can use in this place. Is a member entitled to repeat any words that anyone uses outside this place? I submit that the words are unparliamentary . Mr SPEAKER —There are restrictions. Mr COHEN —I thank the honourable member for his concern. I agree that they are very unparliamentary and I think it is a damn disgrace that I had to use them in this place. I withdraw the words. It is a damn disgrace to Australia that people in the Northern Territory can use those sorts of words to visitors to this country. Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister has acknowledged the point of order and has withdrawn the words. I suggest that the House allow him to complete his answer. Mr COHEN —It is interesting to note that senior officers of the Northern Territory Conservation Commission who have management responsibilities at Uluru have formally complained to the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service with regard to the landing in unauthorised areas. Mr PEACOCK —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. By way of background I remind the Prime Minister that on Wednesday, concerning the transition from Costigan to the National Crime Authority, I asked: . . . will the Prime Minister now table the Government's correspondence with Commissioner Costigan? The Prime Minister replied: Let me say that I think it is appropriate that the correspondence to which the Leader of the Opposition referred should be tabled . . . we will table the correspondence. Yesterday, in response to his unqualified undertaking, the Prime Minister tabled 'the full correspondence from Mr Costigan and the National Crime Authority'. In the light of his acknowledgement today that there are other letters, why has the Prime Minister not tabled-- Government members interjecting- Mr PEACOCK —He has acknowledged that and he in fact indicated that the letters referred to by the Leader of the National Party had been tabled when-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will disregard interjections. Mr PEACOCK —Why has the Prime Minister not tabled what he was asked and what he agreed to table, namely, the full correspondence between the Government and Mr Costigan on the transition? Mr HAWKE —Not only we in this House but also all Australians have become used to the denseness of the Leader of the Opposition. So that even he may understand it , I will repeat what I have already told the House, that in respect of matters covering the transition, which was the matter in issue, I understood that those parts of the correspondence which referred to the transition which went between Commissioner Costigan, the Government, Mr Justice Stewart and the National Crime Authority, have been tabled. I have told him that in the House. I will tell him again, slowly, so that it might penetrate his mind, that I will ask the Department in respect of the dates of the correspondence he has mentioned if any of that correspondence deals with the transition. If it does, it will be tabled. This Government, in regard to this matter as in all others, has nothing to hide. If there is to be a comparison-and I can assure honourable members that there will be before this Parliament rises-of this Government's record in regard to the tabling of matters concerned with organised crime and actions taken in regard to it and the Opposition's record, those on the Opposition side of the House will be crawling under the table in shame. Mr BEDDALL —My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industry and concerns the egg industry arrangements. I ask the Minister: Will the Commonwealth hen levy be phased out? What will be the Commonwealth's attitude to levy collection in the meantime? Will the collection of unpaid levy be prompt? Will the Commonwealth's action to reduce its involvement in egg industry arrangements encourage evasion of payment of the Commonwealth hen levy? What is the Commonwealth attitude to the so-called rebel egg producers? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Fadden should finish his question. The form of his question is more appropriate for a question on notice. I ask him to conclude it. Mr BEDDALL —The last section of the question is: What will be the effect of the Commonwealth measures on funding for research? Mr KERIN —Mr Speaker, I am very pleased to get this question. As an old chook farmer, it is the first egg question I have had. The honourable member's questions refer to recently announced changes to Commonwealth involvement in egg marketing arrangements. The changes were to abolish the Australian Egg Board, phase out the Commonwealth hen levy and remove certain exemptions from provisions of the Trade Practices Act. With a substantial and continuing reduction in surpluses for export, there is no requirement for the Australian Egg Board to continue. Legislation is before the House on this matter so I will not comment on that part of the honourable member's question. The main purpose of the hen levy was to equalise on sales of surpluses at a loss principally on the export market. The levy of $1.95 per hen per year will be phased out by 1 July 1987, with the first reduction after consultation with the industry expected on 1 July 1985. The phasing out is consistent with the industry plan to reduce the surplus. The hen levy was put on nearly 20 years ago and was never intended to be a permanent measure. With respect to the so-called rebel egg producers, the vast majority of the producers are responsible people and I expect they will pay the egg levy which applies during the phase-out period, just as they have always paid it in the past. The Commonwealth is continuing with court action against the handful of people who persistently have not paid the Commonwealth hen levy due by them and will take such action against any others who similarly do not pay the debt to the Commonwealth as it arises. The Commonwealth holds no brief for these romantically so-called rebel egg producers. In a civilised nation every citizen is expected to obey all the laws. The way to change the law in a democracy is to put a case in a responsible way to the elected representatives. It is not unusual for undue notoriety to be given to people who seek to breach any system. Mr Goodluck interjecting- Mr KERIN —Mr Speaker, I think the honourable member for Franklin has laid an egg . The so-called rebels' actions are at the expense of their mates whose production is only in accordance with their quotas set to contain the uneconomic surplus. The law abiding producers are taking the full brunt-- Mr Goodluck interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for Franklin will cease crowing. Mr KERIN —How's my little mate? Mr SPEAKER —Order! Even the Chair gets provoked at times. Mr KERIN —The law-abiding egg producers are taking the full brunt of the necessary adjustment process in the industry of which the Commonwealth's announced measures are part. The process was well in train before the rebels surfaced and they cannot fairly claim that they were the cause of the change. If the rebels were fair dinkum, instead of ratting on their mates, they would have had the price of eggs well below what it is. The Commonwealth has decided that some exemptions for the egg industry from the application of the Trade Practices Act should cease. These exemptions cover agreements between the Australian Egg Marketing Council and the State egg boards on prices for interstate trade and that sales be between boards or with their agreement. Exemptions will remain for specific actions by State egg marketing authorities that are sanctioned under State legislation. State egg marketing authorities and the AEMC will of course be able to seek authorisation for agreements under the Act. No difficulty is anticipated in instituting alternative arrangements, in consultation with the industry, for its contribution to research to which the Commonwealth also contributes substantially. Mr SPEAKER —Honourable members will recall that when the House was debating the motion to authorise the telecast of the Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the speech in reply by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) suggested that the document circulated by me, entitled 'Basis of Television Coverage', should be presented to the House so that it could be available for members and others in the future. All honourable members did receive a copy of the document on the morning of Budget day but, for the permanent record, I now present a copy of the document. Mr SPEAKER —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Joint House Department for the year 1983-84. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —For the information of honourable members, I present the report on the review of matters affecting the Australian Telecommunications Commission, together with the text of a statement relating to that report. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the report of the review of matters affecting the Australian Telecommunications Commission. Motion (by Mr Peter Morris) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —For the information of honourable members, I present the report on the future operations of the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory at Geelong, Victoria, being the report to the ministerial committee on ANAHL by the advisory committee on ANAHL, chaired by Professor Frank Fenner, and also a general statement about the Government's response to the Fenner report and to the 1982 report of the Australian Science and Technology Council entitled 'The Australian National Animal Health Laboratory-The use of Live Exotic Pathogens', and the Government response to recommendations. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented in this morning's Canberra Times. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr CONNOLLY —An article by Virginia Cook which appeared in this morning's Canberra Times claimed that the Deputy Leader of the Australian Democrats stated : . . . the Opposition's 'pathetic call for environmentalism to be subject to private enterprise'. The article continued: The Opposition's proposal that environmentalists contribute $10 each per year to a company to buy Daintree meant that it would take 400 years to buy the national park. I add the point I made yesterday. The proposal was simply to give a demonstration or an example of what could be achieved if the environmental movement, which claims a membership of half a million, was able to contribute $ 10 a head to a fund on a shareholding basis through which it would be able to purchase areas of Australia under threat. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member knows that he is straying beyond the bounds of a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's betrayal of the unemployed, particularly the young. 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 MACPHEE(Balaclava)(2.52) —The Australian Labor Party has deceived our young people. In the last election campaign it created the impression that it would reduce unemployment by 500,000. It did not actually say that, but it wanted the public to believe that and, indeed, that was the way in which it was widely interpreted. The facts are that when people think of 500,000 new jobs being created they think of unemployment going down by 500,000. Mr Robert Brown —That is not what was said. Mr MACPHEE —I know. What was said was that 500,000 new jobs would be created, but of course people believe that means a reduction in unemployment. We know that the record of this Government is that it is seeing jobs created at about the same rate as the work force is growing, that the number of people now entering or re-entering the work force almost matches the figure in terms of the new jobs being created. That is why a number of people are now utterly disillusioned. Yesterday's figures on unemployment, which I analysed in detail in my speech on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1), represent the most disturbing news to have reached our young people for many years. As I demonstrated yesterday, over half of the new jobs that have been created are in the public sector. I analysed that situation and explained that if we continue to fund new jobs in the public sector-Federal, State or local government-a recurrent expenditure impacts on the deficits of those governments year after year which helps to keep interest rates high, because of public sector borrowing, and reduces the capacity of the private sector to invest and, therefore, to create the kinds of jobs which most people find sustainable and the kinds of jobs which they seek. The Budget deficit is not high to stimulate employment by means such as capital works. It is high because of recurrent expenditure in the areas which I identified yesterday, such as salaries. High deficits year after year do erode profits. They deter investments, and, therefore, the creation of jobs in the private sector. Another deterrent is the seemingly endless addition to the on-costs. In April last year the National Economic Summit Conference was held in this chamber. That conference created an expectation of leadership. The theme of the New South Wales Premier at the Summit was 'jobs, jobs, jobs'. That theme has often been described since then as 'wages, wages, wages'. Now it may be said, even in the Budget Papers, that the theme is 'on-costs, on-costs, on-costs'. The Budget advice is that in the order of 50 per cent of the labour costs are due to factors other than wages. Some of those are imposed by State governments. The Premiers, in their National Economic Summit Conference communique, pledged themselves to restraint. Was there any follow up of this at the Loan Council or the Premiers Conference? No, there was not. No curbs were placed on payroll tax increases and workers' compensation premiums. No commitment was made regarding regulation reform which would reduce unit labour costs. No commitment was given to extended shopping hours-except more recently in New South Wales, and there is still some doubt about the way in which that was done-accompanied by a reduction in working hours. The retail traders firmly believe that extended shopping hours will actually cost jobs, and cost the jobs of students in part time work. There was no follow-up of this matter. There was no leadership of the kind promised at the last election campaign and which appeared to be getting some fulfilment at the Summit. While we all thought it was good drama and shallow, there was the potential there for follow-up. There was the potential for follow-up with the trade union movement with which the priorities have to be determined. Do people just want more increases for those in jobs or do they want the creation of new jobs? I remember that before the last election the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions actually said that 90 per cent of people are in a job and his job was to look after those 90 per cent. Presumably it is the Government's responsibility to look after the rest. The truth is that the Government has committed itself to supporting the trade unions. The Government, in its accord with the trade unions, agrees to be accommodative and supportive of the trade union movement. What about them both being accommodative and supportive of our young people? We know that it is the task of government economic policy to create jobs. We have said in several contributions to the Budget debate that the present policy is doomed to fail in that regard. Even in the portfolio of employment and industrial relations there are training programs which ought to be used to lift the level of skill. Over $400m is being expended on make-work programs, job creation programs, in which the level of skill is not being lifted and in which people will not be more competitive in the labour market at the end of the subsidised job. In fact, they will not have the job when the subsidy expires. At a seminar on job creation, Dr Peter Scherer of the Australian Bureau of Labour Market Research, which is within the portfolio of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), said: A job was only 'real' if it achieved something other than putting someone on the payroll . . . Jobs which did not fulfil any function were despised by the community and could be counterproductive for those holding them if their work experience was discounted as meaningless by other employers. I believe the general assessment of the community employment program, for which over $400m is allocated in this Budget, is that the criteria established in that statement by the Bureau of Labour Market Research will not be met, that people will not have gained anything more than the merest work experience. Work experience itself does not lift their capacity to compete for jobs in the market place. If one looks again at yesterday's figures one will see that in January 1984, 64.3 per cent of people in the age group of 15 to 19 years were looking for their first job. In August 1984 the figure was 75.9 per cent. Those two figures are seasonally adjusted and mean that there is an increase of nearly 12 per cent in the number of first job seekers still seeking jobs. Figures which have been tabled in this place in the course of the Budget also indicate that the length of unemployment is growing for those who are unemployed. We see remarkably little recognition of that by the parties to the accord, which is the linchpin of the economic strategy of the Government. In the same age group, 15 years to 19 years, the figure for total unemployed in January this year was 25.4 per cent, and in August 25 per cent, which means a modest decrease, in seasonally adjusted terms, in the number of teenagers looking for work. But the Budget promises only a further modest decrease in the next 12 months. All of this is when we have had the benefits to the economy of the wage pause, the ending of the drought, and the United States economic recovery, none of those things being the work of this Government. What we find is that the policies implemented under the accord have jeopardised and squandered recovery. This Opposition committed itself, quite some time ago, to an inquiry into teenage unemployment, which would include, obviously, the question of wages relative to adult wages. On 12 February I released a news release to get this subject on the political agenda. At no stage has the Government or the Australian Council of Trade Unions responded with any imagination to this issue, yet every employer to whom one talks says: 'I would employ more young people if their wages were relatively lower than those of adults'. I believe, and the Opposition is committed to this view, that the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission ought to have an inquiry into the relativities between youth wages and adult wages, and that this would then lead to a determination of the guidelines to be used in setting junior wage rates in the future. I also called for, on that occasion-and we are committed to having it-a qualitative survey of employer attitudes to young people to determine what precisely the reasons are for young people not gaining employment. Are there other reasons besides the alleged wage levels? Are there reasons to do with literacy, numeracy, presentation, motivation, and so on? I went on to say in that Press release in February: The January unemployment figures show that there are now 100,000 teenagers aged 15 to 19 who are unemployed and looking for their first job. By the Government's own admission there could be as many as 130,000 additional teenagers in the ' hidden unemployed' category-making close to a quarter of a million in all. There will never be a better time than now for the Government to demonstrate that its professed concern for Australia's young people is genuine. There are positive steps which the Government can take. A failure to take them will be seen as an abandonment of our youth. Then I criticised the Government for failing to act upon the report of its own Bureau of Labour Market Research, which suggested that: . . . the Government should encourage the Commission-- that is, the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission- to conduct a general inquiry into the determination of youth wages. It is important that we recognise that the major finding of that report, which was entitled 'Youth Wages, Unemployment and the Labour Force', is that: . . . youth employment would tend to rise if youth labour costs were reduced relative to those of adults. The Government and the ACTU have responded merely by saying that by attrition somehow or other that situation will correct itself. At a time when 25 per cent of our young people are unemployed, that is not an acceptable approach. The other major findings of that report were that industrial tribunals in Australia have generally paid little attention to the principles by which junior -adult wage relativities should be determined; that they have done it, on the contrary, in an ad hoc way. The report also observes that the tribunals do not have the ability to conduct inquiries of their own. Therefore, we believe very strongly that at a time when 25 per cent of our young people are unemployed, when more will come on to the labour market at the end of this year, it is extremely important that the Government take the initiative and that the Government set up an inquiry and ask the ACTU to do some trade-offs to assist younger people to gain employment. The Opposition stands by those views. When we released our industrial relations and wages policy in April, we committed ourselves to such an inquiry. The need for it is abundantly clear. In the Australian Bulletin of Labour of June this year, at page 162, Mr David Pitman concluded, after a very erudite study: There has been no effective test case in the determination of junior wages in Australia. This issue is becoming very grave. The sooner it is resolved and acted upon, the better. So, I return to the commitment in the accord-that the Government will be accommodative and supportive of the ACTU. I ask again that both of them consider the 76 per cent of young people looking for a job and those who will join them at the end of this year. Cynics are saying that trade union officials are quite content to see youth wages high, because then older workers do not lose their jobs. I have never shared that view, but it is hard to escape a belief that the way in which the ACTU is continuing to place demands, an apparently endless set of demands, without forgoing and without examining any of the outmoded provisions now applying, is either heedless of economic sense or is certainly heedless of the wellbeing of younger people who do not have labour market experience and who in many ways cannot easily commend themselves to employers. The situation is tragic. The Government has an obligation to set up an inquiry in lieu of the national wage case that would have been heard, and to examine carefully what is the situation regarding junior wage rates relative to adult rates and youth employment prospects. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(3.06) — The Opposition has amazing gall in accusing the Government of betraying the unemployed, particularly the young. Looking at the record of Opposition members in office, one can see who betrayed the unemployed. It was clearly the Fraser Government that betrayed the unemployed. Looking at their record in relation to unemployment, particularly for young people, one can see that they indeed betrayed the young people of Australia. Let me quickly remind the House of the employment and unemployment situation which obtained under the former Government. Between November 1975 and March 1983 , the increase in employment was 474,000. The increase in unemployment was 416, 000. So there was an increase in unemployment almost as high as the increase in employment that occurred. Looking at what happened for teenagers, one sees that between November 1975 and March 1983 there was no increase in employment. In seven years, and more, the previous Government never increased teenage employment by one job. Yet its members come to this House screaming about betraying the unemployed, particularly the young unemployed. Obviously, it was the previous Government, with its abysmal lack of economic knowledge, that betrayed the young unemployed by refusing to enable one extra job to be created for young people in over seven years. What incredible gall it is for honourable members opposite to start telling this Government, whose record I will come to in a moment-it is infinitely better-that we have betrayed the young unemployed. It is just an amazing situation. I am amazed that the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee), for whom I have a lot of respect, has such gall to raise a matter of public importance of this kind. Looking at unemployment among teenagers for the period November 1975 to March 1983, as against no increase in employment, we saw an increase in unemployment for teenagers of 67,000. So, clearly the unemployment rate rose from 15.6 per cent to 23 per cent in that time. It is quite clear that the previous Government failed abysmally on the unemployment front, and most particularly for teenagers and the young unemployed. Since the present Government has been in office there has been a reversal of that trend. Things have got better on both the employment front and the unemployment front. Let me say rapidly that, of course, we do not suggest that we can rest on our laurels or that everything is tremendous. Obviously it is still an appalling situation. But at least the trend has been reversed. At least employment is increasing. At least unemployment is coming down, overall and for teenagers. In regard to the overall picture, in our period of office there has been an increase in employment of 220,000, and unemployment has come down by 61,000. From the peak of September last year, it is down by almost 100,000. The increase in employment for teenagers is only 8,000-but at least it is an increase; it is more than the previous Government could muster over seven years-and unemployment has come down by 26,000. It is interesting, therefore, that a motion such as this is brought before us when that is the comparative record of the two governments. Obviously, it is absurd to suggest that in some way we have betrayed the unemployed, particularly the young unemployed. While I am on that subject, I make one other point. When we consider the betrayal of the unemployed, we should talk also of the treatment of the unemployed. What about the fact that the previous Government cared so little for the unemployed that it gradually whittled away the level of benefit for the single unemployed compared with that of the pension? By the time it went out of office, there was a very substantial gap indeed between the benefit for the single unemployed 18 years and over and that for other single pensioners and beneficiaries. Presumably, that was because the previous Government felt that the unemployed were in some way to blame for their own situation. It was a quite despicable approach towards the unemployed. The previous Government increased the unemployment benefit for 16 and 17-year- olds once in seven years. It attempted to abolish the community youth support scheme. It was only because there was a great uproar in the community that it backtracked on that. So the previous Government's record on the unemployment front, particularly for young people, was absolutely abysmal. This Government has a completely opposite record, as I have already indicated. On the unemployment benefit front, we have been rapidly trying to undo the damage created by the previous Government by giving increases to the single unemployed faster than to other pensioners and beneficiaries. The success of our economic policy, which is quite clear compared to that of the previous Government, is attributable to the fact that we have pursued economic policies which both at the budgetary macro level and at the micro level have been quite successful; indeed, they have been startlingly successful, more successful than in any other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country last year. This country has experienced the fastest growth since the 1930s in total output and in growth in employment, of 3.7 per cent. Last year we increased employment by over 200,000. That, of course, is an extremely rapid growth in the rate of employment. Of course, the prices and incomes accord, which was derided by the honourable member for Balaclava, was crucial. It remains crucial to our ability to do that. It is an element which guarantees this Government a basis upon which to pursue an expansionary budgetary policy which will create employment and not lead to increased inflation. That is the essence of the prices and incomes accord. It is something which in the previous Government's seven and a half years it could never achieve . Because we have the accord, we are successful in achieving non-inflationary growth; indeed, growth accompanied by reducing inflation which is not only giving us increased employment but also improving our competitive position and our employment prospects for the future. We have supplemented that with job creation programs. Of course, I completely deny the slur on the job creation programs which came from the honourable member for Balaclava. The community employment program is a very worthwhile one. It does not aim to create permanent jobs, but that does not mean that it is not worth while. It is aimed at the disadvantaged in the work place, people who would not get jobs quickly through normal growth in the recovery in the economy. It is aimed, therefore, at people who are very disadvantaged-the long term unemployed, Aborigines, women and people who one can clearly say are more disadvantaged in the work force. The disabled form another category. These people have benefited greatly from the program. It is not true to say that there is no training involved in these jobs. In many cases, not all, there is a clear training element. Those people are going on to other jobs in the market-place in a way which would not be possible without the community employment program. Of course, it is adding to the overall level of employment as well. We are confident that these policies, with the improvements in labour market programs generally, will continue to achieve substantial job growth in this country. The August figures which were referred to by the honourable member for Balaclava are not something which the nation should be concerned about. Obviously, a downturn in employment is not something which pleases us, but we should look at what happened last year. Quite clearly, last year there was a similar seasonal adjustment downturn in the August figures. It was followed by very strong growth for the rest of the year. Our Budget forecasts are for strong growth in output for the rest of this financial year. We see no reason at all why that should not be accompanied by strong employment growth in the rest of this year or why our Budget forecast of another 160,000 jobs in the course of this financial year should not be achieved. If we consider the causes of youth unemployment about which the honourable member for Balaclava had some things to say, of course it is undeniable that until this Government came to office there was a big rise in youth unemployment. I have referred to the figures applicable under the previous Government and the reversal of the trend since we came into office. But the Opposition is now claiming, as some revealed truth, that the relative increase in youth award wages which occurred in the early 1970s is the basic cause of the youth unemployment problem. The implication seems to be that, if only the Government would tackle that, all the problems would be cured. If it believes that, why did it not do something about it when it was in office? This increase in the relative wages of young people compared to adults occurred in the early 1970s, before the Fraser Government came to office. If the Opposition believed this was a major cause of youth unemployment, why did it not do something about it when it was in office? It was in office for seven years. In that period, to my knowledge, it did nothing to try to reduce relative wages for young people. If that was its perception of the problem, why did it not tackle it? Is it just something that has been revealed to it since it has been in opposition? That would indeed appear to be the case. Let me state our position on this matter which has some currency. It would appear to be the important issue as it has been given so much currency in the media. The Government and I believe that it is incredibly simplistic to assert that this factor is the major determinant of junior unemployment. First, there is no convincing evidence that this is the case. Other factors are clearly important in determining teenage unemployment. Even if we reach the conclusion that relative wages of young people have been a factor in youth unemployment, and we do not deny that it might have been a factor, it does not follow that we should seek to reduce relative wages of young people. Any improvement in teenage employment which resulted from such action would almost certainly be at the expense of increased unemployment of adults. Secondly, other measures can be taken to increase young workers' productivity for employers. We can improve their level of education and their training before they go into the labour market looking for a job. I would like to develop these points, but the time will probably prevent me doing that in much detail. The evidence in regard to youth wages and unemployment is principally from the Bureau of Labour Market Research report on youth wages, employment and the labour force. The general conclusions from the BLMR were that teenage unemployment increased rapidly in recent years because of a rise in the youth population and the youth labour force participation rates, rather than decreased employment and that youth wages increased relative to adult wages in the early 1970s. It concluded that this compression had been associated with reduced levels of youth employment but that the magnitude of the effect was uncertain. So far as could be ascertained, it explained less than 20 per cent of the increase in youth unemployment. The report said further that it did not follow that action to reduce youth wage relativities was necessarily desirable. For instance, the report said that it may be better to increase youth productivity by improved education and training. Nothing in the BLMR report suggested that reduced wage relativities for young people would reduce overall unemployment, hence any reduction in unemployment of young people would be likely to be at the expense of adults. Finally, the report said that a major factor in youth unemployment was the decline in public sector employment of teenagers in the period between 1970 and 1981, especially in the Australian Public Service. The report said that had there been a maintenance of the same proportion of total public sector employment that teenagers had at the beginning of that period to the end of it, there would have been 70,000 more jobs for teenagers. That is almost half the total number of unemployed teenagers at present. Quite clearly, that is a major factor in determining teenage unemployment at present and over that period. If we take all those factors into account I think we start to get a different picture of what is involved. If one looks further at the BLMR conclusions one can see, first, that it is clearly tentative in its conclusions. It does not claim that youth wages explain more than 20 per cent of the unemployment. Indeed, it is hesitant in suggesting that it is of that order. Secondly, there is no action that leads us to believe that this conclusion is well based. If we look at the index of award wages which the Bureau used, we see that it used award wages. It did not take into account over-award payments. I assume that over-award payments moved in the same way as award wages. But if we take into account over-award payments we might get a quite different picture; indeed, there is some evidence for that. If one looks at the figures from the Bureau of Statistics which show junior to adult male hourly earnings for full time private employment one can see that in 1982 that figure was 52 per cent. In 1972, what was it? It was 52 per cent. It had not changed in a decade. So when we look at total earnings including over- award payments and at the changes over the decade it would appear that there has been no change at all and just using award wages may be a distortion of what has actually occurred out there in the market place. The Bureau says that there are also in the earning figures some compositional factors which could affect them, and that is true, but all I am saying is that the picture is unclear. Until we have an absolutely clear analysis of the picture in relation to relative wages of young people we should not be drawing hasty conclusions in the way that the Opposition rushes to do. Furthermore, if relative pay is the important factor in unemployment, why has women's employment increased rapidly relative to that of males? There was a big increase in the relative wages of females to males in the first half of the 1970s. After that, female employment increased by three times the rate of male employment between the end of 1975 and the present. This occurred despite much higher relative wage increases in the first half of the 1970s. So if relative wages are a factor, how does one account for that? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Mr COWAN(Lyne) —On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the fourteenth report for 1984 of the Committee, relating to the construction of Commonwealth and Family Courts, Perth, Western Australia, together with the minutes of evidence. Debate resumed. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(3.22) —Before the suspension of the sitting, I was addressing myself to the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1984. I had indicated to the Parliament that the Opposition supports the Bill and I made the point very strongly that this was in a sense in the public eye often an unusual event because people do have the expectation that there are few matters about which the Opposition and the Government would be able to agree. As I indicated previously our support for this legislation is complete. It is very important legislation. As a result of deliberations which involved the previous Government a number of special advisory bodies were established to assist in reviewing legislation of this sort. The good efforts of the previous Minister for Veterans' Affairs and of the previous Government were continued by the present Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) and the present Government. I indicated that there were very good reasons why reform was being proposed in this area in relation to procedures for determining entitlement of veterans, those good reasons being the substantial increase in the number of people who were eligible to apply for service and other forms of pensions under the repatriation legislation. The increasing number of eligible people means that procedures have to be such as to be able to cope with the additional numbers involved. If we look at the second reading speech of the Minister we see that the numbers involved are quite significant. The Minister, in his speech, had this to say: . . . 1982-83 saw a sharp increase in the number of disability pension claims, with the first claims rising by 36.3 per cent over the previous year, claims for the acceptance of new disabilities by 37.5 per cent and applications for pension increase by 26.2 per cent. These claims are increasing by a further 18 per cent to 19 per cent in 1983-84. I think that is a measure of the extent to which the Department will have to cope with significantly increased numbers of entitlements in various forms. As a result the procedures have to be capable of coping with that additional work load. The Minister, in his speech, gave what he said was a typical case-I regard it as an appalling case-regarding the delays some veterans are experiencing in having entitlements determined. I will quote what the Minister had to say about a typical example which he said was selected at random. He said: On 14 September 1978 a Veteran of World War II made a claim to have a particular incapacity accepted as service related. This claim went to a Repatriation Board and was rejected on 11 May 1979. The Veteran exercised his right of appeal to the Repatriation Commission on 29 June 1979. The appeal was considered by the delegate of the Commission on 23 September 1980, some fourteen months later. The Commission dismissed the appeal. The Veteran then exercised his right to have the Commission decision reviewed by the Repatriation Review Tribunal. His application for review by the RRT was made on 15 July 1982. The matter came before the RRT and was finalised in his favour on 21 February 1983. So it took from September 1978 to February 1983 to finalise the matter. I am sure all honourable members are aware of cases of that sort. I am sure they have had them drawn to their attention and are as concerned as I am and as the Minister obviously is to have procedures put in place so that these sorts of delays will not occur in the future. The Bill deals with a number of matters. It deals essentially with procedures. That is the system by which entitlements are dealt with. It does not deal with the basis on which entitlements are established. It does not deal with the legal questions that have to be considered by the various bodies determining an entitlement. That is a very important matter. This Bill, as I understand it and as we read it, does not alter the onus of proof or the right of a veteran to assistance. It is only the means by which his right is established that is being dealt with by way of this legislation. The Bill has the total support of the Opposition, because of its importance. This legislation is not in the least controversial or complex. It is designed to simplify procedures that have in the past been quite exceedingly complex. As I have said it has our support and I think it is important that that is understood . There may well be other legislation that deals with the question of the way in which entitlements are determined. I refer to the legal question in relation to determinations. Legislation of that sort, which I understand is before the Government is infinitely more complex. I would have to say, without having seen the detail of it, that it is possibly much more controversial and that may be foreshadowing the nature of the examination that will take place when the further legislation comes before this Parliament or the next. This further legislation will require considerably more discussion and consultation particularly with veterans' bodies and organisations to overcome the concern about which some people have written to me, as they have to other honourable members, about what they believe might be involved in that legislation. As I have said, I understand the Minister has foreshadowed that such legislation may be introduced in the next session of the Parliament. That may well be in another parliament and another government may well be considering that matter. This legislation has the co-operation of the Opposition for a speedy passage as it needs to be in place in order that it can be introduced and in effect by 1 January 1985, the first day of next year. In order to ensure that all the tasks that have to be undertaken to gear up and put the legislation into place and that appropriate personnel can be appointed and to ensure the legislation's successful operation, the Opposition is facilitating this debate and this discussion. A new and quicker service is needed to meet the backlog of between 20,000 and 30,000 outstanding claims from veterans for entitlements. The extent that numbers of that order are involved I think signifies the reason why the Opposition has been so co-operative. I refer honourable members to a Press release by my colleague Senator Doug Scott, the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs. It states: Speaking in support of the Bill, Senator Scott said that the legislation had closely followed the recommendations of the report of the Administrative Review Council and the earlier recommendations of Mr Justice Toose in his Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Repatriation System in 1975. Senator Scott had this to say, which I think is very pertinent and should be mentioned in this debate: The changes to the determining system have been welcomed by the majority of ex- Service personnel who are anxious to see that action is taken as early as possible to reduce the unacceptable delays and huge backlogs which have plagued the present system. Senator Scott said that there was widespread support generally for early implementation of the proposals as instanced by the National Executive of the Returned Services League, Legacy, the War Widows Guild and the Australian Federation of Totally and Permanently Incapacitated Ex-Service Men and Women. I mention that because of the views of some organisations and I will be referring to those a little later in this debate. But to go into more detail, what is it that we are considering? We are considering a Bill the purpose of which is to implement decisions on the reform of the repatriation determining system. As I said, the changes follow very closely the report of the Administrative Review Council. The arrangements will introduce a more logical process for the consideration of applications and reviews. They will attempt to see that as much information as possible is available at the initial determining stage to reduce the number of requests for review. They will also reduce unacceptable delays in the repatriation determining system. The Bill before us amends the following Acts: The Repatriation Act 1920, the Interim Forces Benefits Act 1947, the Repatriation (Far East Strategic Reserve) Act 1956, the Repatriation (Special Overseas Services) Act 1962 and the Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act 1940. The Administrative Review Council identified a number of deficiencies in those pieces of legislation, and those deficiencies are the reasons for us proceeding with this legislation. They were, firstly, that primary decisions are made on incomplete evidence; secondly, inadequate explanations are given for reasons for decisions; and, thirdly, the large number of appeals and reviews being undertaken and outstanding. The Administrative Review Council identified the consequences of these deficiencies and they were: Firstly, not enough claims were allowed by primary decision makers; secondly, a large number of Repatriation Review Tribunal appeals and the fact that that body was often hearing evidence rather than a review; and, thirdly, undue delays in the final disposition of cases. As a consequence, the main effects of this Bill are as follows: Firstly, it abolishes the repatriation boards, with individual delegates to take over the responsibility for the matters that the boards previously considered. That is in clause 6. Secondly, the Repatriation Commission is to be responsible for primary decisions on claims for disability pensions, applications for increases in rates of disability pensions and applications for service pensions. Those matters are dealt with in clauses 12 and 15 and proposed sections 29A and 90A respectively. Thirdly, the Bill will establish the Veterans' Review Board as an intermediate level of review in respect of disability pension matters, as contained in clause 19. Fourthly, it will provide for appeal delegates of the Repatriation Commission at an intermediate level to review decisions of primary delegates in respect of service pension matters. That is in clause 15 of the Bill. Fifthly, in clause 19, the Bill abolishes the Repatriation Review Tribunal, and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal repatriation division will take over matters previously dealt with by the Repatriation Review Tribunal. As a result of amendments to the Administrative Appeals Act, there will be power to form a division. That is an important matter, and I understand there will be consultation with veterans' organisations about that. Sixthly, the final review on the merits of all disability claims, applications for an increase in disability pensions and applications for service pensions will go to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The seventh effect of the Bill is that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal will be the final level of review on merits and the Veterans' Review Board will be an intermediate level on the review of claims and applications for pensions under the Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act of 1940. The eighth purpose is provision under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act for a right of appeal to the Federal Court on questions of law from decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Because of the lateness of the hour I will not during this debate go further into the detail of those arrangements except to say that one hopes that they will provide a much more streamlined and efficient system. I and other members have received representations in relation to this matter from the Australian Veterans and Defence Services Council. The Secretary, Mr P. C. Alexander, CMG, OBE, wrote to us on 27 August because this legislation was coming before the House. Of course it had already been considered by the Senate at that time. Mr Alexander indicated in his letter that the Council had obtained certain legal advice on the Bill, and some of the advice it had received had given rise to concern amongst the members of that organisation. For the information of honourable members I would like to read a particular section of his letter and a response that I understand the Council received from the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. The letter from Mr Alexander had this to say: We now have legal opinions which draw attention to further defects in the Bill. For instance, there is what our Legal Advisor considers an attempt, in the proposed sections 25 and 26, to undermine the principle established by the High Court in the Nancy Law case. While those sections refer to not imposing an onus of proof, nevertheless the attempt to compel a veteran or widow to supply possible adverse evidence, most effectively may disadvantage him or her. The proposed section 88 has the same effect in respect of Service Pension claims from which it appears the protection of the present ''onus of proof'' provisions (in section 47) are being withdrawn. If there were to be any impact upon the question of the onus of proof as a result of this legislation, it would give rise to concern amongst members. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs, in responding to that letter, which has been made available to me, said: The provisions of the proposed sections 25 and 26, to which Mr Knox refers-- Mr Knox is the Council's legal adviser- merely restate the words of the existing section 24AA of the Repatriation Act 1920. Section 24AA was inserted in the Repatriation Act 1977. The provision was already there when the Federal Court of Australia and the High Court considered the Law case. The words Mr Knox complains of do not have the effect which he contends. They do not change the existing law. In the drafting of this Bill, particular care has been taken to ensure that nothing was done to upset the onus or standard of proof contained in the present legislation. In the Second Reading debate in the Senate, I emphasised that there was nothing in this legislation which affected section 47 of the Repatriation Act 1920. I do not know which Minister has responsibility for this matter at the moment as no Minister is at the table. Mr Dobie —There is no Minister in the House, either. Mr RUDDOCK —There is a Minister in the House, but I do not know whether he has responsibility for this legislation. The Minister for Defence Support (Mr Howe) might tell his colleague who has responsibility for this legislation of the matters I have mentioned because I seek from the Government an undertaking in relation to the assurances given to the Council by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Gietzelt, that there is no intention on the Government's part to interfere in any way with the onus of proof and that, if it is found in the operation of this legislation that the onus has been interfered with in any way, the Government will move to remedy the situation. It is important that we have such an undertaking, as an expression of good faith. The Opposition accepts the Minister's view that the legislation is not intended to vary the onus of proof but it is a very important matter and, if there were any doubt in the minds of veterans about it, an undertaking that amending legislation would be brought in to ensure that that onus was not varied would be welcome. This is important legislation from the point of view of veterans. It has had co -operation from the Opposition in ensuring its speedy passage and we have supported this legislation because of the nature of it and the way in which it might advantage veterans. I ask the House to take note of that spirit of co- operation because there are times when other matters arise in relation to veterans in which not quite the same standards are applied. In relation to veterans who have access to services through the Capital Territory Health Commission I would like honourable members to be aware of a number of official Press releases from that Health Commission, particularly the four releases of 23 August 1984, Nos 151, 152, 153 and 154. These releases dealt with a number of Budget initiatives for the Australian Capital Territory. In essence they dealt with the provision of health services and services for veterans involving the Capital Territory Health Commission. But the remarkable fact is that those releases, using the Capital Territory Health Commission's letterhead and presumably its distribution arrangements for its Press releases, were in such a form as to have a very marked party political impact. These Press releases, released by a statutory body, all contained paragraphs to this effect: The Member for Canberra, Mrs Ros Kelly, and the endorsed ALP candidate for Fraser, Mr John Langmore, said today that the increased budget would allow the Commission to embark on a vigorous campaign to overcome its nursing staff shortages. That was in Press release No. 154. If honourable members look at No. 153 they will see the wording goes like this: The Member for Canberra, Mrs Ros Kelly, and the endorsed ALP candidate for Fraser, Mr John Langmore, said the formation of the Council of the Capital Territory Health Commission was the first stage of implementing the ACT Radiation Ordinance. Another one was to this effect: The Member for Canberra, Mrs Ros Kelly, and the endorsed ALP candidate for Fraser, Mr John Langmore, said the staffing at an additional cost of $330,000 would provide comprehensive services for those requiring treatment for a wide range of psychiatric illnesses. And finally, No. 151-and I think this was the most remarkable of all-said: Announcing the initiatives today the Member for Canberra, Mrs Ros Kelly, and the endorsed ALP candidate for Fraser, Mr John Langmore, said $643,000 would be spent on new community health projects. I think that any endorsed party candidate would like to have statutory authorities issuing and circulating Press releases in his or her name at public expense. I regard that as one of the most blatant political acts by a statutory authority and it should not be countenanced in any way by this Parliament or by any Minister. I regret very much that the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), who was here a few moments ago and to whose attention I had hoped to draw this matter, has now left the chamber. I want to know whether that Minister authorised the use of the Capital Territory Health Commission's resources and the taxpayers funds in support of an endorsed ALP candidate. I want to know whether he was aware of it, whether he endorsed it in any way whatsoever. If he did not, I want to know what action he has taken to discipline those responsible . Was Alison Martin the contact person responsible? I do not know. But if she was, I want to know. Was she told to do it, and if so, by whom? If the Minister claims that he was not aware of this fundamental breach I want to know what he intends to do about it now that he has become aware of it. If the Minister has taken no action or if he intends to take no action, does this mean that he, as a Minister, merely regards this as a routine item of petty corruption by the ALP of statutory bodies which must be accepted? This sort of nonsense by statutory authorities may be good enough in New South Wales where it has been going on for a long time, but quite frankly it is not good enough for the Australian Capital Territory. It is not good enough that we have public moneys being used to promote ALP candidates. I would hope that the candidate and the member for Canberra, who have been used in this way, or who have used facilities of the Commonwealth in this way, would disavow this use of public money and apologise for the use of their names in this regard. It is not in keeping with the spirit in which the Opposition has supported this legislation that we have actions of this sort taking place in the Australian Capital Territory at this time. Debate (on motion by Mr Howe) adjourned. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I seek your indulgence, Mr Speaker, to add briefly to an answer I gave earlier today. Mr SPEAKER —The Prime Minister may proceed. Mr HAWKE —Earlier today in Question Time the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) referred to the documents which I tabled yesterday concerning transition arrangements from the Costigan Royal Commission to the National Crime Authority. The Leader of the Opposition suggested that there were other documents on this matter which had not been tabled. In the House yesterday I said-and it is quite clear in Hansard on page 706: Mr Costigan and the National Crime Authority have a different view on the adequacy of the transition arrangements. I indicated that I would table the full correspondence from Mr Costigan and the National Crime Authority on this matter. The correspondence relating to the handover after the proclamation of the National Crime Authority on 15 June 1984 was tabled after Question Time yesterday. I have had the records checked and I advise the House that there is no other correspondence between Mr Costigan and the National Crime Authority on this matter. The matter that the Leader of the Opposition is referring to is quite distinct from that. To ensure that the distinction is made perfectly clear I am having the files checked to ascertain whether there was any correspondence between the Government and Mr Costigan about the transition arrangements prior to the correspondence between the National Crime Authority and Mr Costigan which was tabled yesterday. If any documents relating to the creation of the Authority and consequential transitional arrangements are located they will be made available subject to the agreement of the two parties. Mr Peacock —I seek leave to make a statement. Mr SPEAKER —That is not possible. Mr Peacock —Cut it out, you just let the Prime Minister make a statement. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr Peacock —Are you going to deny me the opportunity-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Peacock —Look, I just want to-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! It does not matter what you want to do. You will take your seat and I will explain to you what happened. The Prime Minister sought indulgence to add to an answer he gave earlier this day. He has added to that answer; he has not made a statement. The business of the House goes on. Mr Peacock —I seek your indulgence, Mr Speaker-- Mr SPEAKER —To do what? Mr Peacock —To refer to matters that the Prime Minister raised. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition knows that that is not possible. He will resume his seat. Mr Peacock —Why is it not possible? Mr SPEAKER —Because it is not possible under the Standing Orders. Mr Peacock —Why is it not possible for me to seek your indulgence? Mr SPEAKER —I warn the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Peacock —Mr Speaker, you place me in an impossible position. Mr SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition places the Chair in an impossible position. Mr Peacock —No, he does not. He is asking-- Mr SPEAKER —Unless he prepared-- Mr Peacock —for your indulgence. Mr SPEAKER —I name the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Young —Before we proceed further, I point out that the Leader of the Opposition was not present, unfortunately, when the Prime Minister came in to add to his answer. That procedure is not unusual, especially when the Prime Minister is involved in Question Time. Mr Sinclair —He could have made a statement. Mr Young —He had no reason to make a statement. It may well be that when the correspondence is looked at and more has to be tabled, if there is more to be tabled, based on the transition as outlined by the Prime Minister, some statement will have to be made. In that case the Leader of the Opposition obviously will be given the opportunity to reply to it. Mr Speaker, I do not now move the suspension of Standing Orders and place the House in that sort of position because I think there is some misunderstanding as to what may have occurred. It was not a statement by the Prime Minister; it was really adding to what was the original question about what the correspondence referred to. I think the Leader of the Opposition should see the way in which the Prime Minister has added to his question. There certainly will not be any opportunity denied to the Leader of the Opposition should the opportunity come on Monday and there is more correspondence that has to be looked at. Mr SPEAKER —I should remind the Leader of the House that his explanation is exactly the explanation I gave to the Leader of the Opposition-that the Prime Minister had sought indulgence to add to his answer to a question that had been asked earlier. That is a normal procedure in the House. It is not followed by debate. I hope the Leader of the Opposition will appreciate that he was told quite honestly what had occurred. Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The normal courtesy is that the shadow Leader of the House is also advised if there are matters of this order to take place. This is the first that I have heard of it. I hope that on future occasions the Leader of the House will advise me if such things are to take place. Mr Young —Could I answer the point of order, Mr Speaker, by telling the right honourable member that, as Opposition Leader of the House, I was never informed when the former Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, was to come in and add to an answer. Mr Humphreys —Mr Speaker, speaking to the point of order: I did tell the Opposition Whip to tell his Leader that the Prime Minister was coming in to add to an answer. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Once again I think both sides of the House misunderstand the role of the Chair. I acknowledge that there are arrangements and courtesies followed between the two sides of the House, but it is not my responsibility to enforce those courtesies. They are a matter of negotiation between the two sides of the House. Mr Peacock —May I in the circumstances, Mr Speaker, say that in seeking your indulgence I was frankly wishing to correct a matter that the Prime Minister had referred to. I now understand, in more detail, the circumstances in which the Prime Minister spoke this afternoon. The Leader of the House has been kind enough to indicate that I will be given time to reply should the Prime Minister be adding to this on Monday. I accept that. I trust that you may find yourself, Mr Speaker, able to take the appropriate measures which are necessary now that I recognise the full details. Mr SPEAKER —Yes, I accept. My only concern was that if the Leader of the Opposition had listened to what I was saying he would have understood what was going on. Debate resumed. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(3.53) —The Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill will provide a new and streamlined system of determining repatriation benefits. This Bill makes amendments to the Repatriation Act 1920, the Interim Forces Benefits Act 1947, the Repatriation (Far East Strategic Reserve) Act 1956, the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act 1962 and the Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act 1940. The new system for considering repatriation claims by the Bill results from dissatisfaction with the present arrangements for investigating applications and appeals. In a report by the Administrative Review Council of 16 November 1983 to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) entitled 'Review of Pension Decisions under Repatriation Legislation', the dissatisfaction is clear and the report summarised the deficiencies as follows: First, primary decisions are often made on the basis of incomplete evidence; secondly, claimants are frequently not given adequate reasons for decisions; thirdly, claimants are often inad- equately represented, and fourthly, there are a large number of appeal and review channels. The report mentioned a number of consequences stemming from these deficiencies which add up to undue delay, because not enough cases are decided favourably at primary consideration with the result that the review system is clogged. It is useful to grasp the current system in outline and then note the essentials of proposed changes. In making an application for a repatriation disability pension the veteran submits his claim to the Department of Veterans' Affairs and on completion of checks concerning his service, it is considered by a repatriation board, which determines the claim. Generally speaking a board consists of a chairman, a service member and a third member. The claim is determined on the basis of evidence submitted by the veteran, records and other documents under the control of the Veterans' Affairs Department. The Department provides the board with a written summary of the case, a medical opinion and specialist reports if required. Although boards may summon witnesses including the applicant, and take evidence on oath, the normal practice is to reach their decision on the basis of the written material before them. If the applicant is dissatisfied with a board's decision he may appeal to the Repatriation Commission, which also normally considers the matter on the basis of documentary evidence. The Repatriation Review Tribunal was established in 1979. It replaced war pensions entitlement appeal tribunals and assessment appeal tribunals. The purpose at that time was to ensure that repatriation appeals would be heard by a tribunal with the same standing as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Repatriation Review Tribunal normally consists of a presidential member, a Services member and one other member. The Repatriation Review Tribunal may review decisions of the Repatriation Commission refusing entitlement to a disability pension or benefit, review a board's decision assessing the rate of pension, and review a Commission decision which refuses to grant a service pension. There are further provisions for referral of repatriation matters to higher tribunals. If a case involves an important principle of general application it can be referred to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. A question of law which arises during a case before the Repatriation Review Tribunal may be referred to the Federal Court of Australia. The changes which are proposed may be summarised as follows: First, there is the abolition of repatriation boards and the replacement of their determining role with single delegates of the Repatriation Commission. Secondly, there is the establishment of an intermediate review tribunal to be known as the Veterans ' Review Board. A board would normally consist of three members-a principal member, Services member and one other. Subject to prior approval by the Minister a Veterans' Review Board can be constituted by one member sitting alone. Thirdly , there is the abolition of the Repatriation Review Tribunal and the conferring of jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans Review Board upon the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Finally, an appeal on questions of law may be taken to the Federal Court from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. An important change concerning applications for service pensions is a right of review, which initially will be handled by a senior delegate of the Repatriation Commission with a right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. It should be noted that a service pension is the broad equivalent of an age or invalid pension rather than a service-related disability pension. Commonwealth repatriation legislation dates from the War Pensions Act of 1914. By the end of World War I the original War Pensions Act and the Repatriation Act 1917 provided the origins of the present system. The repatriation system is now 70 years old. The first and only total review of the system occurred at the end of World War I. That review led to the Australian Soldiers' Repatriation Act 1920 which is the basis for the present system. This legislation has been reviewed on several occasions. In 1943 a joint parliamentary committee conducted a review to update the legislation to cater for the needs arising from World War II. In 1973 the Senate Select Committee on Health and Welfare produced a report. In 1975 Mr Justice Toose reported on his independent inquiry into the repatriation system. Unfortunately no overall legislation reform ensued. While the situation may vary from State to State, I understand that the average processing time for claims for disability pension is about 320 days. If a claimant exercises his right of appeal through the Repatriation Review Tribunal there is an average period of further delay of about three years. As at June this year there were almost 40,000 disability pension matters outstanding at the various levels of the determining system. Such delays are intolerable, particularly when one has regard to the age of our veteran population of both World War I and World War II. As at December 1983 there were approximately 9,700 surviving World War I veterans at an average age of 88 years; 524,100 World War II veterans at an average age of 65, excluding 2,800 who also served in World War I; 15,300 veterans of the Korea-Malaya campaigns at an average of 48, excluding 8,900 who also served in World War II; 41,700 Vietnam veterans at an average of 39, excluding 3,900 who had served in previous campaigns, and over 75 ,000 veterans of the peacekeeping, monitoring and observing forces since World War II and peace time forces since December 1972. Some 166,300 veterans and 240, 800 dependants are now receiving disability pensions. In addition, there are 369 ,700 service pensions in payment to veterans and dependants. This Bill clarifies the Commission's power to delegate all or any of its powers and functions under the Act or regulations to a commissioner or to an officer or employee of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. It was the Administrative Review Council's first recommendation that Repatriation boards be abolished and that all claims for disability pensions should be determined, in the first instance, by delegates of the Repatriation Commission. Debate interrupted. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 4 p.m., the debate is interrupted. I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(4.00) —I want to draw the attention of the House to the recent arrest in Thailand of a very distinguished writer and editor, Sulak Sivaraksa, and to the issues it raises. I might mention in passing that although the case has received little, if any, publicity in the Australian media, as distinct from world and in particular South East Asian media, it is summarised in a useful report in the Department of Foreign Affairs Backgrounder of 22 August 1984. Sulak was arrested on 5 August and charged with defaming the Thai royal family, a charge which, if proved, carries a penalty of imprisonment. The charge is apparently based on an interview with Sulak published in a book called Unmasking Thai Society. It is reported that 1,000 copies of the book were seized in Thailand. In the interview Sulak made such statements as: I think that the King should be looked upon as a human being who exercises his power judiciously. But he is nevertheless fallible. . . . If I wish to attack the 9th King, I must write during the reign of the 9th King. I don't have to wait for the next. Now Sulak is internationally one of the best known Thai writers. I say 'Thai'. although he prefers the older terms, 'Siam' and 'Siamese', to what he regards as a hybrid anglicised word such as 'Thailand' and 'Thai'. He was the founding editor in 1963 of the famous Thai magazine Social Science Review, a liberal magazine which was one of the international network of magazines associated with the Congress for Cultural Freedom of which Encounter was one in Britain and Quadrant in Australia. His numerous essays and lectures have made him the major figure linking the intellectual life of Thailand with world intellectual life. He is, in brief, a man who commands very wide respect in the world and his arrest has naturally caused concern throughout the world. The Department of Foreign Affairs Backgrounder states that, although lese majeste cases are usually heard before military courts from which there is no avenue of appeal, it appears that Sulak's case will be held before an ordinary open court, the verdict of which will be open to appeal. That is good news. Meanwhile, Sulak has been released on bail, and that is also good news. Honourable members will understand the gravity of the charge of lese majeste or defaming the royal family. We all understand the reverence felt in Thailand for the royal family which has been a source of unity for so many generations. Most honourable members would understand the touchiness of the Thais at the idea of foreigners seeming to want to interfere with legal and judicial processes in Thailand. In any case the Thai Interior Minister made this plain when he said a few days ago: Thai law is Thai law. Foreigners must not interfere with our judicial process. That quote was from a report in the Straits News. But while respecting Thai law and Thai traditions, we may nevertheless hope that the Thais in their turn will understand the international concern at the arrest of Sulak. He seems to so many people to be a man who represents the view best in Thai intellectual traditions. The Department of Foreign Affairs Backgrounder is to be congratulated for following this case. I hope it will continue to do so and that foreign admirers of Thailand, who hope for the acquittal of Sulak, will find that their confidence in Thai institutions and Thai law is justified. Mr STEEDMAN(Casey)(4.04) —Currently a Geoff McDonald is touring rural Victoria with Eric Butler and Jeremy Lee, leading figures in the anti-semetic and racist League of Rights, whipping up fear and hatred against Aboriginals and land rights legislation. McDonald is a former member of the Communist Party who left in the early 1960s. Since that time he has gone so far to the Right that he is now associating with the most disgusting racists in this country. McDonald is the author of a rambling incoherent book called Red Over Black which claims to show that the Aboriginal land rights movement is a communist plot, aimed at setting up an independent black republic in northern Australia that would be run by Russia. McDonald's book in fact produces very few quotes from the Communist Party to prove his thesis. Instead, his attack is directed against Malcolm Fraser, Dr Coombs, Charles Perkins, Pat O'Shane, Ian Macphee, ex-Senator Bonner and Al Grassby. They are all agents of the great conspiracy. On the inside back cover of the book, the Queensland Premier, Joh Bjelke- Petersen, praises the 'impressive' documentation of McDonald's book, and praises it as promoting debate on 'what is emerging as the most serious threat to face Australia'. The preface to the book is written by the notorious Bruce Ruxton of the Victorian Returned Services League. McDonald has also a good friend in Denis Collins, a Country-Liberal member of parliament in Alice Springs. Collins financed the widespread distribution of the book in Central Australia. Honourable members may recall that Collins, in September 1982, warned that Vietnamese refugees could include terrorists who could knock out Pine Gap with a couple of mortars. In August last year, McDonald was taken on a speaking tour of north-west Australia by Joe Kerekas, a Kalgoorlie North division executive officer of the Liberal Party. Kerekas and Collins are only some of the far Right in the Opposition parties who helped spread McDonald's racist lies. It is about time that the Australian people realised that the Liberal and National parties are being infiltrated by racists, anti-semites and neo-fascists and that these people are having an increasing impact on Opposition policy, as we see from the debate on immigration. The publisher of Red Over Black is the Veritas Publishing Co. of Bullsbrook, Western Australia. Veritas's managing director is a Raymond P. White. In addition to circulating McDonald's books, Veritas also circulates outright racist propaganda. For example, Race by John R. Baker, tells one how to pick a Jew from a gentile by body odour. Baker argues that some races are more intelligent than others and there is no guess which. The Testing of Negro Intelligence, by two Americans, Travis Osborne and Frank McGurk, also supposedly proves that United States blacks are less intelligent than whites as does Twins by the same Osborne. These three books, distributed by Veritas, are part of a drive to give racism or raciology, as they like to call it, a respectable scientific front, something Hitler tried to do. Veritas says these books compensate for the neglect of race studies 'for almost half a century because of the negative reaction to Hitlerism'. Does the Liberal Party in Western Australia approve of one of its full time officers promoting a book published by Veritas, which is an openly racist publishing house, a purveyor of hatred? It is about time the Opposition parties cleaned out their houses. McDonald's book is being distributed overseas by other anti-semetic, neo-nazi bookshops. In Britain, Bloomfield Books in Sussex is distributing it. Bloomfield Books is the book shop of the British League of Rights, run by Butler's disciple Don Martin, who is also an Australian. Martin is also linked with many other right wing organisations in that country, including Britain's Publishing House which was the sole publisher for many years of that notorious anti- semetic forgery, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. The British League of Rights is the British chapter of the World Anti-Communist League which has its headquarters in Taiwan and Korea. In Australia, its members include the League of Rights, the Captive Nations Week Committee and the World Freedom League based in Perth. News Digest-International, the unofficial publication of the Captive Nations Week, in its March 1983 issue reprinted an anti-Jewish article from Thunderbolt, the paper of the United States Nazi Party. The article complained about attempts to discover Nazi war criminals hiding in the United States of America. Joh Bjelke-Petersen sent a warm message of greetings to the World Anti-Communist League's 1980 Congress. There exists in Australia a network of far Right neo-Nazi groups hiding behind respectable names who are whipping up hatred against Aboriginals and Asians to further their ends. Geoff McDonald is their front man. This network goes from the League of Rights through the Captive Nations Week and the World Freedom League, right into the centre of the Liberal and National Parties. The links go to the top, to Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the Liberal right wing leadership in Western Australia, to the Country-Liberal Party members of Parliament in the Northern Territory and the extremist wing of the Liberal Party in New South Wales which has taken over the Waverley Municipal Council. Some members of the Opposition are worried by this development, as we on this side are. They know that the racism whipped up by their stand on certain issues will only strengthen these racist groups within their ranks. But they keep silent, opportunistically willing to go along with their own extremists in the cheap hunt for votes. In this context I can only say of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) that he is a classic example of the dictum quos deus vult perdere, prius dementat. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(4.09) —I must say that I am a little concerned about the honourable member for Casey (Mr Steedman), not only in terms of some of the things he chooses to address but also because he seems to be rather breathless in his old age. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the impact of the Budget on tertiary education. I am sure that most honourable members, having considered the Budget and the supporting papers, now recognise that in real terms funding per capita for tertiary students in Australia has actually fallen as a result of the Budget. Specifically, I would like to instance the impact of the Budget on the Northern Rivers College of Advanced Education and on small business management education throughout New South Wales. The Northern Rivers College of Advanced Education has been developing for some years as a centre of excellence for small business management training. In order to develop a more complete curriculum and course of study, the College had prepared an external course to be available for small business managers throughout New South Wales. It had approached the Higher Education Board with the proposal and had been given indications that funding to the extent of $250, 000 would be made available in this financial year. More importantly, the Higher Education Board had in fact made available to the CAE $50,000 for curriculum development, the employment of staff and promotion of this course. As a result of the Budget, the Higher Education Board has recently written to the Northern Rivers College of Advanced Education and said that the $250,000 previously promised would not be made available. The College is now in the position that it has engaged staff for a course that it cannot fund. It has promoted the course and students have indicated their preparedness to enrol but the course will be cancelled. More importantly than that, the fundamental direction in which the College is developing is threatened by this withdrawal of funds. As I said, the College had been developing a reputation in small business management training and as a study centre of excellence in this area. If these funds are not made available because of the Government's decision not to provide funding, adequate funding for tertiary education, and specifically funds available for small business management training, the direction and the future development of the College will be threatened. Of course, honourable members will also recognise that the Government has also delayed the announcement of the capital funding and capital grants program for tertiary institutions. I regard this as a rather cynical political exercise since the office of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) has advised me that the announcement of grants will be delayed until October which, if we are to take note of current Press speculation, will be just about the time the election is called. It concerns me that this Government is not really genuinely concerned about the future of small business. All honourable members recognise that small business is the largest employer and that it has a very high failure rate. There is considerable empirical evidence to suggest that one of the main contributing factors to the high failure rate of small businesses is the lack of management training and management expertise. If the Government were genuinely concerned to foster a recovery in Australia, to develop employment and to ensure that the economy develops in a diverse and comprehensive way throughout Australia, it would provide adequate funding for small business. It is interesting to contrast the priorities of the Government. Following the tabling of the report of the Ralph Committee of Inquiry into Management Education, the Government has provided $500,000 to Melbourne University's Master in Business Administration program under funding of education facilities for disadvantaged groups. I find it curious that MBA students should be regarded as a disadvantaged group. By definition they have already completed one course of tertiary study, have had as a requirement of their course of study several years of business experience, generally at an above average salary, and they are provided with funding as a disadvantaged group. Anybody who has experience in small business and who has spoken to small businessmen throughout Australia would recognise that small business under this Government is in fact a disadvantaged group. I ask the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones), who is at the table, to take note of my comments and refer them to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs in another place and ask that she give urgent attention to providing adequate finance for this very important course. Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(4.13) —I wish to draw the attention of the House to a pressing social problem which we cannot afford to ignore. I refer to the sad situation of homeless women in our society. Our Government has already acknowledged that homelessness is a genuine problem in Australian society and is currently inquiring into its implications in the community. Australians have already recognised the reality of homelessness for men and facilities have been provided for men who are unable to obtain or manage independent housing. A special program has also been established for homeless Aboriginals. But there is scant recognition of the growing numbers of homeless women of all ages, and limited facilities are available to accommodate these women and their children. Women are those most affected by unemployment caused by changes to the nature of work through technological change. It is young women who comprise the greatest proportion of young unemployed people in our community. Sixty per cent of pensioners and beneficiaries are women. Ninety-five per cent of supporting parents are women. As for those who are employed, while 66 per cent of men rely on wages as their principal source of income, only 40 per cent of women are in a similar situation. Only 25 per cent of women work full time and we cannot ignore the fact that the woman's average income is only 76 per cent of that for men in the work force. These figures show that women certainly comprise the greater proportion of low income earners in our country. A large number of these women have dependants who rely on those very low incomes. There are already many ordinary women like this, with children, who are experiencing housing and financial crises. The number of women recovering from drug addiction, from being in a psychiatric hospital or in prison or who have gone through a detoxification program, whether they are single or with children, is increasing rapidly. Their housing problems are exacerbated by greatly increased rent costs, decreased value of pensions and benefits, ineligibility for a widow's pension and long housing commission waiting lists across the nation. The problem is that they cannot get into women's refuges. Many of them go to refuges which are already overburdened, providing emergency accommodation for women and children who are escaping domestic violence. Women are referred by voluntary welfare agencies, the Department of Social Security, State welfare departments such as the Department of Youth and Community Services in New South Wales, and the various State housing commissions. Women's refuges deserve our continued support for the vital role they play in our society in providing crisis accommodation and essential back-up services. But they do not have the resources to provide longer term support and this is sadly evidenced by the fact that hundreds of women and their children are turned away from refuges because their problem is homelessness rather than domestic violence. This is not a recent phenomenon. Rather, it is a problem our women's refuges have had to deal with since they were first established in Australia over a decade ago. With the introduction of progressive legislation in Labor States, particularly in New South Wales, dealing with domestic violence, many refuges have had to decide to give priority to helping women escape dangerous domestic situations. The high demand for refuge services, inappropriate referrals and inadequate alternatives for those in need of longer term intensive support, all create an unnecessary and difficult burden on refuges. Where refuges are required to house women with problems for which the refuges are not designed, they are forced to reject those women for whom they were established. What can we do for women who have recently left institutions and are often referred to refuges for housing assistance, or for those women who have been evicted because they cannot afford to pay high rent? In the electorate of Phillip we have the highest population density in Australia and the housing problems of low income earners, particularly women, have become glaringly obvious. We have to face the reality that assistance for women needing medium term accommodation and those needing crisis accommodation, other than for victims of domestic violence, is negligible. Women in Labor States are slightly better off than those in non-Labor States because of the introduction of housing reform programs, but these programs do not yet provide enough support and unsupported medium term accommodation which is badly needed. The New South Wales Committee on Homeless Women has proposed a joint Federal-State program to provide transitional accommodation for women in crisis and for permanent housing . The proposed program takes into account the special problems of older women, Aboriginal women, migrant women and disabled women. Australia's social welfare system suffered years of neglect under the previous Government. We all know that in many areas women have borne the brunt of that neglect. Our Government has already made positive moves to improve the status of women in our society. This is a field it will have to look into. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(4.18) —This afternoon I wish to give a brief resume of my recent trip to Asia. In doing so, first of all, I wish to thank very much the Chinese Embassy in Canberra for the arrangements it made for the trip that my wife Jill and I were fortunate enough to make to that wonderful country. We were fortunate enough to spend 10 days under the guidance of the Chinese Institute of Foreign Affairs. One of the personnel from Peking, Mr Wang, met us at Canton and travelled with us throughout China. Today I take this opportunity to mention that fact because only yesterday Australia inaugurated a new service between Peking and Sydney. Qantas Airways Ltd flies direct from Sydney to Peking. The inaugural return flight is by the Civil Aviation Administration of China. Its Boeing aircraft arrived in Sydney yesterday. No doubt some Government and Opposition members will be involved in welcoming that service to our country. I recommend to members of this House and other Australians to endeavour to take a trip to China. Qantas is presently offering cheap fares, $600 return, with five to 10 nights accommodation in Peking. I suggest that if Australians can find a way of going to China on Qantas and making use of the cut fares they should certainly do so. It is a very fascinating place. It has a population of over one billion. My wife and I were very well looked after. We also went to Japan, Korea , Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore. While I was in Asia I looked at the beef market and saw the problems which are faced by beef producers from Maranoa. The Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) does not know how many quarters there are in a carcase. When he mentioned this yesterday I think that he had about 10 quarters in a carcase. I must give him marks for trying. I remind the Minister that he seems to think that we cannot sell separate cuts to some of these countries. I take this opportunity of telling him that when a carcase is cut up it goes into different boxes. The specialist cuts go to the specialist markets around the world. There is no reason why we cannot sell more lot fed beef to Tokyo. I request the Minister to go there and look at the situation. If it is good enough for me to go there and look at the market, surely it is good enough for the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) and the Minister for Trade of the Labor Government to go there. Mr Gear —He has been up there. Mr IAN CAMERON —The Minister for Trade has not been there for the last 18 months . I think it is time he went and had a look at what is happening in those markets. I congratulate the Queensland Government for staging such a successful fair at Ag Asia in Kuala Lumpur. We were fortunate enough to spend two days there. The fair was attended by small companies such as Grundy's. I see that the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) is at the table. No doubt he would like to help some of the small industries participate in these markets. The progressive Queensland Government was prepared to put a stand of its own at that fair. It cost that Government quite a deal of money. It was attended by ten or 20 small companies. Two or three of them were from Maranoa. The Southern Cross windmill company and Grundy's electrical company from Dalby had stands at that fair selling new Australian products to the Asian market. Surely that is where our market is. The Minister who is at the table nods his head. He knows that. Unfortunately, he does not have the funds or the backing from his Government that he needs, but he is still trying. I give him full marks for that . I congratulate the people who had exhibits at that show. I also mention the people involved in exporting live cattle from Australia to Asian markets. I believe they are doing an excellent job. I recommend that the China desk of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation office in Singapore be taken away and put in Japan or Peking. I believe there is a tremendous beef market to be opened in China, particularly in view of the tourist trade which is continuing to expand. As I have mentioned, we have seen what is happening with the two-way airline agreement between China and Australia. I put it to the Parliament that we should get into that market. It is available to us. We should try to sell more meat in that market. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(4.24) —It was reported in the Age newspaper some little time ago that a subsidiary of the mining company, MIM Holdings Ltd, is objecting to the proposed addition of 6,726 square kilometres of the Gimblat and Goodparla pastoral leases to the 13,000 square kilometre Kakadu National Park. A letter from the Carpentaria Exploration Co. Pty Ltd was reported as stating: The proposals are incompatible with the community and national interest and with present Government policies to encourage competitive industry in Australia. Such a statement is complete nonsense when it is appreciated that the tourist attraction of Kakadu National Park means that it has the potential to become a big money spinner for the people of the Northern Territory, whilst at the same time preserving a valuable area of great environmental beauty as part of the world heritage. Mining companies are, of course, vitally interested in an area which has the same geological formation as the Ranger, Nabarlek, Koongarra and Jabiluka uranium mines. But the area is also an integral part of the total environment of river, bush and rocky gorges, which teams with a rich flora and fauna. The present leadership of the Northern Lands Council is also attracted by the promise of many millions of royalty dollars from the uranium mining deposits of Jabiluka and Koongarra, despite the fact that the total desecration of the land caused by open cut and underground mines is a complete denial of the birthright of the Aboriginals who have peopled the area for many thousands of years. However, I do not want to be too moralistic but rather draw the attention of honourable members to the dynamic growth of the tourist industry in the Northern Territory. In this speech I do not have the time to cover the statistics but even a cursory check will show how the tourist facilities at Alice Springs, Ayers Rock, Darwin and Kakadu are rapidly expanding. Of course, it has to be admitted that Kakadu National Park must be managed with an adequate ranger service and this is the declared aim of the Commonwealth Government in collaboration with the Northern Territory Government. However, what the advocates of the mining industry fail to understand or do not want to understand is that in areas of great natural beauty, such as Kakadu, the tourist and ranger services provide great opportunities for employment. In a country such as Australia, which has an official unemployment rate of over 8 per cent, surely this is a factor we cannot ignore. One has to ask how much of the profits from mining operations actually benefit the unemployed, where the capital cost for each employed person is at a very minimum 10 times the cost of capital investment for each employee in the management and tourist services provided in national parks. Let it also not be forgotten that the capital infrastructure of mining causes a desecration to the flora and fauna of a park such as Kakadu. I quote from a statement by the Vice-President of the Australian Conservation Foundation: Kakadu is the most important natural area under the control of the Australian Government. This is the area where the National Parks Act could set a standard of park management which would be an example to the States, but management of Kakadu is already prejudiced by uranium prospecting. A road system unrelated to park needs, a proliferation of vehicle tracks, airstrips, extensive clearing, cutting and burning, constant movement of automobiles and planes, permanent camps, mobile camps, abandoned drums and other debris, and interference with Aboriginal sites are all to be seen in the area. There are, in fact, over 120 Aboriginal sites and a large number of the most anthropologically significant rock paintings in the whole of Australia in the Kakadu National Park. Conservationists are, of course, always challenged about their knowledge of an area they wish to protect. I am able to say that I have been all over Kakadu National Park on a number of visits over the years. I noted with much misgiving that the site of the Jabiluka uranium mine is close to one of the most prolific of migratory bird haunts in Australia. The danger from the spillage of low level radioactive waste and other pollutants from mining and milling operations was most evident to even the most casual of observers. The Koongarra uranium mine is situated in the heart of one of the most visually attractive areas of previously unspoiled wilderness. It is criminal to consider mining in such areas of great natural beauty, particularly when the mining companies have many other valuable mineral sites to exploit in both the Northern Territory and Western Australia. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(4.28) —On Friday, 31 August, which was one week ago, I had the honour to attend and participate in a dance competition held in Bairnsdale which was organised by the East Gippsland Promotional Dance Group. I draw the attention of the House to this function as it was organised by an extremely innovative and forward looking organisation which will do much to promote East Gippsland. Mr Speaker, you are a resident of Victoria. You would be aware that East Gippsland is the riviera of Victoria and is one of the most beautiful resort and tourist spots imaginable. Certainly it ranks among the foremost in Australia. The organisers of the evening were many and varied. Mr Stan and Bonnie Hibbins were to the forefront. I had the honour of being chosen, as the Federal member for Gippsland, to present the title of Gippsland Riviera Queen to the most prominent of the ballroom dancers. I must say that there were many good dancers that evening. The large crowd which attended was treated to some very fine dancing. The judges included Dr Geoffrey MacFarlane and Mrs Norma Ruskin, who would be known to you, Mr Speaker, as the head of the Victorian Eastern Development Association, as well as Mr Chas and Mrs Heath. It was a difficult task for them to choose the winners of each section. I simply wish to pass on the Parliament's congratulations to the East Gippsland Promotional Dance Group for a very community minded organisational evening. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 4.30 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1624) Mr Ruddock asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: (1) How many houses held, for any purpose, by the Minister's Department or any agency or statutory authority responsible to the Minister in the Australian Capital Territory were vacant on 18 June 1984. (2) Does the Minister's Department control any other premises in the Australian Capital Territory which are presently unused which could be occupied for residential purposes; if so, (a) where are these premises, (b) what were their previous uses and (c) are there any plans for their future use. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Nil. (2) No. (Question No. 1641) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: (1) How many houses held, for any purpose, by the Minister's Department or any agency or statutory authority responsible to the Minister in the Australian Capital Territory were vacant on 18 June 1984. (2) Does the Minister's Department control any other premises in the Australian Capital Territory which are presently unused which could be occupied for residential purposes; if so, (a) where are these premises; (b) what were their previous uses; and, (c) are there any plans for their future use. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Neither my Department nor any agency or statutory authority within my portfolio control or occupy any houses in the Australian Capital Territory. (2) No. (Question No. 1648) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: (1) How many houses held, for any purpose, by the Minister's Department or any agency or statutory authority responsible to the Minister in the Australian Capital Territory were vacant on 18 June 1984. (2) Does the Minister's Department control any other premises in the Australian Capital Territory which are presently unused which could be occupied for residential purposes; if so, (a) where are these premises, (b) what were their previous uses and (c) are there any plans for their future use. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) None. (2) No.